Why Duna is like Mars and Eve isn't like Venus ?

[EndOfTheEarth]

Because every game should have one level that you can show to your friends and hear them say, "Wait, you actually managed to beat it?!"

Eve returns are the KSP version of that level.

[Guest]

Duna is like Mars because Nova found a similar Mars-like planet in Space Engine and thought a Mars-like planet would be a good fit, and then threw in a Frank Herbert reference for good measure. Why doesn't Eve look like Venus? Because the Kerbal Cola Corporation produced around 16 billion litres of Grape Gaboosh Soda, and it flopped. Instead of polluting Kerbin with worthless soda pop, they sent it all to Eve.

[Flixxbeatz]

Because every game should have one level that you can show to your friends and hear them say, "Wait, you actually managed to beat it?!"

Eve returns are the KSP version of that level.

Landing on Eve then returning back to Kerbin without any mods is the ultimate test to certify yourself as an ascended KSP player.

[EmissionGeneration]

Also, the exact conditions of a place like Venus should be toned-down for game-play purposes. I don't see why one of the closest planets should be one of the hardest to set foot on. If we're going to have a planet as punishing as Venus to land on, put it far away so it's only challenging the more advanced players anyway. Rather than trying for absolute realism, I always got the impression Squad was more trying to find a balance between real and fun. I think they're on the right track.

When Squad add Weather conditions, all of the Planets will become harder, which will adapt even the beginners to flying in Weather. The Ships that everyone has already built will be most likely need a rebuild to suit their purpose. Although I can understand your point on having Eve as a "Easy target" because it's the closest, but for beginners, there is already enough for them to do to get them on their way, such as the Moons from Kerbin, Eve, and Duna aswell as Duna itself. The only way beginners would find weather conditions on Eve to be a challenge after practice from everything else close to them would usually be from them trying to rush through all the content. Trial and Error is everyones friend.

[Frogbull]

Landing on Eve then returning back to Kerbin without any mods is the ultimate test to certify yourself as an ascended KSP player.

Not sure, we must not forget that we will soon have new gas giant planets.

[Sof]

Eve is pretty similar to Venus. Large rocky planet with a thick and hot atmosphere.

It is about as similar to Venus as Duna is to Mars imo. It is just the colour that makes people think it is different.

[Frogbull]

Eve is pretty similar to Venus. Large rocky planet with a thick and hot atmosphere.

It is about as similar to Venus as Duna is to Mars imo. It is just the colour that makes people think it is different.

Not only the colors; the ratio size/mass isn't similar at all :

Venus Mass = 0.815 Earth Mass

Venus Size = 0.95 Earth Size

Eve Mass = 2.3 Kerbin Mass

Eve Size = 1.17 Kerbin Size

[Xaiier]

Maybe the devs don't want an exact copy of our own solar system!

I don't understand why everybody wants to precisely model our solar system in KSP. Our solar system is boring.

[Deadweasel]

Maybe the devs don't want an exact copy of our own solar system!

I don't understand why everybody wants to precisely model our solar system in KSP. Our solar system is boring.

I don't think it's a desire for an exact match, so much as trying to find a reason to justify its (the Kerbol system's) existence in the first place. Some folks have a hard time accepting something at face-value. They don't like simply nodding when somebody says "Here's a star system. It exists (in the game). It's sort of like the one we know, but it's not, and that's the way it is."

That said, it's not a bad thing for folks to be reaching for the similarities. It highlights the people who are doubters; who question the things they're handed and expected to accept as-is. Yes, it's annoying at first glance for those of us who just roll with it and have fun, but try not to let it get to you, and do realize that it comes from the drive to question things that seem obvious, which is a very good quality we as a species seem to be losing, lately.

The Wright brothers were told they were crazy, DaVinci was crazy, and that human flight was impossible.

"We don't buy that," they said, and now here we are as a result, traveling in the sky to the other side of the globe in a day.

The doubters are humanity's greatest source of ideas and progress.

[Xaiier]

-snip-

Um, okay. Did I miss the "lets take everything way to seriously and make it unnecessarily deep" memo or what?

Anyways, I don't see how people questioning the kerbal universe has any positive effect. Theres so much hilariously incorrect in the game already (engine ISP, planetary mass, the sun, drag model, etc) that it seems like wasted effort to fuss over things like why isn't planet X more like planet Y. It's a cool and believable solar system, theres no reason to make it more like our own. Theres already a lot of games that do that, why not let KSP have some fun with the planets to make a more interesting game?

[Joshington]

It's like Hell, not boring at all, infernal wind, stifling atmosphere, volcanic activity, very rough terrain.

A Venus analogous would be a real challenge (hard to land, hard to survive, very hard to get back)

I heard Squad was going to make Laythe like that, with volcanic activity and such.

[Kirbypowered]

You can't please 'em all, eh Squad?

Questioning why bizarre things might happen in a game, especially one like KSP, can lead to us making unique observations of our own reality, so I think it's still fair to wonder about why such and such is how it is. On the other hand, I would love it if Squad gave absolutely ludicrous reasons for things (like the grape soda one someone mentioned) because it would honestly fit perfectly in the Kerbal universe. No reason we can't have both either.

On Eve, I personally think it's pretty cool. Love the purple. We can all give our input on it in it's current state, but no doubt it's planned to be something quite different as the game becomes more complete. It may just yet become much more venus like, or maybe they'll develop it in a completely different direction. Probably not, but who knows. Well, Squad probably. =P

Edited July 9, 2013 by Kirbypowered
Typo fixing and the like

[princess venus]

i can understand why the atmosphere could have a chemical that creates a purple pigment when in a hot gas state but the ground could be a diffrent colure but if someone can tell me why its purple i could put a fourm up saying why eve is eve

Edited July 11, 2013 by princess venus

[Maddmatts]

And Moho is only like Mercury due to compromise. It was originally planned to be tidally locked to Kerbol with the sunny-side perpetually molten.

[Deadweasel]

ia understand why the atmosphere cound have a cemical that creates a purple pigment when in a gasiose hot state but the ground could be a diffrent couler but if someone can tell me why its purple i could put a fourm up saying why eve is eve

Do they speak english in What?

[princess venus]

Do they speak english in What?

I do thank you but my camputer dosen't

[Sof]

We know that the Kerbal universe is different from our own. I don't think purple is the sort of colour a planet or ground could have without some form of exotic micro-organisms making it so.

[Benie]

I think it's good that the Kerbals have their own system. Do understand there's possibly billions of star systems in the Milky Way. One of them... one of them could be exactly like this one. You never know. And that system could have little green men trying to establish their space program.

I don't think it was ever mentioned what galaxy the Kerbol system is in. But let's say it's in the Milky Way. I personally would love it if Squad, in one version, made it so we can make FTL drives and explore other systems instead of Kerbol... maybe even our Sol system.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Benie

[Pbhead]

And Moho is only like Mercury due to compromise. It was originally planned to be tidally locked to Kerbol with the sunny-side perpetually molten.

what? that sounds AMAZING.

what.

What i ask you.

could possibly, possibly more amazing than landing on the dark side of Moho, putting your kerbals in a buggy, and then seeing what happens to them when they visit the sunny side?

[Hannu]

I personally would love it if Squad, in one version, made it so we can make FTL drives and explore other systems instead of Kerbol... maybe even our Sol system.

In my opinion that should be a different game. Such a technology would make researching Kerbol's system very easy and therefore very boring. At least I like to plan and make transitions, landings and ascents by using limited delta-v instead of flying freely to any planets in system. I think that it would be impossible to create thousands of really different and well detailed planets by using some kind of computer algorithm. At least it would need supercomputer's memory and computing speed.

[Hannu]

i can understand why the atmosphere could have a chemical that creates a purple pigment when in a hot gas state but the ground could be a diffrent colure but if someone can tell me why its purple i could put a fourm up saying why eve is eve

I think that purple liquid evaporates and rains down and leaves purple color to soil. I suggest that Squad should add thick clouds, heavy rains, rivers, and smaller lakes. Purple color should be lighter on areas where rainfall is low.

[Superfluous J]

In my opinion that should be a different game. Such a technology would make researching Kerbol's system very easy and therefore very boring. At least I like to plan and make transitions, landings and ascents by using limited delta-v instead of flying freely to any planets in system. I think that it would be impossible to create thousands of really different and well detailed planets by using some kind of computer algorithm. At least it would need supercomputer's memory and computing speed.

So long as they do it right you can still have that. If you make FTL like it is in Star Trek then yes, there's no reason to worry about orbits or anything. But if they take an approach like Jerry Pournelle did with his Alderson Points then you can weave FTL into the game very well.

You could even require the player to research and build some sort of stargate type device for ships to fly through, though I'm not sure how you'd get the other gate to the other star.

[Deadweasel]

In my opinion that should be a different game. Such a technology would make researching Kerbol's system very easy and therefore very boring. At least I like to plan and make transitions, landings and ascents by using limited delta-v instead of flying freely to any planets in system. I think that it would be impossible to create thousands of really different and well detailed planets by using some kind of computer algorithm. At least it would need supercomputer's memory and computing speed.

Where does that assumption come from that it would require vast amounts of computational power to add more planets to the Kerbal universe? It wouldn't require tons of power to have a bunch of additional planets, seeing as how they're "on rails" and exempt from physics calculations, and the terrain meshes only load when within a certain distance of them, similar to how the ships themselves load.

Moreover, the whole idea behind FTL is that it would make the distances between star systems possible to traverse, but that doesn't mean exploring the local system would become trivial, because theoretically you couldn't use such a drive in the local system anyway.

I'm all for FTL, and I wouldn't mind skipping the actual travel time in order to make other systems additional "scenes" in the game, as the Kerbol system is now. It would be fun if it were a little more complicated to set up the transit between systems though. No reason it should be as easy as plopping a couple of maneuver nodes and burning.

[Subcidal]

No stargates, Please no stargates. I like the fact that I have to design something to get to where I want it to go. To be able to just walk through a stargate removes like 99% of the value of the game to me.

Anyways, I have no problem with Eve's color, Though I do think it's mass and size should be tweaked to be a bit more venus like. I also don't see a problem with making it extremely hard to land on, despite how close it is. In general I think it should be a bit more Venus-y, But not too much. And having a planet that's extremely hard to land on that's further out doesn't necessarily make it all that much harder to get to for 'advanced' players. If you're trying to land on the hardest planet, travelling between/to them is the least of your worrys. It's the descent, landing, and ascent that's the challenge. Getting there and back is the easy part.

[Hannu]

Of course you can generate low detailed planets, like current KSP planets, with a simple algorithm and get whole galaxy with billions planets with different sizes, colors, surface roughnesses, and gas pressures. But I think that it would not be very interesting if planets lacks of fine details. Producing fine details, like weather, small scale topography, all kind of stuff on surface etc. is very hard. You must precalculate whole planet, which needs insane amounts of RAM and storage memory, or create details in real time, which means huge computing costs.

I prefer that Squad should develop current planets instead of create a lot of new ones which are practically similar except size, color etc. On every real planet there are different regions but KSP's planets have maybe couple of anomalies and couple of interesting topographic places. I have driven hundred kilometers on Eve's surface and there was not any interesting details. I would like to see rivers, lakes, stones, small scale hills, rains, sunny times etc. and take into account their effects to kerbals, vehicles (for example cooling, wet soil ..) instead of ten new detailless planets of moons. KSP have already small, medium, large and impossible celestial bodies. Easy, hard, and impossible places to visit etc. Plain planets and mountainous moons. Places with different atmospheres. In my opinion there should be more variables before increasing number of celestial bodies would be reasonable.

It is true that FTL can be limited to interstellar transitions. But game's current simplified physics model can not handle really different solar systems, for example multiple stars, twin planets etc. which would be interesting challenges to orbit planning. Other solar systems would be very much like Kerbol's system.