Why planets are so small?

[Toshogu]

it's so our computers do not have a heart attack and die trying to render the game

[joppiesaus]

Everything in KSP is balanced between real life and a nice gameplay.

If all planets where bigger --> less framerate --> annoying

If all planets where bigger --> takes longer to reach orbit --> (possibly) annoying

[DJEN]

Abuse of emotes are damaging my brain.

My soul wants this thread locked, but my mind says no.

[Flixxbeatz]

Here comes another "the planets is too small! make them the same size as our solar system!" discussion again... must resist urge to shoot down thread *looks at OP* since you look relatively new, I'll spare you for bringing up things like this. For now.

From TVTropes (and probably already has been said by some people here in this thread):

That would explain everything why for you.

EDIT: And welcome to the forums!

Edited July 15, 2013 by Flixxbeatz

[SuperWeegee4000]

If you mean "Why are the planets so small" it's for several reasons.

First, software capabilities. A full-scale planet could barely be modeled in most engines.

Second, playability. As stated before, getting into orbit is much less tedious if your planet is only 1200 kilometers in diameter.

[skykooler]

A full-scale planet could barely be modeled in most engines.

Not true. Jool is about the same size as Earth.

[SuperWeegee4000]

Not true. Jool is about the same size as Earth.

How... oh, I mistyped. Well, never getting rid of that.

[Flixxbeatz]

Not true. Jool is about the same size as Earth.

Justified, since Jool is a gas giant and gas giants tend to be huge. Also the fact that the kerbals are small.

But make Kerbin and Jool the size of Earth and Jupiter, respectively, make Sun in-game the size of our... well, Sun and make the distance between the planets as it is (i.e, the distance between Earth and Mars will now be the same as between Kerbin and Duna, etc), then it's now an entirely different game... a game so massive and complex yet boring that won't be even playable with the most powerful computer ever built.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Flixxbeatz

[Alex Boshko]

First, software capabilities. A full-scale planet could barely be modeled in most engines.

It's just something about programming approach and various tricks. Advanced LOD system and procedural workflow can make miracles. Space Engine handles entire universe Yep, Unity3D doesn't provide advanced low-level access to model meshes and general rendering pipeline, but certainly it's still capable to achieve required effect.

Second, playability. As stated before, getting into orbit is much less tedious if your planet is only 1200 kilometers in diameter.

Journey between planets can take YEARS of real time, but it doesn't stop making gameplay fun So why extra 10 minutes of flight can so abruptly make game extremly tedious? Again, it's programming issues with time acceleration and physical engine (to wich, I suppose, you have only high-level access), and, probably, some game-design ones.

Ok, just to summarize: there was a gameplay problem, and you solved it in this way. I'm still not conviced that that's the only way to solve it, but let it be so I'm not going to argue anymore.

Thank you for very detailed explanation, even though it seems not the first time you are doing it. Now it all is a little bit clear for me. And, by the way, before creating new thread I've tried to search similar disscussion with various keywords, but didn't find anything relevant. If this topic hurts your feelings, I'm really sorry. Feel free to block it and ban me, for the great justice

Best regards,

Alex.

[lazarus1024]

Or Orbiter.

KSP makes no apologies that it's about being a fun game first and an accurate simulator a distant second.

it's the same reason why sports games like FIFA tend to have their games squashed into 10-20 minutes unless you specifically ask for a full-length game - for most people it's more fun to have a number of quick-fire games than sitting through a tedious 0-0 kickabout for two hours. The only racing game I can think of offhand which has realistic race lengths is the endurance races in Gran Turismo and maybe some settings on the F1 racing games.

You mention GT...that is actually one of my favorite parts of the game are the enduro races. I've only played up through GT4 (I only own a PS2, what can I say? I've played GT4 on a friends PS3 though); however, back in the day in high school with GT2, my friends and I would often gather around for enduro races. Either as a sleep over, or just a late night in my friend's basement. 500 lap races aren't too painful when you have 4 guys switching off every 30 laps. Okay...that is still almost a full day and is painful, but its a lot worse than trying to do it all yourself.

That said, I think I only ever did one enduro race all on my lonesome. It was the short course 100 lap race IIRC, whatever the shortest enduro race is (been awhile since I've played GT2).

[HarvesteR]

Planets being small was one of the most important design decisions we made. The Kerbal system is scaled (roughly) to 1:11 of real-life.

This allows for a number of "improvements" over the real thing:

You can orbit Kerbin in around 30 mins, instead of the 90+ it takes to orbit the Earth;

Launching into orbit takes around 4-5 minutes, as opposed to 10-15;

Orbital velocity at 100km altitude on Kerbin is around 2300 m/s, around the Earth it's over 7000;

With everything scaled down, things happen faster, and you also get a better understanding of what exactly happens as you orbit. It's a much more dynamic experience this way, and consequently more fun.

Others have said it already, and it's very true: KSP is a game first, a simulation second. If some aspect of the real thing is boring or too complex, we will do all we can to minimize time spent doing it or making it simpler. Examples of that are how Mun is at 0° inclination to Kerbin (you can get there thinking in 2D), or how the galactic plane is aligned to the ecliptic and equatorial plane, creating a unified space "horizon".

We take such liberties wherever we find that there's no fun to be gained in making it more realistic. Because really, if complete realism were the most fun you could have, we'd all be outside playing.

Cheers

[Flixxbeatz]

Planets being small was one of the most important design decisions we made. The Kerbal system is scaled (roughly) to 1:11 of real-life.

This allows for a number of "improvements" over the real thing:

You can orbit Kerbin in around 30 mins, instead of the 90+ it takes to orbit the Earth;

Launching into orbit takes around 4-5 minutes, as opposed to 10-15;

Orbital velocity at 100km altitude on Kerbin is around 2300 m/s, around the Earth it's over 7000;

With everything scaled down, things happen faster, and you also get a better understanding of what exactly happens as you orbit. It's a much more dynamic experience this way, and consequently more fun.

Others have said it already, and it's very true: KSP is a game first, a simulation second. If some aspect of the real thing is boring or too complex, we will do all we can to minimize time spent doing it or making it simpler. Examples of that are how Mun is at 0° inclination to Kerbin (you can get there thinking in 2D), or how the galactic plane is aligned to the ecliptic and equatorial plane, creating a unified space "horizon".

We take such liberties wherever we find that there's no fun to be gained in making it more realistic. Because really, if complete realism were the most fun you could have, we'd all be outside playing.

Cheers

THE HEAD DEVELOPER HAS SPOKEN. End of discussion.

And that last paragraph is worth to be sig'd

[Tom K.]

I understand that increasing the scale of planets to realistic sizes is something that will never be in the vanilla game, but damn I want someone to make a mod of!

I'm not that handy with computers...

[SuperWeegee4000]

Journey between planets can take YEARS of real time, but it doesn't stop making gameplay fun QUOTE]

You can't time accelerate inside the atmosphere, and even if you could, it wouldn't be a good idea.

[Benie]

I personally don't have any problem with the size of the planets. I find Kerbin big enough to look realistic.

You got to remember, the Kerbol system is just one of billions of systems. It's not supposed to be like RL, because it isn't our Sol system.

I think of it that way.

[Masochist]

I love it just the way it is...and besides...its not earth...its not our system...its a unique world that is fun how it is. Being based on and scaled against our system is good enough for me. Not to mention the room for expansion and mods I really doubt this will be an issue in the future and everyone will be able to have what they want.

[Vanamonde]

Examples of that are how Mun is at 0° inclination to Kerbin (you can get there thinking in 2D)

So, Khan's in luck.

[malkuth]

Its better to compare kerbin to pluto... Actually I think pluto is bigger. LOL. And pluto is not even considered a planet anymore.. Go figure... Dwarf Kerbals... And dwarf planets.. It all makes sense now.