Am I the only one who ignores the math,

[Guest]

I'm another who is content to "eyeball it" and hope for the best. More often than not, my vessels tend to be a shade overbuilt for the job. This is not done out of ignorance, I'm simply not a slave to perfectionism.

[PakledHostage]

The resulting slowdown allowed me to enter Eve's orbit after about 2 years in Space

So you did a bodge job... How long would it have taken to get to Eve if you'd done a direct transfer?

The way I see it, you can let someone else do the math for you (MechJeb, Protractor, etc), you can quasi-randomly drift around until you bump into something solid, or you can do the math yourself.

Whether a player chooses to accept the challenge or not is their choice, but doing the math yourself is a higher level of difficulty and represents a greater achievement when you pull it off.

Edited July 16, 2013 by PakledHostage

[Skorpychan]

This is KSP. I don't need to have the maths right; I can just eyeball it and go.

However, that doesn't mean I don't understand it. I've studied orbital mechanics and astrophysics, and I am, generally, puzzling out what I am doing.

But since this isn't EVE Online, I refuse to resort to spreadsheets. I'll use some of the do-my-maths mods when I'm going further than the Mun, though, but trial and error is fun.

[allmappedout]

Whether a player chooses to accept the challenge or not is their choice, but doing the math yourself is a higher level of difficulty and represents a greater achievement when you pull it off.

There's a reason NASA don't hire pilots to do the trajectory calculations at mission control. Some people are good at some things, others are good at other things. Some lucky people are good at many things. Doing maths is, actually, at its core, very easy as you're just following a set of instructions from input to output - the understanding behind it was done by minds much greater than mine; yet I still use it. In the same way, you are utilising tools at your disposal to make your task easier, which includes the Navball, the maneuveur nodes, etc etc. Hell, some would even argue that guessing and succeeding is actually tougher than being fastidious and getting it right based on a very strict specification. The art of the blagger.

TL;DR - stop trying to downgrade others' achievements by boasting about your own.

PS: Not that it matters one jot, but I have a Degree in Mathematics, and I choose not to do the calculations. Not because I can't, but because I don't wish to. KSP puts you in control of everything. This is an impossible scenario for real life, which is why thousands of people are employed. And y'know, I want to keep a game, at the end of the day, fun.

Edited July 16, 2013 by allmappedout
PS..

[magnemoe]

I always use the nodes, however for adjustment burns I often just use them to show directions and watch the distance in map mode. Did some blind burns then I got protractor and sent a lots of probes into interstelar space before I learned that I still needed nodes.

[PakledHostage]

TL;DR - stop trying to downgrade others' achievements by boasting about your own.

I am sorry you were offended by my comments, but please show me where I said that I choose to take on the additional challenge of doing the math myself? I do a bit of math, but I mostly just use the nodes.

[cmdkewin]

This thread is just LOL. People bragging about their own ignorance...

It's been done before...Scio me nihil scire.

Or, in a less civilized language, "All I know is that I know nothing".

Socrates, around 380 BC.

[rryy]

I do use the numbers and information provided to me by the Kerbal Engineer, but I don't actually calculate them myself, especially because I seem to always get it wrong when I try to actually calculate something by hand.

[allmappedout]

So you did a bodge job... (...) Whether a player chooses to accept the challenge or not is their choice, but doing the math yourself is a higher level of difficulty and represents a greater achievement when you pull it off.

You certainly didn't explicitly say it, but a bodge job clearly has an insinuation that not doing the maths is inferior to doing it. It's not, it's simply different. As I stated, some people aren't interested in doing the maths in a game. I apologise if I came across as aggressive, but it's a single player game and it really irks me when people, whether intentionally or not, try to quantify other folks achievements as inferior, when there is no measuring stick.

[IchigoJam]

So you did a bodge job... How long would it have taken to get to Eve if you'd done a direct transfer?

The way I see it, you can let someone else do the math for you (MechJeb, Protractor, etc), you can quasi-randomly drift around until you bump into something solid, or you can do the math yourself.

Whether a player chooses to accept the challenge or not is their choice, but doing the math yourself is a higher level of difficulty and represents a greater achievement when you pull it off.

Gotta love KSP forum elitism

[regex]

I have Kerbal Engineer. It tells me thrust-to-weight ratio and delta-V, so when designing my rockets I just say "Eh, that looks like it's good enough". When in orbit, I used maneuver nodes..."Eh, that looks like it's a nice approach."

This, a delta-V map, a cellphone calculator, manual flying, and a penchant for over-engineering are how I do things. I like maths.

[cesarcurado]

I don't do math too.

This is a game, there are maneuver nodes and such and there's no need for math.

[PakledHostage]

Gotta love KSP forum elitism

Welcome to the community!

[Brabbit1987]

So you did a bodge job... How long would it have taken to get to Eve if you'd done a direct transfer?

The way I see it, you can let someone else do the math for you (MechJeb, Protractor, etc), you can quasi-randomly drift around until you bump into something solid, or you can do the math yourself.

Whether a player chooses to accept the challenge or not is their choice, but doing the math yourself is a higher level of difficulty and represents a greater achievement when you pull it off.

Lol if it is that much harder, you have to be bad at math. The difficulty to me is about equal. The only real difference, as I said before, is the math takes longer. So it only takes you more time to play your game, it doesn't make it harder at all. Doing the math yourself is more of an enthusiasts thing, someone who is interested in doing it. It isn't necessary though.

[SRV Ron]

In the days of Apollo, one had to do the math using slide ruler and primitive calculators, then send the Nav Ball instructions to the computer using hexadecimal entries by voice command, a slow tedious process that had to be verified to avoid program errors. Even then, Neal Armstrong and Buz Aldren had to resort to manual landing at the last minute as the on board computer on the LEM was unable to process all the information it was getting from its sensors. It was even more of a challenge for the Apollo 13 astronauts when they had to quickly get the Lem's computer Navball up and calibrated before the Command Module computer died from the power failure. Even harder was using the Lem's thrusters that were now behaving backwards due to the unbalanced mass of the damaged serviced module attached to the command caspule to it in order to use its engines for course corrections. In short, with skill and luck, they were able to get back home using the Lem as a backup spacecraft.

No need to do that with this sim where we have the Nav Ball and maneuver nodes where we can tweak the handles to get the intercept, then fine tune it for the most efficient path and lowest fuel consumption burn with a visual reference of that result being displayed in map mode.

[Brabbit1987]

In the days of Apollo, one had to do the math using slide ruler and primitive calculators, then send the Nav Ball instructions to the computer using hexadecimal entries by voice command, a slow tedious process that had to be verified to avoid program errors. Even then, Neal Armstrong and Buz Aldren had to resort to manual landing at the last minute as the on board computer on the LEM was unable to process all the information it was getting from its sensors. It was even more of a challenge for the Apollo 13 astronauts when they had to quickly get the Lem's computer Navball up and calibrated before the Command Module computer died from the power failure. Even harder was using the Lem's thrusters that were now behaving backwards due to the unbalanced mass of the damaged serviced module attached to the command caspule to it in order to use its engines for course corrections. In short, with skill and luck, they were able to get back home using the Lem as a backup spacecraft.

No need to do that with this sim where we have the Nav Ball and maneuver nodes where we can tweak the handles to get the intercept, then fine tune it for the most efficient path and lowest fuel consumption burn with a visual reference of that result being displayed in map mode.

I really do not know who to believe on this subject. I have heard this manual piloting story and it never seems to be the same. XD

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I rarely do the maths to go somewhere like the mun, but when I do I usually use mechjeb (calculations only)

[Xaiier]

In the days of Apollo, one had to do the math using slide ruler and primitive calculators, then send the Nav Ball instructions to the computer using hexadecimal entries by voice command, a slow tedious process that had to be verified to avoid program errors. Even then, Neal Armstrong and Buz Aldren had to resort to manual landing at the last minute as the on board computer on the LEM was unable to process all the information it was getting from its sensors. It was even more of a challenge for the Apollo 13 astronauts when they had to quickly get the Lem's computer Navball up and calibrated before the Command Module computer died from the power failure. Even harder was using the Lem's thrusters that were now behaving backwards due to the unbalanced mass of the damaged serviced module attached to the command caspule to it in order to use its engines for course corrections. In short, with skill and luck, they were able to get back home using the Lem as a backup spacecraft.

No need to do that with this sim where we have the Nav Ball and maneuver nodes where we can tweak the handles to get the intercept, then fine tune it for the most efficient path and lowest fuel consumption burn with a visual reference of that result being displayed in map mode.

They didn't just launch them up there and say "point it where you think is right and go that way." They knew what they were doing, they had a whole team of ROCKET SCIENTISTS working on it for goodness sake.

In KSP math isn't really required, as you can usually manage and still have fun without it. For those of us that like precision and planning though, we can do the math and make it perfect. You end up doing math anyways when your guessing, but its just simplified math that you can do quickly.

I really do not know who to believe on this subject. I have heard this manual piloting story and it never seems to be the same. XD

They did manually pilot, but the computer still handled things like direction and thrust amount, they just told it what to do instead of following the pre-planned mission. It wasn't like a joystick and throttle just popped out of the console and they flew it manually. Think a simplified mechjeb.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Xaiier

[SRV Ron]

I really do not know who to believe on this subject. I have heard this manual piloting story and it never seems to be the same. XD

Maybe not totally manual, the Wiki link has much of the info of how they got off the intended landing site and had to quickly find a safe place to land or hit the Abort button before running completely out of fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolo_11

Regardless, I bet those engineers and astronauts would love to have something like KSPs Maneuver Node simulation. Then again, the Kerbal Solar System is much scaled down from the Solar System NASA is working with.

Edited July 16, 2013 by SRV Ron

[PakledHostage]

Lol if it is that much harder, you have to be bad at math.

I don't think we're talking about "6 times 7 is ...uhhh... crap, where's Deep Thought when you need it". What we're talking about would probably more correctly be described as physics.

I (and I am sure many others) admire those who invest the time to plan their flights in the spirit of real-world space programs. If you choose to belittle me for that, please provide a convincing argument why doing your own math ISN'T a higher level of difficulty and a greater achievement than eyeballing it or using some mod that does the work for you.

Edited July 16, 2013 by PakledHostage

[Aragosnat]

Math? What is that? =^.^=

[Brabbit1987]

I don't think we're talking about "6 times 7 is ...uhhh... crap, where's my calculator". What we're talking about would probably more correctly be described as physics.

I (and I am sure many others) admire those who invest the time to plan their flights in the spirit of real-world space programs. If you choose to belittle me for that, please provide a convincing argument why doing your own math ISN'T a higher level of difficulty and a greater achievement than eyeballing it or using some mod that does the work for you.

First of all we are talking about a game. That is why. This isn't some complicated thing, the math involved isn't hard. Now if we are talking about real life, ok .. fine but we are not.

Edit: If we are talking about recreating a space mission and someone goes through all the math involved that is different too. However, I am talking about what is needed for this game. You really need to learn to give it a rest and quit while you are ahead, because not everyone likes to do crap like that and that isn't what this topic is about.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[AmpsterMan]

I'm half and half. I DO calculate delta v and thrust ratiosand use the node editor and such, but when it comes to flying the thing i do it all by the seat of my pants

[PakledHostage]

First of all we are talking about a game. That is why. This isn't some complicated thing, the math involved isn't hard.

A game that is a physics sandbox. While there are plenty of physical effects that aren't implemented realistically, it remains an analogue of reality where you can go as far down the rabbit hole as you like. At the highest levels, it is a very complicated thing.

[Brabbit1987]

A game that is a physics sandbox. While there are plenty of physical effects that aren't implemented realistically, it remains an analogue of reality where you can go as far down the rabbit hole as you like. At the highest levels, it is a very complicated thing.

Yes, but it is not NEEDED. That is only something you do if you really really really want to. That doesn't make the game harder, because if you know how to do the math. . then guess what .. it must not be particularly hard for you to do it other wise you wouldn't do it.

Example, I know how to convert binary and hex manually to decimal and back. It's easy, though that can't be said for everyone. What I find easy is only because I know how to do it. So ya, .. sure it would be hard if you where bad at the math.