KSP need some simulation mode

[Ghost13]

I spend around the month trying to build up an Eve capable return mission lander. The initial tests worked good on Kerbin but it always failed on Eve. Every test mission of such magnitude took around 3-4 days of real time only to end up in a failure on eve ascends. I almost abandoned the whole idea of Eve return mission but then I used Hyperedit and it’s teleport feature to test the parachute assisted decent and ascend stage in real Eve environment and finished sea level capable ascend stage in just 3-4 hours. Looks like many other players use hyperedit for such "simulations"

So my point is, that the game should have simulation mode that will be unlocked for each planet after it will be visited by the probe (landed by the probe in case of the planet with the atmosphere). In this simulation mode you basically do the same thing you do with the hyperedit, place your craft anywhere on the surface of the planet or anywhere on the planets orbit. Simulation could be used not only to test landers\assends but also import real life mission into the simulation in order to try some danger maneuvers\rescue missions before attempting something in reality. Textures or visual style of simulated environment could be simplified so you can always tell if you are doing real flight or the simulation. It will make the whole idea of landing the probe as preparation for the manned missions more reasonable. Simulation mode can be used for testing early designs of lifters without doing actual launch. I think it is must have feature for carrier mode where you have to pay for all the parts in the game and doing hugely expensive Eve missions that ends in failures will ruin your space agency.

[sumghai]

The existing "Revert Flight" feature pretty much allows you to regard any failed flights as a "simulation" - you can already either go back to the time of launch (if failure was due to piloting error) or the VAB/SPH (if failure was due to design faults).

[SirJoab]

I really like this idea.

It might complicate the implementation, but I think it would be cool if this Simulation's parameters could be provided by your probe's returned science data... So if your probe didn't have any atmospheric data, the Simulation would be run as if the planet had no atmosphere... so you want to have a nice sensor array so your simulation mode would be accurate.

I don't know how the game mechanics would work with this, but I'd be happy with the simulation planet being a gray [or properly colored with no mapping] sphere, with all parameters set by the returned data. That way there's still stuff to be discovered once you get to the actual planet.

[Ghost13]

I don't know how the game mechanics would work with this,

I think it can work in the same way oringinal game works (you obiviously will not be able to run both real and simulated enviroment)

but I'd be happy with the simulation planet being a gray [or properly colored with no mapping] sphere, with all parameters set by the returned data. That way there's still stuff to be discovered once you get to the actual planet.

And then when you bring mapping equipment with your ship\probe than simulation begin become more and accurate with proper elevations, craters, anomalies (if they make it to final game) e.t.c. It would be nice if all of your ladings\crush landings will have markers in simulation. So simulation can be not only measure to test you craft but also the hub of all your knowlege about particular planet.

[Awaras]

The existing "Revert Flight" feature pretty much allows you to regard any failed flights as a "simulation" - you can already either go back to the time of launch (if failure was due to piloting error) or the VAB/SPH (if failure was due to design faults).

Well yeah, but still, if you want to test an Eve ascent lander then whenever you want to make a small change in the design, you have to fly your craft all the way from kerbin all over again (unless you use hyperedit or edit the persistence file yourself, of course).

[Person012345]

Edit: Misread again >.<

[sumghai]

Well yeah, but still, if you want to test an Eve ascent lander then whenever you want to make a small change in the design, you have to fly your craft all the way from kerbin all over again (unless you use hyperedit or edit the persistence file yourself, of course).

I use Hyperedit regularly to test my designs at various points of each mission.

The other way to run a simulation that is already available in the current game is to simply start a new savegame, test your crafts there, and then copy the craft files over to your main game when you're happy.

[chrischambers]

I really like this idea.

It might complicate the implementation, but I think it would be cool if this Simulation's parameters could be provided by your probe's returned science data... So if your probe didn't have any atmospheric data, the Simulation would be run as if the planet had no atmosphere... so you want to have a nice sensor array so your simulation mode would be accurate.

.

I also like this idea, as this will help newbies to the game, and also allow us to build and test sim's crafts before so lunch them, and watch them crash and burn.

and as the science data is return back via the comm reply then this will give us reasons to build bigger and better crafts, to each mission.

I don't know how the game mechanics would work with this, but I'd be happy with the simulation planet being a gray [or properly colored with no mapping] sphere, with all parameters set by the returned data. That way there's still stuff to be discovered once you get to the actual planet

[Tw1]

I'd like to see it as a system where you get to define the atmosphere density, gravity, and all that yourself. That way, if you don't have that data yet, you can only guess.

It'd be done in a blank looking virtual environment, with a border around the edge, to remind you this was just a simulation.

[dazhat]

I think this idea could work with some limitations. Part of the fun of KSP is the risk involved in taking your Kerbals millions of kilometres and not being 100% sure if they can return.

You could have a simulator linked to research so at first there is no simulator, then a max of ten parts per simulation then 20 parts then 30 etc with each research.

It is theoretically possible to find out all the information (gravity, atmosphere etc) you require to plan a mission with a probe already. If it becomes too easy to test everything the risk will disappear.

[Skyrunner27]

I'd like to see it as a system where you get to define the atmosphere density, gravity, and all that yourself. That way, if you don't have that data yet, you can only guess.

It'd be done in a blank looking virtual environment, with a border around the edge, to remind you this was just a simulation.

This is how I would belive Squad would most likely due it because they are big advactors of you doing the science.

[jordanjay29]

We need revert flight to have options for stable, non-eccentric orbits as reverting points.

You should also learn Quicksave and Quickload, on Windows it's F5 and F9 respectively, and it will let you save (when you're throttled down and not about to crash) and reload a craft. Perfect for screwing up Mun descents over and over and over again.

[Idobox]

I love the idea too, and I don't think it would simplify the game that much.

Let's take an example: my planned mission to Dunna. I want two hitchhiker cans, a big rover and a return vehicle, all in the same ship. Right now, I have to build each component, put it in orbit and dock everything together without knowing if I will even be able to land them.

With a limited simulator, I could test the landing of each component, as well as the take-off of the return vehicle. Even being sure they will do their job correctly, if the simulator only covers Dunna, or has a part limit, I won't be able to test my fully assembled ship, and I still have the risk of spontaneous unplanned disassembly, especially during aerocapture, insufficiant deltaV to bring my Kerbals back, landing on a steep hill, destroying the rover because of reckless driving, etc...

[ThirdHorseman]

I have a completely separate install of KSP that I use for testing, with Hyperedit installed. This way I can mess around to my heart's content and not screw up my "real" game.

I would love it if there was a simulation building in the space center. It could look like Epcot Center:

Enter that building and it loads a second instance of KSP with limited Hyperedit-like capabilities...place an object in orbit around a body, place an object landed on a body, etc.

I do also like the idea of only opening the planet/moon simulation once said planet/moon has been scanned using a probe. Lets people do science first, and then simulate more complicated operations (landing, retrieval, base-building, etc) later.

[1of6Billion]

...snip...

Enter that building and it loads a second instance of KSP with limited Hyperedit-like capabilities...place an object in orbit around a body, place an object landed on a body, etc.

...snip..

All in glorious 8bit 2D

I would definitely dig that

[iStickyDuck]

Would be cool if they did add a simulation mode where things were in a cool holographic/wireframe kind of place

[Future_JPL]

I have to say I think this idea is really awesome. As the game currently stands probes aren't really good for all that much, and while the new science system may change this, I would love to see probes become...Well probes. The only problem I see is the amount of effort that would be required to implement it. That being said I think this sort of thing, or at least some of the ideas discussed here fit in well with the idea of discovery that's so lacking in the game right now. I know the dev's have been talking about adding a planetary discovery element to the game and I think a lot of this really fits in with that idea and would make the game feel a lot more complete and fair.

[Andrew Hansen]

I like this idea as well! I don't actually think it would be very hard to implement. Just add one more building to the Space Center, and have a Hyperedit-like thing activated when you enter the "simulation universe" in the added building. Then (maybe) disable some texture files to give it a simulation feel, and you're done. I know it would require some work, but it's not something as big as a KSP city or whatever.

[lxknvlk]

Up. Simulation mode is necessary! If this is a simulation game, not an arcade. You need to test how your rover will behave on other planet without going all the way to the planet and then finding out that something is missing.

[jonr]

I'm a bit late to this thread but am also rather new to the game and at least I found it instead of starting yet another thread! I wanted to weigh in that I think this is a brilliant idea! I had the same thought the other day after spending hours repeatedly modifying, launching, testing, and reverting, ... a vessel I plan to send on my first Duna mission. I have FAR installed and the blasted thing kept coming apart on Kerbin reentry which I felt would be a bit too exciting for the brave and probably tired Kerbals after a year long mission, they will deserve some rest and not explosions. I think everything I thought of has already been touched on in this thread:

* Simplifying the graphics, wire-frame etc.. so that you don't get any of the excitement of the real mission.

* Being able to enter parameters such as I want a gravity well that is x deep, with an atmosphere y density and put me at an altitude or Pe/Ap of z,z1 and maybe having the ability to select a biome from a list of biomes you've already explored.

The only things I might throw are :

* Maybe each simulation could cost a very small amount of money/time to just slightly encourage a little risk taking.

* The ability to save simulations. Be able to create a simulation called Mun and then have sub items under that such as Mun landing, roving, take off etc.. so that any new craft you build you can immediately load it into an appropriate simulation. I'm sure MechJeb would end up coming out with a plugin as well that let you automate your simulations and almost provide a kind of QC for new designs.

In a lot of ways this, I believe, would make the game an even better simulation of how things work in the real world space programs. Even during the Apollo missions the astronauts went though extensive flight simulations to improve their ability to fly the contraptions as well as discover flaws in the design. These days I'd be amazed if anything flies without extensive computer modeling and testing first.

It would probably be too much of a change but it would be neat if the VAB/SPH were structured a bit as if you were (and yes I see the irony here) building the vehicle in a computer, had a button to run tests in a simulator and when you were satisfied could have the system print out your fancy new vehicle via advanced Kerbal 3d printer technology. Of course you would also have the option to just have the ship created w/o testing. Though thinking about it now that's is too much of a pain. Just an extra button next to launch that brings you to the simulator building with the vessel loaded would be great.

[drtedastro]

Up. Simulation mode is necessary! If this is a simulation game, not an arcade. You need to test how your rover will behave on other planet without going all the way to the planet and then finding out that something is missing.

Yup, agree.. Ok, who is going to write it????

[mattinoz]

Does anyone need to write it. I mean it's basically a sandbox game accessible within the a career game.

Ok Ok It's more complex than that but to me it would add so much to the game.

Especially in terms of long term planning / fun. You could set yourself a goal. Play test that goal in the simulator. From that work out not just a build budget, but what parts you need where they are on the tree also ideal time and day to fire off. In effect creating your own deadlines.

Love the idea of it being tied in to previous mission data collected as well.

Also If Kerbals had a mission cost not just parts then having them tied up in the simulator would have a cost. I can see why Kerbals don't have a cost they are just "celebrity ballast" as the game stands.

This really is a possible feature I think about a lot when playing.

I mean what self respecting space program doesn't have one of those spinning g-force simulators.

[r4pt0r]

Up. Simulation mode is necessary! If this is a simulation game, not an arcade. You need to test how your rover will behave on other planet without going all the way to the planet and then finding out that something is missing.

can you imagine if NASA had to take the curiosity rover all the way to mars to see how it would work on Mars?

but in all seriousness, they tested it on Earth. NASA didn't know how it would work on Mars till it got there. just spawn your rover on the pad/runway and see how it works.

I check for 3 key things:

Does it have power generation/storage

Does it have an antenna

Does it have SCIENCE equipment on board

[prophet_01]

Why are you guys geting so complicated over a small feature? Why not ad an additional setting to the debug menu? You can already turn off gravity. Create another option for atmosphere and make both adjustable with a slider. Done. It's most likely not even that much work

Edited September 24, 2014 by prophet_01

[JimmyAgent007]

A simulator is something NASA uses in real life, ever watch Apollo 13? I think it should be done with cheap retro graphics or wireframes for fun. I like the suggestion that it still costs money. Some players can use it just to practice docking. Also the idea that you can only simulate Kerbin or empty space to start, then adding more planets as you gather data on them. Return atmospheric science from Duna? You can simulate that now so you know how many of what kind of chutes you need to land something. Same with gravity and so forth. Will there be a difference with actually landing? sure, the terrain itself could be different where the simulation would be flat. the first moon landing had to pick a new landing zone right at the last minute because there was a rock in the way. the simulation would be very sterile compared to the real thing. the simulation gets more accurate the more science you return, being perfectly accurate when you return 100% of the science.