What DON'T we want in KSP?

[John FX]

Procedural anything (parts)

There is room for it in modded gameplay (to a certain extent) but I think that a great deal of the gameplay in KSP is picking the right parts for the job, and being able to push a button and get a part exactly how you need it sort of defeats the purpose. Fairings make sense, but going to an engineer and asking him to make that tank 2 meters longer for extra fuel is a bit silly, it would be expensive and require lots of testing on the new parts.

When the Apollo program was in force, they adjusted the thrust on the engines and also the fuel load in between flights depending on the payload. They increased the thrust from the engine from 1500klbf to 1522klbf and increased the time of the burn from 150s to 165s.

The argument you have used actually supports using procedural parts as NASA *DID* go to their engineers and get them to increase slightly the fuel capacity of the first stage without adding drop tanks or ridiculous things like that.

Specifically they went to an engineer and asked him to make that tank 2 meters longer for extra fuel. Not only that but they tweaked the engine thrust as well.

To say that would be silly is itself silly...

[John FX]

the point of having set tank sizes is to challenge you. If everything is procedural you can basically just go: "need a hlv? herpaderpA i'll just make a 7.5 meter tank and stick 8 mainsails on the bottom!". With set part sizes, you actually have to think about the size and structural stability of your rocket. For example, if I have to build a 7.5 meter wide rocket with 8 mainsails on the bottom, maybe I should split they payload up instead or try and make it smaller. If its something like wings and fairings, which are an absolute pain when you just use a set part, it is all right for them to be procedural. Procedural tanks, engines, etc, would make the game too easy.

And also, your rant against realism basically mirrored mine: I said that ksp doesn't have n-body physics, that everything is 1/10th the size, and that our astronauts are little green men.

The facts were the same but the conclusion was oppositional. Also your rational/reasoning is lacking.

The point of having set tank sizes is because it is easy to program. The size ratio comes from restrictions in the physics engine, as does the lack of n-body physics. Don`t fool yourself those restrictions are there because of game mechanics. The game mechanics are there because of the restrictions. You have things the wrong way round.

Procedurals only go up to 5m at the moment so you simply cannot do the ridiculous thing you suggest as a reason to not have them.

What is so great about having each engine on it`s own orange tank anyway? I can build anything and pretty much have. I`ve landed a 600T space station on a moon. I`ve planted a flag on *every* place it is possible, all stock with no mechjeb.

You can talk to me about what is easy and what is not after you have done that.

I`ll say it plainly. Procedurals do not make craft design easy.

As has been said, are you making rockets or playing tetris?

If the `challenge` is to use a restricted part set and still build what you want I take it you only use the smallest engine and the smallest tank size? As you say if you need a big tank you could just go "Herpaderp I`ll use the orange one and put a mainsail on it HERPADERP" so obviously you build your ships from ants and oscars leading to 3000 part craft that can barely fly?

Ridiculous.

EDIT : Apologies for the double post, should have edited the first post...

Build time for space craft

I am in two minds about this. I can see how it would be pointless as you could just warp and your craft is built but also I can see how it could be good in career mode meaning you had to factor build time into your craft to get them to rendezvous or launch for a window. For time sensitive launches it would be an extra layer to consider.

I would want it to be optional though, as in advanced mode or similar.

Edited December 8, 2013 by John FX

[John.E]

I've just dragged myself through 13 pages of posts about what not to have in KSP and from these posts it seems to me that the best thing to keep out KSP are Players and Politics

[jwenting]

When the Apollo program was in force, they adjusted the thrust on the engines and also the fuel load in between flights depending on the payload. They increased the thrust from the engine from 1500klbf to 1522klbf and increased the time of the burn from 150s to 165s.

hate to burst your bubble, but that difference was largely unintentional.

Because each engine was built by hand, using hand built components that were each a bit different, built without often very detailed blueprints with extremely precise margins, there was a pretty big spread in the characteristics of the engines and other parts.

They then went out and bolted those parts together and see what came out, then made adjustments to have everything be more or less symmetrical.

[BlueSubstance]

I would hate to see Warpdrives in KSP. They don't exist yet, in real life.

[TimMartland]

Farings would be awesome. Plus, I don't want to see alien plant or animal life anywhere other than Kerbin, and I don't really want to see more laythe-like oxygen planets. I mean, in all of human history we haven't found a planet or moon like laythe that could support life (at least not anywhere practically reachable) and I know its KSP but if there were 2 or even 3 then laythe would lose its unique awesomeness and the Kerbin system or surrounding area would just become a complete improbability.

[Dunbaratu]

(talking about having it take game time to build a rocket on the pad.)

I can see how it would be pointless as you could just warp and your craft is built but also I can see how it could be good in career mode meaning you had to factor build time into your craft to get them to rendezvous or launch for a window. For time sensitive launches it would be an extra layer to consider.

I would want it to be optional though, as in advanced mode or similar.

I don't think it would be irrelevant just because you can time warp. It makes it impossible to launch two launches back-to-back one right after the other, which affects all sorts of mission timings.

While it may be realistic to have the wait, it would only be realistic if we had more than one launchpad because real space programs don't have to launch everything from ONE launchpad - one team can be assembling a rocket on pad 2 while another is launching from pad 1, allowing you to make your rockets in parallel and launch them together. But because KSP only has one launchpad, build times would end up having to be done in serial, and that creates an unfair extra unrealistic hurdle.

[John FX]

hate to burst your bubble, but that difference was largely unintentional.

Because each engine was built by hand, using hand built components that were each a bit different, built without often very detailed blueprints with extremely precise margins, there was a pretty big spread in the characteristics of the engines and other parts.

They then went out and bolted those parts together and see what came out, then made adjustments to have everything be more or less symmetrical.

You realise that if they built things the way you suggest then the rocket would be so imbalanced it simply would not fly?

It would fail to function on the most basic level.

I have bolded the part in your post where you make the least sense to help you figure out why you are totally wrong.

You don`t end up with an extra 15 seconds of fuel (and mass) and more power in a craft like Apollo by accident. The extra power and fuel were needed due to the extra mass of the rover and so forth.

"In the original basic mastering programs, conventional airframe mastering techniques were used. Tooling specialists soon realized, however, that while plaster model masters had been satisfactory for constructing aircraft, they could not maintain the tolerances required for critical space hardware. So the technique was conceived of fabricating control masters, masters, and assembly tools from like materials, compatible with the end hardware: for example, aluminum masters and aluminum tools for the aluminum hardware and steel masters and steel tools for the steel hardware. Basic tolerances could be integrated into these tools and were not nullified by differential expansion during operations involving the application of heat. Mainly because of this improved tolerance control, some heat shields have been delivered without any defective weld despite the 718 feet of weld in the crew compartment heat shield and the difficult access to some areas. "

If they can make 718ft of weld with no defective welds I think they are within tolerances suitable to maintain power and not be 10% out when building a fuel tank which is what you are suggesting...

"They then went out and bolted those parts together and see what came out"

Classic. They built F1s, fuel tanks the size of trucks, a lunar lander and the rest and just to "see what came out"

Now I see why you think procedurals would be unrealistic. You think they just throw stuff together and hope it works, like you do in the VAB, instead of working it out and custom building every single rocket..

Your grasp of science seems.... slim.

[Seret]

What would I not like to see? Interstellar flight, FTL propulsion, aliens, offworld rocket construction (docking pre-made parts is fine, building from scratch isn't). I'd also be very wary of offworld fuel mining, it could easily unbalance the game.

[John FX]

What would I not like to see? Interstellar flight, FTL propulsion, aliens, offworld rocket construction (docking pre-made parts is fine, building from scratch isn't). I'd also be very wary of offworld fuel mining, it could easily unbalance the game.

I`d agree that I could quite happily do without any of those features. (I assume aliens means alien to Kerbin)...

I would like to see some form of fixing docked craft so they are a bit more secure though.

[Seret]

I would like to see some form of fixing docked craft so they are a bit more secure though.

Nah, the wobbliness is half the fun. If you aren't exploding occasionally, you aren't KSPing hard enough.

[Wahgineer]

offworld rocket construction (docking pre-made parts is fine, building from scratch isn't). I'd also be very wary of offworld fuel mining

1:what is the point of squad adding metals to the game, then?

2:too bad squad has confirmed that resources will be a part of the game.

also, about mining/construction: which is easier? bringing up fuel from kerbin, but using 40% of the fuel to get to the ship? Or mining the stuff up on the mun and using 10-0% of the fuel to get it to the ship?

Or with constructing interplanetary vessels: Which is better? Having to do 10 identical launches to get the rather wobbly pieces together? Or constructing the ship as one whole, solid vessel in space, and only having to launch the kerbals later on?

Also, when Squad planned out resources, they also thought about balancing. Ex: You should have to work to find deposits, deposits are finite, it requires a lot of energy to refine fuel, there shouldn't be one wonder resource, etc. They new what they where doing. And even though kethane is a wonder resource, it is very well balanced. So if a mod can do it, so can Squad. Your argument is invalid.

[Seret]

1:what is the point of squad adding metals to the game, then?

They haven't.

2:too bad squad has confirmed that resources will be a part of the game.

There's no saying what form "resources" will take. It might be really involved with lots of different minerals to be mined, or it might be really simple and abstracted, with no in situ utilisation. We don't really know.

If you're thinking of this pic, then it was some early concept stuff that was (IIRC) discarded for being too complex. Whatever they implement might look like that, or it might be completely different. Who knows?

also, about mining/construction: which is easier? bringing up fuel from kerbin, but using 40% of the fuel to get to the ship? Or mining the stuff up on the mun and using 10-0% of the fuel to get it to the ship?

Exactly my point. Being able to sidestep the tyranny of the rocket equation would make the game significantly easier. Being forced to haul everything up from Kerbin is the source of 90% of the game's challenge. Off-world fuel mining could break that pretty badly if not done right, which is why I wouldn't mind if it never made it into the game.

Or with constructing interplanetary vessels: Which is better? Having to do 10 identical launches to get the rather wobbly pieces together? Or constructing the ship as one whole, solid vessel in space, and only having to launch the kerbals later on?

See above. Difficulty is good. It makes us build more imaginative solutions to the problems.

Your argument is invalid.

It's not an argument, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The OP was asking our personal opinions of what we'd like to see left out. My opinion has no effect on how you play the game, you go do whatever you like doing. I have no problem with mods that implement all the stuff I don't want to see in the game, or the people who use 'em. It's just a game, after all.

[Wahgineer]

1: I wasn't speaking in the past tense

2: That system, though discarded, is still the base line for resources, which they said will come in the future.

3: You do realize that we will still have to rendezvous, dock, navigate, land, etc? Also, as you advance in a game, it is supposed to get a little bit less tedious. Some ships/components may not be able to be assembled in orbit and do their job properly. 10 repetitive launches can get tedious and grindy.

4: you also said that it is unbalanced if it is done wrong. You still left the door open to the fact that it can be done right. And I trust that a squad can do it right, just like they have with the rest of the game.

[Seret]

Seriously, what's your objective of making an argument of this? So you disagree with me, great. What would you like to see left out of the game?

[tetryds]

I would deffinitelly get sick seeing FTL or any "sci-fi" alikes being added to the game.

[Serratus]

Jeez... Get over it guys. FTL is a fact. A feature that has been planned and will happen, period. Get over it. I've been away for a couple of months and the first thing I see when I come back is the same topic ppl were complaining all the way back from 0.10 to 0.20. Get over Yourselves! FTL is happening, but no one has to use it. You don't have to move one inch from Kerbin sys. So let's all just chill guys.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Specialist290
Minor adjustments.

[Unfawkable]

Jeez... Get over it guys. FTL is a fact. A feature that has been planned and will happen, period. Get over it. I've been away for a couple of months and the first thing I see when I come back is the same topic ppl were complaining all the way back from 0.10 to 0.20. Get over Yourselves! FTL is happening, but no one has to use it. You don't have to move one inch from Kerbin sys. So let's all just chill guys.

This really. If you don't like the sci-fi stuff, no one is forcing you to use it. Stay on the ground if you like, and drive around in rovers.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Specialist290
Minor adjustments to quoted material.

[chaos_forge]

I for one am also strongly against FTL. Instead, I would like to see other stars close enough to Kerbol (maybe Kerbol is part of a binary or more star system?) to make slower-than-light travel feasible. I would like to see Orion drives, VASMIR, or even fusion engines as opposed to FTL.

This really. If you don't like the sci-fi stuff, no one is forcing you to use it. Stay on the ground if you like, and drive around in rovers.

This is the wrong attitude to have. We all want different things for the game, and telling people who disagree with you to "Stay on the ground if you like, and drive around in rovers" does not contribute to the discussion. Many people do not want FTL because it would take away from the alternatives (such as STL), and many more dislike it because they think it would contradict the current "hard science" and orbital mechanics-focused aesthetic of KSP. Your (or the poster above you) response does not address either of these concerns.

As HarvesteR pointed out during KerbalCon today with his story about Bob, Bill, and Jeb, the community can and has changed what features are included in the game. So "complaining" about FTL may in fact prompt the devs to at the very least look at the alternatives to FTL that they may provide.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Specialist290

[Unfawkable]

This is the wrong attitude to have. We all want different things for the game, and telling people who disagree with you to "Stay on the ground if you like, and drive around in rovers" does not contribute to the discussion. Many people do not want FTL because it would take away from the alternatives (such as STL), and many more dislike it because they think it would contradict the current "hard science" and orbital mechanics-focused aesthetic of KSP. Your (or the poster above you) response does not address either of these concerns.

As HarvesteR pointed out during KerbalCon today with his story about Bob, Bill, and Jeb, the community can and has changed what features are included in the game. So "complaning" about FTL may in fact prompt the devs to at the very least look at the alternatives to FTL that they may provide.

My buttons just get pushed too much from people calling warp drives gross and magic. FTL is possible, just not yet.

Being hard science or not, it completely depends upon implementation. If it's implemented so that you could use it anytime instead of STL engines, than it's badly implemented. They have a place in the game if done right.

And I don't like complaining as much as the next person, but if that's what would deter devs from the engines, than I too will start complaining accordingly.

And a cluster of stars would be a cool alternative I guess, even better if they weren't static stars, but moved around each other, or a common center. That is actually a great idea.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Specialist290

[chaos_forge]

FTL is possible, just not yet.

Sure, FTL might be possible, but it is most definitely not possible at the technology level that we currently (and by extension, the kerbals) have. FTL would thus be a sort of weird anachronism, where you are including a ridiculously advanced technology in a game that features almost exclusively tried-and-tested real-life technology. Even the proposed alternatives to FTL, such as Orion drives, were feasible with a 1950's level of technology. This is why I said that most people's concern is aesthetic. I don't think anyone here has the scientific credentials to conclusively say whether or not FTL is possible ever, but it's definitely not possible with our current level of technology.

Being hard science or not, it completely depends upon implementation. If it's implemented so that you could use it anytime instead of STL engines, than it's badly implemented.

Huh? Scientific accuracy does not depend on how "fun" the implementation is. If we ever achieve FTL, I would not be surprised if it could be used anywhere in space-time.

EDIT: Sorry if I come off as aggressive, I'm just trying to explain people's reasoning for not wanting FTL.

EDIT2: When people call warp drives "magic", you might want to keep in mind Clarke's Third Law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Edited December 12, 2013 by chaos_forge

[Unfawkable]

Huh? Scientific accuracy does not depend on how "fun" the implementation is. If we ever achieve FTL, I would not be surprised if it could be used anywhere in space-time.

EDIT: Sorry if I come off as aggressive, I'm just trying to explain people's reasoning for not wanting FTL.

EDIT2: When people call warp drives "magic", you might want to keep in mind Clarke's Third Law:

But this is a game, it's primarily supposed to be fun, and after the fun part, it's supposed to be accurate. Not the other way around

[Serratus]

I for one am also strongly against FTL. Instead, I would like to see other stars close enough to Kerbol...

OK. Now THAT just breaks the realism completely. One thing that KSP has that few other games out there have is consistency of scales.

Many people do not want FTL because it would take away from the alternatives (such as STL),

It would not. FTL Kerbal style is - as Harv explained LONG ago - only operational far away from any grav source (because it's based on it in a smaller scale). You need to leave Jools orbit far behind to go FTL, otherwise it'll rip the ship apart. So it only becomes useful when all standard technology stops to make a difference. And that is a good compromise to keep the game both reasonably realistic and keep gameplay value at high level.

If ppl want ultra realistic simulation they can play Orbiter.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Serratus

[AngelLestat]

Lets make a facebook group "ksp players against FTL" yeah!!!

Haha, joke

The thing is, in case this would be possible some day. Is fair to say that is not going to happen in the next thousand years. We dont have any idea how to do it. The few mathematic models who predicts like possible, is becouse they took only the Special Relativity like reference. But they need take also Quantum mechanics and other factors into account. This happens becouse we still do not have a theory of everything.

But even if we had one, thermodinamics rules said that the energy requirements would be huge. And that is the main reason why someone can said without fear to be wrong that this would not happen at least in 1000 or 10000 years.

But if KSP in the future needs a way to include other star systems, then there is a realistic a fun way to do it. With know science and technology.

I will try to post and explain what I am talking about in these days. Becouse it seems nobody stop talking about this.

[chaos_forge]

OK. Now THAT just breaks the realism completely. One thing that KSP has that few other games out there have is consistency of scales.

1) One third of all the star systems in our galaxy have more than one star. In fact, it is more likely for a sun-size star in our galaxy to be part of a multiple star system than not.

2) The distance between Alpha Centauri A and B is at its greatest point equal to the distance between the sun and Pluto. So it is in fact very possible to have stars in a binary system be close to each other. However, in the interest of stable planetary orbits, we'd probably want to use the distance between Alpha Centauri and Proxima Centauri as a reference, which is 0.2 light years. Translated to Kerbal distances, this would be approximately 0.018 light-year.

3) So a propulsion system that could get you to 2% of c (feasible with one or several of the many proposed STL propulsion systems), it would take a year to get to the other star, a time which can be reasonably warped through (especially if higher warps are added). If you bump it up to 10% of c (the speed of the proposed Project Daedalus ship), the travel time becomes 2 and a half months.

I would argue that having Kerbol be part of a multiple-star system is both more fun AND more realistic than adding FTL.

Edited December 13, 2013 by chaos_forge