Manned (Kerbaled) flights in career mode...

[Hidden Gunman]

I work on the premise that I prefer to take things slowly, and use the probes as something of a brake on too far - too fast. Although it slows the (current) Science gathering down, it just seems appropriate to send probes somewhere prior to sending Kerbals...and a lot less lethal to them.

[Holo]

Get lost with your realism, this is a game.

Good point. Let's also remove orbits as well, since no realism.

[LameLefty]

I don't think that people will play through one career mode, then shelve the game when it's done. I think they will play through one career mode structure, then load some mods to create a different career challenge, then another, and so on.

Or simply replay and take a different path through the Tech Tree, even without modding the tree or changing part costs/resources, etc. Heck, you can already do that in 0.22. Just emphasis different kinds of missions, or go to different destinations and see how it works. Had 0.23 not been announced for next week, I was planning a second play-through incorporating lessons I learned the first time all the way through the current Tech Tree.

[Eric S]

I don't think that people will play through one career mode, then shelve the game when it's done. I think they will play through one career mode structure, then load some mods to create a different career challenge, then another, and so on.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I've capped out the tech tree in about 5 saves already. Sometimes I take a different path, sometimes I try with a different set of "game changer" mods like Mission Controller, FAR, DR, RT2, TAC life support, etc.

[Lohan2008]

Regarding realism: although it's true that Sputnik was the first man-made object in space, it wasn't exactly an autonomous, remote controllable satellite. Remember the first moon landing in 1969 predates the PC era at least by a decade. All they had then were a few very basic flight controls. At least back then, fully automated moon landings would have been next to impossible..

Correction: transistors where invented circa 1960, so Apollo missions would have had electronics by then.

I wonder if the first Mercury projects where controlled from the ground with differential machines and radio control ??

My father who was an electrician told me about VALVES, I can not even imagine running calculations with those !!!

During World War 2, the Germans launched rocket powered "buzz bombs" with pilots inside to Ireland to check out the gyroscopes and clockwork/ mechanical drive.

Locked inside with explosive fuel and not even a window. Using a stopwatch, spirit level and compass to navigate ,,,, shivers.

Pretty much the same as the options offered in career mode first launches.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Lohan2008
Mergine sequential posts.

[LameLefty]

I wonder if the first Mercury projects where controlled from the ground with differential machines and radio control ??

Mechanical sequencers, for the most part. Mercury had nothing but the most rudimentary attitude control system and no ability to change its orbit once separated from the Atlas booster, other than its solid-fuel retropack.

[quasarrgames]

I think that probes from the start would take away some of the fun of the early game. For one, there has been a prominent theme in KSP about kerbal scientists not caring about safety, which is why they always send all the innocent astronauts into space using such junky and thrown-together rocket parts. Having probes from the start would take some of that away.

Also, it's just nice to look down on the bottom right corner of the screen and see those smiling (or screaming) kerbal faces

[StrandedonEarth]

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the chinese had solid rockets centuries ago, but they never tried to build a space-capable (AFAIK) one nor had anyone brave enough to ride one (except maybe one). Perhaps if they had figured out parachutes as well (prerequisite tech: hot-air balloons) more people would have been willing to ride one.

[Psycix]

Install remotetech and you'll be begging for manned flights.

[sgt_flyer]

For the electronics aboard spacecrafts, their first main use in the space race was for the moon lander - because they needed a flight computer lightweight enough for moon landing and ascent (even then, the fuel margins were really tight) - the other computers aboard apollo csm and saturn V used older technologies (mechanical / lamps etc) which were much more known at the time (transistors were very recent at the time, and they did not really know about their reliability when used on such a scale)

[LameLefty]

For the electronics aboard spacecrafts, their first main use in the space race was for the moon lander - because they needed a flight computer lightweight enough for moon landing and ascent (even then, the fuel margins were really tight) - the other computers aboard apollo csm and saturn V used older technologies (mechanical / lamps etc) which were much more known at the time (transistors were very recent at the time, and they did not really know about their reliability when used on such a scale)

That's not true at all. Gemini included a primitive digital computer and the ability to calculate and plan orbital maneuvers; this was never used in practice as the sole means of conducting a mission, but the capability was there and it was used to cross-check the ground solutions for rendezvous and orbit-changing maneuvers. These were very primitive devices but they were functional. Here's a picture of one:

http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19680264000

Furthermore, the Saturn V Instrument Unit was a fully-functional flight control system as well. It contained both analog and digital computational units.

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

Edited December 14, 2013 by LameLefty

[CaptainArchmage]

Why Kerbals launch first? Because that is what they do, until they figure out you can use probes instead (until the spacecraft is safer and more reliable).

According to the (real life) lore, the original Kerbals were strapped to rockets made from dissembled fireworks by Harvester. Please correct me if that is wrong.

[NovaSilisko]

I loathe the "oh kerbals are just really dumb and don't know unmanned is a thing until later" explanation. The tech tree sort of mirrors how the game developed, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever, neither for realism or gameplay. I could write page after page of rant and suggestion on what's wrong with the tech tree and part progress, and how it could be improved, but I don't think it would do a bit of good...

[Landwalker]

As someone who is almost unreasonably committed to the safety of my kerbals, I'm not really a fan of the "Manned flight only" starting point. You can make whatever arguments about realistic progression versus The Kerbal Spiritâ„¢, ease of flight versus limitations, and so forth, but ultimately for me none of that really matters. All I want is to keep my kerbals safe until I'm confident that I can put them somewhere with a high probability of safety.

I wouldn't make much of a kerbal, myself...

[Sirrobert]

Good point. Let's also remove orbits as well, since no realism.

Realism for the sake of realism is what kills games.

So does inovation for the sake of inovation for that matter, but that's besides the point.

Orbits is what this game is about. Realism is not

As someone who is almost unreasonably committed to the safety of my kerbals, I'm not really a fan of the "Manned flight only" starting point. You can make whatever arguments about realistic progression versus The Kerbal Spiritâ„¢, ease of flight versus limitations, and so forth, but ultimately for me none of that really matters. All I want is to keep my kerbals safe until I'm confident that I can put them somewhere with a high probability of safety.

I wouldn't make much of a kerbal, myself...

There is basicly 0 risk to orbital flights. Just put a chute ontop of the capsule, and a seperator below. Boom, escape mechanism

Edited December 14, 2013 by Sirrobert

[AndrewBCrisp]

While I agree that Kerbals are enthusiastic about space, dumb is not an adjective I'd use to describe them. Remember that one of the first career-mode parts is a parachute; if nothing else this implies that Kerbals have some concern for safety. To a Kerbal, what's the fun of going up and boom, when you can go up, return, and go up again!

For myself, I use probes for my interplanetary precursor and Mun landing precursor missions. While a Kerbal may be all fired up about a high-risk trip into orbit, a high-risk trip to the Mun or to Duna might be a rocket too far for him/her/it - especially if the Kerbals haven't quite perfected the tech needed for the return trip.

[SpacedCowboy]

Kasuha, Hi ! I'm just some "old guy", tech. illiterate, a computer neandrethal (with poor spelling skills obviously),.,.,. But !, I always read all of your posts and replies. Why do I not see your name next to ones like Scott Manley, Kurt jmac, etc. I'm always impressed with your technical savvy and logical views. I would love to see you do some tutatorials and the like ! (please excuse my poor spelling)

[Sirrobert]

Kasuha, Hi ! I'm just some "old guy", tech. illiterate, a computer neandrethal (with poor spelling skills obviously),.,.,. But !, I always read all of your posts and replies. Why do I not see your name next to ones like Scott Manley, Kurt jmac, etc. I'm always impressed with your technical savvy and logical views. I would love to see you do some tutatorials and the like ! (please excuse my poor spelling)

Nothing wrong with the spelling mate.

Doesn't have to much to do with the topic though

Edited December 15, 2013 by Vanamonde

[Lohan2008]

If you are going to put unkerbaled probes before capsule launch, are you ALSO going to force players to use unpowered gliders and weighted pulleys ???

[allmappedout]

Yes, I agree. Being very good at this game should be punished! How there they be so good that they can do whatever they want with only a few parts

The people who can do what you discribe get 0 sense of achievement from getting into orbit, since they already did it billions of times. Stop trying to force them to follow your own game path

Did you read why i suggested it? I'm saying that the way career is currently structured, you can whizz around the universe very quickly and complete it. For a new player, the idea of learning the mechanics of the game (ie: the first time you crash, the first time you successfully launch, the first time you get out atmo), they should all be achievements that somehow contribute to their career mode. Instead, the career mode focuses on the performing of science to advance yourself. As Harvester mentioned at KerbalKon, there is the milestones section of the sfs file, and I feel that those 'firsts' should be a source of achievement as well as just doing the science. If anything else, the achievement of those kind of goals tends to lead to advancement of the tech tree, rather than learning more about a planet.

It's really counter-intuitive to say "oh, I know what temperature it is on the shores of Kerbin, now I have decouplers!", or something similar. Whilst I love the science mechanic and what it looks like it will be in 0.23, as I said when science first came out, I'd far rather see a structured tree which meant that some things are unlocked by science you got from doing specific rocketry things (ie: getting to orbit), and then other branches are unlocked by, say, doing a bit of science on a planet.

So please, if you're going to jump on a high horse, at least do it for the right reasons. I'm not trying to make the game harder, I'm just saying that the science tree and, thus currently, career mode, doesn't quite make sense. And everyone is entitled to their opinions, so saying no to it just because you disagree is just as bad as someone saying it should happen and ignoring others.

[Sirrobert]

Did you read why i suggested it? I'm saying that the way career is currently structured, you can whizz around the universe very quickly and complete it. For a new player, the idea of learning the mechanics of the game (ie: the first time you crash, the first time you successfully launch, the first time you get out atmo), they should all be achievements that somehow contribute to their career mode. Instead, the career mode focuses on the performing of science to advance yourself. As Harvester mentioned at KerbalKon, there is the milestones section of the sfs file, and I feel that those 'firsts' should be a source of achievement as well as just doing the science. If anything else, the achievement of those kind of goals tends to lead to advancement of the tech tree, rather than learning more about a planet.

It's really counter-intuitive to say "oh, I know what temperature it is on the shores of Kerbin, now I have decouplers!", or something similar. Whilst I love the science mechanic and what it looks like it will be in 0.23, as I said when science first came out, I'd far rather see a structured tree which meant that some things are unlocked by science you got from doing specific rocketry things (ie: getting to orbit), and then other branches are unlocked by, say, doing a bit of science on a planet.

So please, if you're going to jump on a high horse, at least do it for the right reasons. I'm not trying to make the game harder, I'm just saying that the science tree and, thus currently, career mode, doesn't quite make sense. And everyone is entitled to their opinions, so saying no to it just because you disagree is just as bad as someone saying it should happen and ignoring others.

Only those that know HOW to can do what you claim. A new player has trouble getting to the Mun with the science it has managed to get.

And those temperatures is simple: You do science. You get funding because of that. With the funding, you research what you need

[allmappedout]

Only those that know HOW to can do what you claim. A new player has trouble getting to the Mun with the science it has managed to get.

And those temperatures is simple: You do science. You get funding because of that. With the funding, you research what you need

Ok, I totally get your point, and it's a valid one from a gameplay perspective. But I feel like there's a disconnect in that science doesn't produce parts - science produces the theory that means an engineer can go and design an idea for a part, which then gets tested, which gathers data to test against the theory. That's what I'd like to see be a bit more of a focus just early on, any way.

I feel like it's important that the first steps to rocketry are worth something to a player. I think that for both a good player (who gets some valuable science points just for launching a craft), and an absolute beginner (who gets a bit less science, but still some to put towards something on the tech tree), there's a bit of merit in it. I mean, you get points for recovering a capsule that has been to another body, without actually doing science, right? I'm just saying that maybe even if your ship doesn't leave Kerbin, the first time you launch some terrible contraption that blows up 15 seconds after you launch the SRB, you should get a small reward for it, because in real life, you'd learn from the failure.

[SpacedCowboy]

Yes, I agree, I was off the topic. However my reply was not directed to you!

Edited December 15, 2013 by Vanamonde
Let's not get caught up in personal animosities, please.

[Vanamonde]

Folks, let's please discuss the topic and not each other.

[SpacedCowboy]

I'm sorry, I'll never do that again.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Vanamonde
Just, don't.