What will KSP become?

[CaptRobau]

KSP sandbox, in it's current version, is still a very unfinished game. There are still a ton of features that play an important role in space flight that are not yet included:

When you design a rocket in real life you have to think about aerodynamics. You can't just slap a rover on top of it, you have to cover it in fairings. We don't have those yet and we only have a very basic aerodynamics simulation.

We still have no reentry heat. Angle of reentry, heat shields, etc. are an integral part in the design of reentry vehicles, just think of the space shuttle. KSP is missing this whole aspect, you just fall to the ground and that's it.

We still have a very limited amount of parts. At the moment, it is very difficult to recreate missions like Apollo or the Space Shuttle, because essential parts are lacking (very large fuel tanks, cargo bay, spaces shuttle engines, etc.). Just think about it, you can't play the two most important missions in NASAs history because we still don't have the parts for it. Of course, there are ways to design around that with the current parts, but it's still no substitution for dedicated parts.

When you send astronauts into space for months (or years) they need living space and resources (oxygen, water, food, etc.). This is one of the main real life difficulties in the design of manned interplanetary missions (because you have to carry a lot of stuff with you). In KSP, you can send a single Kerbal in a small pod on a year-long flight to Jool without worrying about life support. Of course, it's easier that way, but we're missing out on a very important aspect of manned space flight.

Now that resources are cancelled, we won't be able to mine other planets for fuel and do something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

As others have already said, not including other star systems is like excluding the ultimate frontier of space flight from the game.

So, KSP sandbox is far from complete, because it lacks a ton of features that are an integral part of space flight. Focusing development on career mode and multiplayer won't help to change that.

I don't think a realistic version of reentry heat is a good fit for the game. IRL the margins between life and death are pretty slim. But NASA and other space agencies have scientists and computer to easily calculate the precise angle. In KSP you have to eyeball it, which would probably mean certain death for every new player. Certain failure the first ten times would scare off too many players. Realistic looking heat shields would also unnecessarily complicate the game and drastically reduce the designs you can make. A simplified system where your parts will overheat if you come in at truly crazy angles (like falling straight down from 1000 km) would probably be a better compromise.

I think you're spot on about the life support thing. It would give career a more logical progression. A manned mission to the Mun would be possible with a reasonably small ship, but to go to something like Duna you'd need a craft that's big enough to support your crew.

[Albert VDS]

then you aren't looking hard enough

Here is one from 10 March 2012

Here is another from 9 July 2011 but in portugese

older ones where probably lost when the forums exploded, as you can see than even older threads mention than "it was asked a lot before" and note how back then was a "far away possibility"

Those post talk about how to add MP. The post I linked to has information on what Squad's thought was back then; not going to happen in the near future.

That's totally different from some people's recollection of it being "Too hard" and "Never gonna happen".

Apply your own comment to yourself

http://youtu.be/gB_XOb0h8hE?t=15m18s

I stand corrected.

Still the free DLC dillema was about resources and it being a free DLC for people buying before a certain date.

[rkman]

I don't think a realistic version of reentry heat is a good fit for the game.

Reentry heat would only need to be as realistic a the drag model and the crash damage model: not alt all realistic, yet adding something to the gameplay.

[haltux]

I don't think a realistic version of reentry heat is a good fit for the game. IRL the margins between life and death are pretty slim. But NASA and other space agencies have scientists and computer to easily calculate the precise angle. In KSP you have to eyeball it, which would probably mean certain death for every new player. Certain failure the first ten times would scare off too many players. Realistic looking heat shields would also unnecessarily complicate the game and drastically reduce the designs you can make. A simplified system where your parts will overheat if you come in at truly crazy angles (like falling straight down from 1000 km) would probably be a better compromise.

Most people who want reentry heat don't need something actually realistic. What we need is:

- Pressure > 0 and spaceship not (capsule or spaceship equipied with shield) = BOOM.

- Pressure > Y and Speed > f(Y) = BOOM.

- Pressure > Y and Speed > g(Y) and parachute open = dead parachute (that one should have been implemented from the beginning)

The consequence would be:

- Going back to Kerbin would imply to enter the atmosphere at a reasonable speed. Typically no more than low orbit speed.

- Aerobraking would not be for free anymore. It would require a shield (or a capsule) and a carefuly chosen perigee.

No need for complex models, no need to make the game insanely difficult.

[haltux]

Paying for each upgrade sucks, but it doesn't have to be a fortune and it does give existing customers the ability to vote with their feet. Squad chose not to, and the KSP community loved the "pay once, get upgrades-for-life" promise which is an incredible short-sighted one. And here we are with those free upgrades: they're focused on people who will give money to Squad. Not at those who've done that already. So expect more career/learning mode features, parts that will make gameplay easier, not more complex.

True aerodynamics: seems hard to model, and makes launching/landing harder. I won't expect it soon (if ever)

When you show KSP to someone that does not know it, you are more likely to get comments like:

"this stuff you are sending to space does not look like a rocket at all"

than

"cool, but what about mining, money and science?"

And, as a side note, true aerodynamics would be insanely difficult, but aerodynamics that vaguely looks OK would be enough and straightforward to implement. If they don't do it, it is most probably for gameplay issues.

[Eric S]

I don't think a realistic version of reentry heat is a good fit for the game.

Reentry heat would only need to be as realistic a the drag model and the crash damage model: not alt all realistic, yet adding something to the gameplay.

Actually, realistic reentry heat in the kerbin universe wouldn't be that bad, for one reason. Typical reentry speeds in KSP are about a third that of real world reentry speeds. The one time Harvester talked about it beyond "we may do it" he basically said that he wanted a system where you didn't need dedicated heatshields but reentry heat was still a consideration in how you design your craft and plan your missions, and this level of heat is actually not too far from such. I've landed craft using deadly reentry without heatshields, you just need to be careful to either come in very slowly or make sure you're leading with more heat-resistant parts and not come in stupidly fast (no direct aerobrake-to-landings at Jool transfer speed).

[boxman]

I don't think a realistic version of reentry heat is a good fit for the game. IRL the margins between life and death are pretty slim. But NASA and other space agencies have scientists and computer to easily calculate the precise angle. In KSP you have to eyeball it, which would probably mean certain death for every new player. Certain failure the first ten times would scare off too many players. Realistic looking heat shields would also unnecessarily complicate the game and drastically reduce the designs you can make. A simplified system where your parts will overheat if you come in at truly crazy angles (like falling straight down from 1000 km) would probably be a better compromise.

I think you're spot on about the life support thing. It would give career a more logical progression. A manned mission to the Mun would be possible with a reasonably small ship, but to go to something like Duna you'd need a craft that's big enough to support your crew.

And this is why we should be able to customize both career mode and sandbox mode to our own liking so that we can make it as realistic as we want. What is bad idea for you might be something that another person would love and vice versa.

[CaptRobau]

To all who replied to me, I think you might have misinterpreted my comment (or I didn't convey it well enough). I was just trying to say that it shouldn't be as hard as in real life, not that it shouldn't happen at all. It should be designed so that it should not be so hard that most designs will overheat if you ascend to fast in the atmosphere or that when you don't perfectly angle your craft you always blow up. That would just annoy a lot of people, especially newcomers. So it should be not too easy, nor too hard.

Dedicated heat shield parts I don't consider a good idea though. That adds a lot of complexity and radically reduces the designs you can build. NASA has the advantage that they can build custom heat shield for each type of mission but in KSP we'd only have a few that would have to work for everything. A system where bad reentries raise the temperature of your (weak) parts until they eventually blow up would probably be more intuitive.

[Alguien]

but in KSP we'd only have a few that would have to work for everything

unless we have a single heat shield part than can be procedual changed to fit the missions

[FlamedSteak]

I like the idea of reentry mechanics, but like others have mentioned they should be pretty forgiving. I'd say an entry angle of 45 degrees at 2000 m/s up to to 30 degrees at 7000 m/s would be sufficient to cover Kerbin, and then reduce or increase that dependant of atmospheric density. For example Eve would have a 20 degree angle at 7000 m/s down to 10 degrees for crazy speeds on the flip side Duna would be nearimpossible to burn up in.

[crazyewok]

I tend to agree with this. I think the issue of dropping the extensive resource system gets people wound up, but without a goal for it to contribute to, it's really just another grind-fest.

They still should of added it and interwined with other features to be added.

As long a minning wasnt forced on playersi dont see the issue? Shouldnt we get to choose what we do? Takeing resources away takes a choice away and forces a style of gameplay on those that wanted them.