The Main Problem With Kerbal Space Program Is....

[Bothersome]

my complain about this game is that I now feel... Irritated(?) every time I watch a space movie and they thrust towards the planet in order to decend

Oh it gets much worse than that. At least with *most* space movies, you know it's fiction. But go watch some of the real stuff like "Moon Shot". Some of those things need explaining. Like when they say they're 1000 feet above the Moon's surface yet you can see a lot of curvature to the surface. Fish eye lens maybe? To get a proper perspective of what it should look like, put on the mod "Real Solar System" into your KSP and play that, going to the moon. You're almost on the ground at 1000 METERS let alone 1000 feet. Yet in the "movie" you can clearly see the curvature of the moon.

KSP makes a space critic of you. Same with Orbiter.

[Rowsdower]

Same here I have bought a bunch of other games during the Steam Summer Sale, and this is the only one I ever play. Every time I now see a game I already bought but have never started to be cheaper now than at the time I bought it, I get mad at KSP for stealing my money

I think of the "First World Problems" meme every time I look at my Steam and physical library. Too many games, too little time. KSP is quite the worthy investment, though. It appreciates as days go bay.

[xmaslightguy]

I think my favorite thing about KSP is the fact that it is definitely an unfinished game, but still more fun and addicting than any other game I've played. I recently spent 16 hours landing a permanent Mun base. It crashed and became REALLY permanent, so I launched a rescue craft. He crashed 100 meters from the first ship, so I launched another one. This one crashed and killed the pilot (RIP Leonard Kerman), so I finally launched my last and best rescue craft. It landed on a hill, got the two stranded kerbals, and made a return orbit to Kerbin with 5 Liquid fuel left.

The point of that story isn't that I'm a bad pilot (which I am), but the fact that I spent 16 hours failing over and over again, and still enjoyed every second of it. Point out another game were success is only barely more enjoyable than failing.

[Skyler4856]

KSP is that game you spent days looking for online.

[Pontiac]

I didn't play KSP from about v0.20 to 0.23 when I really started to dig into it again. It wasn't because I was bored with it, it was because I caught interest in other games, and it wasn't because they were more interesting, it was because I knew KSP would drown out my trying to actually PLAY those other games. 0.23 by far has been my favorite release, even though I haven't touched career mode, and probably never will. I've noticed significant performance increases (Without changing my hardware) and I've enjoyed the advancements in Kethane and some of the jaw dropping mods that made me with they were there back in 0.19 when I started.

The main problem I have with KSP is that I don't have enough time to play it.

[Dingbat1967]

Same problem -- this game is too damn addictive. Consider this, I'm an amateur Astronomer and amateur Rocketry geek. I build rockets for fun (real ones) and have spent several thousands of dollars on High Power Rocketry stuff (probably enough to buy a small house), and I'm a serious space geek, and someone finally pumps out a game to feed into my addiction. That's deadly. I play probably 1 or 2 hours a day every day. Started playing in July, now I'm tackling "manley mode" level stuff and doing it successfully. So yeah, consider that the most serious problem. I did have a head start though when I came accross KSP. I had played Orbiter before and am also very familiar with orbital mechanics. This being said, KSP does a super job and making using orbital mechanics at an instinctive level awesome. There's going to be a generation of kids who would be able to fly real-world spacecraft with ease to a level never seen.

- Dingbat1967

[Captain Sierra]

Same problem -- this game is too damn addictive. Consider this, I'm an amateur Astronomer and amateur Rocketry geek. I build rockets for fun (real ones) and have spent several thousands of dollars on High Power Rocketry stuff (probably enough to buy a small house), and I'm a serious space geek, and someone finally pumps out a game to feed into my addiction. That's deadly. I play probably 1 or 2 hours a day every day. Started playing in July, now I'm tackling "manley mode" level stuff and doing it successfully. So yeah, consider that the most serious problem. I did have a head start though when I came accross KSP. I had played Orbiter before and am also very familiar with orbital mechanics. This being said, KSP does a super job and making using orbital mechanics at an instinctive level awesome. There's going to be a generation of kids who would be able to fly real-world spacecraft with ease to a level never seen.

- Dingbat1967

Said to the guy studying game design. Modding KSP really cemented that choice for me, with a secondary in aerospace so yeah. Dream Job: SpaceX

I've had the game since July (round my birthday) and have logged hundreds of hours. What's worse, for every hour logged, I have at least two posts on the forums. Yeah, I lurk here way too much. Been here since .20.2 and loving it. Stockalike mods, while you hardly notice them as out of place, do SO much to improve the game. Now I started a new save (since I don't like to run the game clock on my main save) specifically to tackle the biggest challenges I've ever done. Run the Grand Tour. I want that tour shield on my ribbons! I'll be looking to see the performance improvements which .23 supposedly brought, as well as chronicling the entire thing in Mission Reports.

[NeoMorph]

Glad you're back and still enjoying yourself, NeoMorph. Was a bit worried at the thread title until I came in here. Trickster.

But yeah, I agree 100%. I'm on a hiatus myself; haven't played in several months, but it's got that special vibe to it that keeps me coming back every once in a while, because you just can't stay away from space for too long.

Heh... Gotcha! I tend to hibernate when the weather gets bad... but now I've got (semi) used to it I'm coming out of my cave again.

I had to pack in playing because I was getting serious butt cramp from sitting too long lol. Darned Jeb rescue missions (I've just left Jeb in another out-of-fuel situation in a test lander just above the surface of the Mun AGAIN!). I try something out and instead of just reverting back to a save game I HAVE to go out and do a rescue mission. I love the old Apollo 13 vibe that "dead-is-dead" plays give you... but they do give you a few "EEEEEK!" instances. Only saved Jeb this time because I used the RCS to push him into an orbit after the ascent went pear shaped and I lost the main tank and engine after colliding with the drop tank. Jeb always springs for the top class Rescue-Me-Tron radio package thank god.

[NeoMorph]

Nice that you mention it. Freespace 2 is one of my favorite games. The Source Code Project Version is amazing and still maintained.

Anyway, KSP counts for me as one of the best games ever made which is to a large extend because of the exceptional modding community. And i also like how this game is educational without really being set out to be.

Just have a look in the history of Freespace. Look for John Hanton.... That's me. Been knocking around the space gaming modding community for a few years heh (although my brain is truly fried these days).

The encryption on the game files was pretty simple... 8 bytes of data was just compressed into 7 bytes by only using 7 bits in each byte. So that the second byte of info started in bit 8 of the first byte and then the first 6 bits of byte 2 and so on until byte 7 when it made 8 bytes of data. Once the data was unpacked the game files were simple to mess with. I just loved expanding on the basic game even though FRED (the in game editor) made mission creation a breeze.

Still think they should have made Freespace 3... and 4 and 5 and 6...

[Jobin]

I've got to agree. I'd go as far to say as this is one of my favorite games of all time. I knew I wanted to get into the Aerospace engineering field before I even started applying for college. I found it when I finished my freshman year (2011). Now when classes get tough all I need as a little KSP to remind me why I'm doing this. It's also a really intuitive way to understand maneuvering in space; much more helpful than trying to decipher the professor's vector diagrams in Astrodynamics and has been super helpful when reading up on the math behind all of the maneuvers since I already understand how they work on a conceptual level. I've actually been surprised to see that when my Astro professor asks a question, I know the answer because I played KSP!

It's amazing to see how far it's come from when it was just Kerbin and the Mun. There's really nothing else like it out there.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Jobin

[lammatt]

the game is getting easier every patch...which is kind of sad tho,

[Ralathon]

the game is getting easier every patch...which is kind of sad tho,

you're just getting better.

[NeoMorph]

the game is getting easier every patch...which is kind of sad tho,

Just think about what you have learned... it is that which is making it easier, not the patches.

[air805ronin]

But yeah, I agree 100%. I'm on a hiatus myself; haven't played in several months, but it's got that special vibe to it that keeps me coming back every once in a while, because you just can't stay away from space for too long.

I just started up again after a break. I hadn't played since .19 really. An hour here or there after a release, but nothing serious. Saw the science tree in .22 but then didn't pick it up again.

Until last week.

Now, I'm no Scott Manley, so I'm pretty happy to say that the science tree reinvigorated my KSP time. I had gotten to the point where I had very safe ways of doing things. The same launch vehicle would get a payload almost anywhere in the system. Now I don't have the heavy stuff to help me lift stuff around the system. Going back to skinny and weak parts really puts a hurt on you, when you launch your first launch and its a challenge again just to hit orbit.

but then you do science and begin strategically unlocking parts to get you to the Mun. Then Minmus. Then get science. Then land for maximum science.

Needless to say, I'm still as impressed with KSP as I was when I first bought it. Just for different reasons now than then. I can't wait for money, rep, contracts, et al.

[IvanTehFennec]

Squad killed all my hopes with this game once they canned resources. I used to whole-heartedly recommend this game to my friends, but now it's just "Meh, they're just catering to billy now. They don't care about long-time players."

[Rusty6899]

I think that the game has several key challenges to meet but, if it does, it could be the best game of all time.

Firstly, the complexity of the game. This game has taught me so much about orbital mechanics and rocket design. It lead me to learning about the motion of variable mass systems, orbital energy and the less-is-more elegance of Tsiolkovsky. I love the game, and I love that it is difficult, but that in itself poses a huge problem. Squad need to produce a final release that is accessible to newcomers, and therefore will require a career mode that allows a new player to rattle off a large number of sub-orbital flights while picking up the nuances of rocket design, staging and flight.

At the same time, all of the feedback they are getting, or the vast majority of it, is from this forum, from dedicated players who are now demanding new challenges and a harder difficulty. Squad have an incredibly difficult balancing act to satisfy both new coming and existing players. Suppose you manage to reach tier 3/4 of the technology tree. A newcomer would have struggled their way there with countless flights, yet an experienced player could be there in a handful. Players will have to work within a budget, but it seems to me that any budget that enables an inexperienced player to reach the Mun would be enough to let a battle hardened Kerbanaut get to Eeloo and back twice. Obviously there could be difficulty settings, but that goes against the idea of everyone "having the same experiences"; a view that I respect Squad for having.

Secondly, resources. It isn't that the game needs resources to be great, it's already great. The problem is that the game is still in development and I have been everywhere I want to go and done everything I want to do (with the exception of a return trip to Eve and a Tylo landing). Resources seemed, to me, to be the natural progression in the development of the game. I really looked forward to mining for rare alloys in the far corners of the solar system and bringing large quantities back to Kerbin for riches and glory (...and science). I looked forward to having a base on Duna where I could drill for improvised propellants and chuck together a makeshift rocket out of the assortment of parts that I had landed there. I looked forward to whisking a sample of Blutonium-239, that I had clawed from the guts of Pol's deepest canyon, back to Kerbin and being rewarded with a shiny new RTG for my troubles. It seems like these may not be implemented, which would be tragic, although I sympathise with Squad because it is difficult to see their incentive for making such a huge development, when most of the people asking for it have already paid for the game.

The third problem, is that I payed £12 on a Steam sale for one of my favourite games of recent years, yet I expect so much more from the game, because of how much potential it has. I am not satisfied with one of the best bargains I have ever received.

[kBob]

As a noob I must say I enjoy the challenge, it was actually pretty easy to sub-orbital flights, I'm having a bit of a problem doing a complete orbit (I keep getting about 3/4 around the planet) but I have hopes for my new rocket design which gives me a lot more fuel and thrust and should do an orbit easy...once I figure out the control problem and the occasional engine breaking off (I'm trying to get struts to work, but I'm having a terrible time getting them to attach 19 out of 20 times they won't do the second attachment)...but I'm having so much fun with all this there is no rush the Mun will wait...and there is always sandbox if I get impatient. I'll figure it out I'm sure. I'm spending way way way too much time in KSP! Which is very much the main problem.

[Rusty6899]

kBob

Don't worry too much about thrust. It is rarely important. As long as your thrust/weight ratio is above 1.7 you have enough thrust to reach orbit (after that thrust is almost irrelevant... almost). It is fuel efficiency that is the main concern. That is normally gauged by the Isp of the engine you use. Mainsails have a lot of thrust but terrible fuel efficiency and they are heavy. Try a lighter rocket using a more efficient engine, such as an aerospike for the first stage (you may need 3/4 of them depending on the mass of your rocket, but it could be done with one).

Mass and Isp are the two main things you need to keep an eye on.

[kBob]

Well I made it, total rocket redesign, but ran out of fuel just as I achieved it so put on a bigger tank and now I'm in orbit with more than 1/2 tank of fuel yeah! I may never leave this program going to space like this was a dream now I feel like I made it...but this program is going to take my life away and good-bye Civ and Sins this is "real life". No doubt this is "problem" program.

In career mode so I don't have much choice of engine yet, just three liquid fueled ones, but I used the small one in the final stage with a t200 tank to complete the orbit and that worked great. Now I really need to go and figure out all the Navball extras (the basics are easy as I was a long time FlightSim user). Considering this program is in Alpha there is a lot to do and learn. Think I need a joystick (my old one isn't even USB)...or maybe a 3d mouse...this program might become a money sink too.

[NeoMorph]

Getting that first rocket to have enough thrust to weight ratio ends up with new players adding more fuel tanks because they are thinking they are just running out of fuel (I know I did). Sometimes doing the opposite of what you THINK you need to do works wonders in this game.

Hey, it's not rocket science... oh... hold on... it is! lol.

Trick to getting your first orbit is to reduce the weight of your orbit vehicle. (I've also found that a 3:2:1 with fuel tank sizes (stages) for my Mun rockets works every time).

But your first orbit means getting rid of as much weight as possible (and yeah this means sometimes having less fuel in your rocket gives you more fuel to get you to orbit - sounds completely wrong but believe me, it works as the rocket doesn't have to push all that heavy fuel to orbit) and sure enough just copy something like the Gemini rocket and not a fat Saturn V and you will orbit no problemo.

The big problems I find is having enough fuel to push a manned ship interplanetary with enough to return (and yeah, I am STILL a noob where interplanetary single rockets are concerned as I don't like making silly ADDMOARBOOSTERS rocket designs - I like mine to look real).

kBob... you will have great fun with this now you are in orbit... and what you don't realise is that you are learning about REAL space science too. I can't praise this game/sim enough. My only criticism is the fact that the space stations I build end up going boom after I add too much stuff and turn it into 1 frame per fortnight update rates lol.

[Rusty6899]

NeoMorph

I think the whole "Moar Boosters" idea is far overplayed. To perform a return trip to another planet, you need to look at a delta-V map and think "how light can I make my return stage to satisfy the Delta-V requirements?" Next, look at the planet you are going to and think "what is the lightest I can make my landing/ascent stage to lift my final stage up from the target planet? Can I aerobrake to save weight? How much thrust do I need for this planet to ascend for a TWR of 1.7-2?" Then do the same for the interplanetary transfer and finally for the ascent from KSC.

If you build a rocket without taking these things into consideration, you are almost certain to run out of fuel by the time you get to your target. By then, adding moar boosters is unlikely to do you much good. I made a return trip to Duna, without refuelling, with 89 parts, 45 of which were used just to get to LKO.

[Commissar]

it is awesome. fully worth the $15 i payed for it. the community is probably the best i've encountered for any game, likely due to the very nature of the game, it attracts intelligent and mature people.

the .23 update helped my performance immensely, but I still get severe lag around space stations with 3 or more docked craft. needz more optimizing.... eventually, multicore physics... and some way of using more ram would help too. i mean, i have 8 gigs of ram, 3 gigs of vram, and 8 full cpu cores that kerbal fails to take full advantage of. (to be fair, few games use more than 2 cores anyways).

[Whackjob]

NeoMorph

I think the whole "Moar Boosters" idea is far overplayed. To perform a return trip to another planet, you need to look at a delta-V map and think "how light can I make my return stage to satisfy the Delta-V requirements?" Next, look at the planet you are going to and think "what is the lightest I can make my landing/ascent stage to lift my final stage up from the target planet? Can I aerobrake to save weight? How much thrust do I need for this planet to ascend for a TWR of 1.7-2?" Then do the same for the interplanetary transfer and finally for the ascent from KSC.

If you build a rocket without taking these things into consideration, you are almost certain to run out of fuel by the time you get to your target. By then, adding moar boosters is unlikely to do you much good. I made a return trip to Duna, without refuelling, with 89 parts, 45 of which were used just to get to LKO.

Do as this guy says, not as I do. This is the path to success.

[NeoMorph]

NeoMorph

I think the whole "Moar Boosters" idea is far overplayed. To perform a return trip to another planet, you need to look at a delta-V map and think "how light can I make my return stage to satisfy the Delta-V requirements?" Next, look at the planet you are going to and think "what is the lightest I can make my landing/ascent stage to lift my final stage up from the target planet? Can I aerobrake to save weight? How much thrust do I need for this planet to ascend for a TWR of 1.7-2?" Then do the same for the interplanetary transfer and finally for the ascent from KSC.

If you build a rocket without taking these things into consideration, you are almost certain to run out of fuel by the time you get to your target. By then, adding moar boosters is unlikely to do you much good. I made a return trip to Duna, without refuelling, with 89 parts, 45 of which were used just to get to LKO.

You obviously misread what I put... I was 100% saying that "moar boosters" wasn't the way to go. I use aerobraking all the time. I try to pare my rockets down as much as possible.

Oh and the things you need to look at below orbit is thrust-to-weight ratios while once you are outside orbit you need to look at delta-V. Noobies can look at an engine with a crappy thrust to weight and dismiss it too easiliy where in actual fact it can rock in orbit (just look at the nuclear rocket for example). It can be crap for lifting to orbit but once out of the gravity well it kicks ass... It's even good for Mun ops. I use that engine on all my Mun tugs because I never run out of fuel lol.

Edited January 31, 2014 by NeoMorph

[ArmchairGravy]

I am utterly convinced that the technological singularity is going to come about because the modding community in KSP decides to build an AI for Jebediah.

Seriously, the modding community for this game is a secret cult of computer wizards or something.

I would be more afraid of a Jeb AI than Skynet. "I'm gonna launch everything at once because it would look totally cool!"