re-entry heat concerns

[Capt Snuggler]

Disclaimer: I know re-entry heat/damage is on the WNTS list. I know there is re-entry heat mod. I'm not suggesting re-entry heat I wish to discuss and hear peoples concerns.

I have heard a few times that re-entry heat is not going to be in KSP. some people believe it would inhibit creativity in ship design.

you could argue that gravity inhibits creative ship design but we are given the option to turn that off. (F12 + hack gravity)

could we not have the same option for re-entry heat?

could we not also accept, that not all ships are capable of atmospheric re-entry, and some will require crew transfer craft?

So, re-entry heat/damage, yea or nay?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[crazyewok]

Yes.

Its a vital consideration for real craft design so why not in KSP.

I play with deadly re entry. Fact is its not that hard to adapt. As you said just make it something you can turn off for those wanting to play with fantasy craft.

[Dodgey]

Instead of starting this argument again with a different user, I'm just going to leave this link here, it's a closed thread about design decisions of the game however near the end me and the OP get into a discussion about Reentry heat, perhaps tomorrow I will comment again but for now I will leave this here.

[macegee]

Unfortunately, we're not suppose to talk about our concerns in this forum. And this thread will certainly get locked up.

[lajoswinkler]

It should be implemented. I've tried deadly reentry mod. It's really not hard, but it gives more spice to the game.

[Kasuha]

I firmly believe that regarding reentry damage, developers will implement whatever they believe is best for the game.

[Capt Snuggler]

Sorry people, I honestly wasn't trying to stir up an argument of any kind.

I guess I missed this thread when it was active.

I only thought it would add nicely to the ideas put forward in this thread

anyway, guess we'll just have to wait an see.

cheers

[crazyewok]

Unfortunately, we're not suppose to talk about our concerns in this forum. And this thread will certainly get locked up.

Yup squad is 100% right in all it does and we must all bow down to glory of those that want a easy simple game!

[PDCWolf]

Resources was "not fun", I don't see how reentry heat would be fun under the same eyes.

My opinion? It should be there, like permadeath, like structural failures (Not talking about struts and wobbling), like weaker "magic torque", like relays, like fairings, etc. Those are a vital part to spaceflight and are the shapers of our IRL space vehicles, rockets look like rockets because of those factors and some more (Yes, there's permadeath in real life as far as everyone knows). It would be crazy not to include them in a game related to space.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I'm definitely for it! We've been spoiled so far and have gotten way to used to playing without it.

Edit: However I'd rather it wasn't quite as harsh as RL due to the fact that I still want to make crazy contraptions.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Comrade Jenkens

[The Error]

I'm on the fence. While it adds some depth, and makes thing fun for some people, those who build great big (or small) ships that they slam into atmospheres at 5 km/s will almost certainly be disappoint.

Personally, not a fan, but I know some are.

[Majorjim!]

Hi Snuggler,

That's a brilliant idea about toggable reentry damage. Why NOT do it?

[marauder78]

Maybe re-entry heat should be implemented as an option.. like you start a career with or without heat and so on... gives the game different difficulty levels that way without fundamentally changing the game.

[nholzric]

I'm pretty sure "make it an option" is a lousy compromise - probably under the "common game experience" argument; if someone wants to link to where this has been hashed out before I would appreciate it. (Also, leaving it as a mod is awfully close to "make it an option", I know there are some drawbacks but it's awfully close)

I'm against reentry heat being added. Honestly, part of the reason is because I regularly rely on ridiculous aerobraking but I know this is a lousy reason to argue for or against a feature. A better reason to leave out re-entry heat is because crazy and creative ships are core to the spirit of KSP, and so is doing crazy orbital stunts. If you had to use heat shields you would curtail some of that zaniness. My guess is the zaniness is more fun than the increase in realism.

Of all the features I personally oppose, I think reentry heat has the best chance of being implemented. In a sense it would be a shame to leave the reentry flames as a visual effect only. They are fun as just visuals but it's always a bit of a letdown when you have to say "yeah, those flames are just for looks". Also, the need for heat shields will induce some creativity in their placement and use.

Speaking of heat shields, maybe they will be dynamic and flexible enough to be more of a tax on ships than strict design constraint. On one end of the spectrum if the biggest heat shield looks like a "Rockomax Brand Adapter" and anything that isn't absolutely covered is ripped off, then aerobraking ships will be constrained to cylinders and you'll have to stage the heat shield when you're ready to use engines again. (I know this is limited by my imagination, there might be convoluted workarounds). If, however, you had heat shields that could be deployed over rocket engines (or rocket engines themselves were robust to aerobraking) and little chinks in heat shield overlap didn't equal destruction then it would be much more doable.

Moral of the story is, reentry heat will constrain ships. If the constraint is really draconian then the realism is not worth the trouble (net loss of fun). I'm sure there's a balance where the constraint is worth worrying about (unlike the visual effects we currently have) but still allows for the full spectrum of Kerbalish designs. To be convinced I need to know about how heat shields work to protect from reentry heat.

[lajoswinkler]

I firmly believe that regarding reentry damage, developers will implement whatever they believe is best for the game.

No kidding, I thought they were planning to implement something they believe it would not be the best.

[lajoswinkler]

Few minutes ago I came towards Kerbin at >3200 m/s after looping around its system with 25 units of bipropellant. I was aerobraking at 50 km with my engine firs, monitoring its temperature (<350 °C) and after less than 10 orbits, managed to bring down the reentry speed to 2500 m/s, jetissoned the engine and exposed the shield. After the ablation, the shield was at around 40%.

It's not a problem if you know what you're doing, and it really doesn't take a lot of effort not to plunge into the atmosphere.

Aerobraking intercepts in outer space are possible without much fuss. I really see no problems with this. It's practically mandatory, and we're so spoiled with the lack of it.

[Capt Snuggler]

I was going to walk away from this thread, for fear of heated arguments (when all I want is heated re-entry ) but all the possibilities are just too exciting!

Aerobraking intercepts in outer space are possible without much fuss. I really see no problems with this. It's practically mandatory, and we're so spoiled with the lack of it.

yeah, part of my reason for this thread was because I feel like MY space planes and landers are unfinished. every time I re-enter the atmosphere in my SSTO, I feel like I'm cheating.

as for difficulty for new players, in career mode, you start with the MK1 command pod and it comes with a built in heat shield and is pretty much indestructible. just look at the thing.

there could be a warning alarm when your trajectory is intersecting with atmosphere. Velocity + Pe altitude = green/yellow/red alarms. a beeping alarm(with mute) would add allot of "drama" to your retro burns and re-entry sequences.

The tough-as-nails MK1 command pod and Stayputnic, would be the perfect tools to teach this to the player. then have a good variety of heat shields and make wings have tiles by default (or tweakable).

Small, medium, large inline disk shields.

1m x 2m and 2m x 2m square plate shields. (like the Structural Panel)

Small, Medium, Large half cylinder radial shields (for the outside of fuel tanks.)

As another possible compromise, the shields could be indestructible to heat. as long as your shield is pro-grade, you will be fine, no matter what speed you plunge into the atmosphere. I know this is not realistic, but its a forgiving compromise while keeping with the space challenge theme of the game.

I do not feel re-entry heat is any more of a design constraint than gravity and finite fuel. however, like gravity and finite fuel, you should be able to alt+F12 and turn it off if you like.

*edit:

Moral of the story is, reentry heat will constrain ships. If the constraint is really draconian then the realism is not worth the trouble (net loss of fun). I'm sure there's a balance where the constraint is worth worrying about (unlike the visual effects we currently have) but still allows for the full spectrum of Kerbalish designs. To be convinced I need to know about how heat shields work to protect from reentry heat.

I agree. Thank you for being constructive.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[coolitic]

So you are in fact suggesting re-entry heat.

Anyways, THERE IS A WAY TO HAX GRAVITYZ?!??!?!

[Deathsoul097]

-Snip-

It's not a problem if you know what you're doing, and it really doesn't take a lot of effort not to plunge into the atmosphere.

-Snip-

Problem: Many, and most, players don't know what they are doing.

Most of the people who play the game aren't on the forum, and are not experienced enough to grasp many "core" concepts of the game. I am a bit frisky around Re-Entry heating myself, and it all depends on how it is done. I think it shouldn't be "Deadly Re-Entry" as such, and would be more suitable as "Damaging Re-Entry". Parts and your craft oculd still be damaged, even destroyed, but it would be less severe than what we have to deal with IRL. I think this would be better for the game.

I am all for more realism, but we need to draw the line between a "Simulator" and a "Game" at some point, and I think this is one pint where a compromise has to be made. For instance: A Mk-1 command pod would only be able to reenter from LKO-MKO, and possibly up to, or near, the mun safely, any higher and it would require multiple passes to bleed off the speed in order to reenter safely, or a heavier heatshield on the bottom of the pod. (That would be a seperate part.) The Mk1-2 pod would be able to safely reenter from Mun and minmus and interplanetary velocities would be the same as above. The lander cans would have to reenter at much lower speeds due to not having the required heatshielding, or stay in the upper atmo for longer in order to blled off enough speed to be safe. The way I see it, this would give more of an inclination to use the larger and hevier pods over the Mk-1 lander can (The lightest pod per kerbal in the game), as it would quickly lose out during reentry to other parts.

I also think (And this is more of a personal preferance.) Re-entry should only begin to damage things as the mach or heating efects appear, so even reentering at interplanetary velocities in thin atmo (Such as duna) should be survivable for all but the puniest of parts. I think people could get very confused as to why stuff is blowing up from re-enter heat, even though there isnt any flames.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Deathsoul097

[Jouni]

I think that some people may be underestimating what the average beginner understands. If you are interested in playing a game like KSP, you most likely have some interest in real-world spaceflight as well. You probably already know that atmospheric re-entry is a dangerous thing and that you should come in with the blunt end forward, using a heat shield. You are also likely to have seen what happened to the Columbia because of some minor damage. So when you start playing KSP, you tend to assume that returning safely from orbit is going to be almost as hard as reaching the orbit in the first place.

At least that was what I did. I was very careful with re-entry angles and pod orientation during my early missions. It took a while to realize that nothing ever happened, no matter how impressive flames I got or how ridiculous g-forces the pod had to endure. That was a bit disappointing, but I understood that such things should be expected when playing an unfinished game.

Perhaps realistic re-entry would be more problematic to the people on this forum than to the beginners. New players kind of expect that re-entry should be hard, while experienced players have already learned to use and abuse the current situation, which can be hard to unlearn.

Besides, realistic re-entry does not prevent some very Kerbal-like outcomes.

[crazyewok]

I'm pretty sure "make it an option" is a lousy compromise

Tell that to the makers of the Civ franchise

The common game experience is just BS nonsence to me. If the Devs wanted that then why make KSP so easlt moddble

[Rowsdower]

Yup squad is 100% right in all it does and we must all bow down to glory of those that want a easy simple game!

Guys, that thread remained open through many heated moments. That's in addition to all of the other suggestion discussions that remain active throughout the forum. Discussion is encouraged, but attitude is not. The same remains here.

[Stargate525]

I think that before re-entry heat is added, there needs to be some sort of in-game mechanism to gauge how the hell we're going in. Right now, it's complete guesswork, and adding a re-entry corridor is going to need a visual representation.

[Capt Snuggler]

So you are in fact suggesting re-entry heat.

No. it has been suggested before. I am merely bringing it back to the table for some mature, considerate and friendly debate.

Anyways, THERE IS A WAY TO HAX GRAVITYZ?!??!?!

yes.

I would like to keep this debate going because I think a compromise can be made. both camps have genuine concerns on this topic, and the outcome is going to effect how we all have fun in this game.

I and many like me enjoy the challenge of learning, planning, designing, problem solving. many, if not all, of my creations are going to be broken if this feature makes it in. But I do not see this as a bad thing, but instead a great opportunity to build ever more intricate craft.

and regarding the learning curve for new players, don't underestimate newbies. the concept of atmospheric friction is not beyond anyone. Its another concept that this game can teach people effectively. another opportunity to learn.

I think that before re-entry heat is added, there needs to be some sort of in-game mechanism to gauge how the hell we're going in. Right now, it's complete guesswork, and adding a re-entry corridor is going to need a visual representation.

what about an audio indicator? like a warning alarm that sounds when your Pe. goes in to the atmosphere? and colored warning light. green, yellow, and red depending of the altitude you are going to intersect with. maybe a G prediction of some kind?

[Anton P. Nym]

what about an audio indicator? like a warning alarm that sounds when your Pe. goes in to the atmosphere? and colored warning light. green, yellow, and red depending of the altitude you are going to intersect with. maybe a G prediction of some kind?

G-prediction would be great, but I think we'd need a more advanced maneuver node system to calculate that... I'm all for it if Squad can get one to include drag, as it'd certainly make it easier for me to make that [CENSORED] precision landing on words with atmosphere that I currently can't make. (grumble)

-- Steve