What direction do you want KSP to take.

[Jouni]

Let's add prices to the statistics, as they'll become relevant at some point. I'm ignoring the cost of attaching the engines in an engine cluster for now, but including the fuel lines.

• With a Mainsail and 4 Mark 55 engines, we get initial TWR 1.28 and 2270 m/s of vacuum delta-v. Total cost: 6250.
  
• With a Mainsail and 2 LV-T30 engines (attached to empty FL-T200 fuel tanks, as the engines wouldn't attach to FL-T100s), we get 2362 m/s of delta-v with TWR 1.24. Total cost: 5850.
  
• With a cluster of 6 LV-T30 engines and 3 LV-T45 engines, we get 2492 m/s of delta-v with TWR 1.20. Total cost: 11850.
  
• With 6 LV-T30 engines and 4 LV-T45 engines, we get 2459 m/s with TWR 1.31. Total cost: 12800.
  
• With a cluster of 10 LV-T45 engines, we get 2427 m/s with TWR 1.24. Total cost: 13700.
  

Engine clusters don't seem that competitive anymore, but replacing Mark 55s with LV-T30s might be, depending on how much attaching the engines radially costs.

[Joonatan1998]

We can't really say much about how money affects the usefulness of large engines, if it is hard to get then large engines will be very usefull, if it is almost worthless by the time you unlock mainsail then the clusters are better.

And because Squad seems to like not limiting players it will probably be super-easy to get (or they could do something suprising and make it almost impossible to get)

Actually in my first post I asked for career mode balancing, if implemented right money can be something that balances those parts.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[Jouni]

Can't really say much about how money affects the usefulness of large engines, if it is hard to get then large engines will be very usefull, if it is almost worthless by the time you unlock mainsail then the clusters are better.

If money is hard to get, then we'll start concentrating on cost effectiveness instead of fuel efficiency. On the other hand, if money is easy to get, then we don't have to care about fuel efficiency during the launch, as we can easily add more fuel and engines. In that case, fuel efficiency is important only for the stages that go beyond LKO.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I'm hoping that a lot of parts will be re balanced due to the tech tree and money for career mode. At the moment they are all made for sandbox and so have to be equal against each other.

[Joonatan1998]

I never realized how well the costs balance the basic small/large engines, but some of the special engines may need some changes.

R.A.P.I.E.R costs 5900 and is only good for making small spaceplanes, anything carrying any payload should use turbojets + some other engine(Aerospike, Lv -909 or even 48-7S9)

LV-N costs 1700, is a nucleral reactor and possibly the most usefull engine in the game.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Joonatan1998

[CaptainKipard]

Why is the poll gone?

[Comrade Jenkens]

Why is the poll gone?

I worded it very badly so it didn't convey the things the way I wanted it to. Probably better its gone.

[Jouni]

RAPIERs are basically good for two things: as training engines when learning to build SSTOs, and in big SSTOs, where the limiting factor is the number of places you can put engines in.

The part costs in the wiki are wrong. The real price of a nuclear engine is 8700, for example.

[LaydeeDem]

Aside from deadly re-entry and better aerodynamics, I'd like Squad to finish the stuff that they started and then abandoned. Most of the space plane parts are still identical to when they only a mod to the game. Terrain scatters need work too. Different shapes, colours, more variation; collide-able.

[KASASpace]

- Procedural is a prerequisite for randomness. You can't have random manually generated content.

- SQUAD *themselves* use the term "procedural" when describing what they don't want to do, which is their OWN misnowmer because a lot of their current unchanging constant fixed content is procedurally made already.

Procedural means something completely different than randomness, as procedural's literal meaning is that it follows a procedure. That procedure is simply, and you said that you wanted it procedural, and I keep disliking it when people don't understand things like that.

However I don't disagree, I'm just saying that procedural isn't random.

[Jouni]

The term "procedural" is widely misused in KSP and elsewhere.

Technically all content is procedural - the procedure just often happens to compute a constant function. Using "procedural" in this sense would make the term pointless, so at least we have to assume that we can generate different content under different circumstances.

I would also rule out simple scaling. "Procedural" means algorithmically generated, but if the properties of the content depend on some variables according to a simple set of equations, the process doesn't feel that algorithmic. The process doesn't really generate anything, as the outcome is immediately obvious from the input. Besides, stock fuel tanks would otherwise be procedural, as their launch mass depends on the amount of fuel you put in them.

That's pretty much the definition. Procedural content is something algorithmically generated whose properties can't be specified with a simple set of equations.

[Dunbaratu]

Procedural means something completely different than randomness, as procedural's literal meaning is that it follows a procedure. That procedure is simply, and you said that you wanted it procedural, and I keep disliking it when people don't understand things like that.

However I don't disagree, I'm just saying that procedural isn't random.

Let me try explaining it *again*. It's very simple.

(A) Randomized content is a subset of Procedural content. Manually generated content cannot be random.

( SQUAD has said they don't want to do procedural content.

© I want randomized content.

(D) Because of (A), the reason I can't get © is because of (.

There's no need to condescendingly pretend you're "correcting" me when nothing you're saying actually contradicts what I was talking about. I want randomness, which although not synonymous with procedural content, in a Venn diagram it is entirely contained INSIDE the circle for procedural content, so no procedural content also means no random content, thus why I wish squad would change their minds about that.

If they allowed procedural generation, then even if they don't use it to make random content, it would open up the ability for a modder to make random content on top of it. The reason they can't at the moment is because the planets are hardcoded. There's no procedure to even modify in the first place.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Steven Mading

[CaptainKipard]

Here's what I want:

In terms of art assets, I want them to be more realistic. I'd like Squad to implement a specular map shader at least, giving mod makers something more substantial to work with. My reasoning is that there's just no need for a cartoony art style, unless that art style is the selling point, which it obviously isn't. I've noticed some indie games where they attract gamers with that particular thing, and there's no need for it here.

In terms of gameplay, I want more mechanics, because I want more depth. Mod authors have done a great job though so it's not that urgent.

One thing I'd like to see eventually is a clear goal, it doesn't have to be a complex goal, afterall I'd like to build my own story with KSP, but I want something to work towards. Colonisation of other planets or moving your civilisation to another star system altogether seem relevant. Remember humans don't have space programs just for exploration. The ultimate goal is to escape our dying sun, and spreading the human race across multiple planets and multiple stars is the surest way of ensuring long term survival of our species.

[Thomas988]

I'm on the side of realism. Not visually (clouds, city lights, etc.), but physics-wise I want the best experience possible. Like better aerodynamics, for example. Squad, make it happen.

[KASASpace]

Let me try explaining it *again*. It's very simple.

(A) Randomized content is a subset of Procedural content. Manually generated content cannot be random.

( SQUAD has said they don't want to do procedural content.

© I want randomized content.

(D) Because of (A), the reason I can't get © is because of (.

There's no need to condescendingly pretend you're "correcting" me when nothing you're saying actually contradicts what I was talking about. I want randomness, which although not synonymous with procedural content, in a Venn diagram it is entirely contained INSIDE the circle for procedural content, so no procedural content also means no random content, thus why I wish squad would change their minds about that.

If they allowed procedural generation, then even if they don't use it to make random content, it would open up the ability for a modder to make random content on top of it. The reason they can't at the moment is because the planets are hardcoded. There's no procedure to even modify in the first place.

I'm not correcting.

All I'm saying is that Procedural doesn't mean random, even though I know you mean random.

Random can't be a subset of procedural content because of a couple of simple things.

1.) Proc-gen content is actually pseudo-random and if not controlled will eventually repeat numbers and the like

2.) You can actually take a coordinate, in fact multiple coordinates and use those to create a seed for which a procedural program can integrate them

Now, procedural is commonly mistaken for random by many, as well as Glass Cockpit.

[Dunbaratu]

I'm not correcting.

All I'm saying is that Procedural doesn't mean random, even though I know you mean random.

Random can't be a subset of procedural content because of a couple of simple things.

1.) Proc-gen content is actually pseudo-random and if not controlled will eventually repeat numbers and the like

2.) You can actually take a coordinate, in fact multiple coordinates and use those to create a seed for which a procedural program can integrate them

Oh for crying out loud. It's obvious from the context of "we're talking about a computer game" that when someone says "random content" that this means "content as random as it is possible to be in a computer program", making the foibles of computerized pseudorandom number generators off limits to the conversation. The pedantry you're resorting to would disqualify *any* PC game from having something you could call random content, since having to resort to a pseudorandom number generator instead of "real" randomness is going to be a feature of any program you run on a PC.

As long as we're talking about something that could actually be implemented on the PC, which we are, then random content is a subset of procedural content, because "random content" in that context means "as close to random as you can achieve on a von nuemann machine", and when you use those random numbers in an algorithm to generate content, that's content being generated procedurally.

Now stop detracting from the discussion with this. *as the word 'random' is actually used in computer software in practical terms*, squad's refusal to support having procedural planets is what is preventing having randomly placed planets either, which is why i mentioned that as a thing I'd like to change in KSP's direction - which is what the thread is about.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Steven Mading

[AlamoVampire]

I think it should look realistic AND not realistic, and as far as complexity? I think there should be the ability to go as complex as a PLAYER wants it to be or to be as docile as they want. NOW, let me explain the first part hehe.

I think it should look as realistic as possible WHEN and ONLY when: Real World Organizations such as NASA <A.R.M.> are giving SQUAD permission to use the likeness of their tech, which is how I think it SHOULD be, but, it should also NOT be realistic when we are using parts that are NOT based <appearance sake at least> on NASA or ESA or JAXA for example.

[CaptainKipard]

... pseudorandom ...

I'm still waiting for uranium powered random number generators. Scientists get on that!

[lockpicker]

NOT the direction of my rockets!!

[KASASpace]

Oh for crying out loud. It's obvious from the context of "we're talking about a computer game" that when someone says "random content" that this means "content as random as it is possible to be in a computer program", making the foibles of computerized pseudorandom number generators off limits to the conversation. The pedantry you're resorting to would disqualify *any* PC game from having something you could call random content, since having to resort to a pseudorandom number generator instead of "real" randomness is going to be a feature of any program you run on a PC.

As long as we're talking about something that could actually be implemented on the PC, which we are, then random content is a subset of procedural content, because "random content" in that context means "as close to random as you can achieve on a von nuemann machine", and when you use those random numbers in an algorithm to generate content, that's content being generated procedurally.

Now stop detracting from the discussion with this. *as the word 'random' is actually used in computer software in practical terms*, squad's refusal to support having procedural planets is what is preventing having randomly placed planets either, which is why i mentioned that as a thing I'd like to change in KSP's direction - which is what the thread is about.

Pseudo-random does not equal random.

For Kerbol's sake just realize that. You actually CAN get random numbers on a machine easily, and 'random' is not a subset of procedural content, rather procedural being a subset of random.

And they are making asteroids procedural last I heard.....

[Kegereneku]

I will answer around the trend shown here.

Realism, yes but never too much.

If you want actual physic you don't play KSP, you play Orbiter. Ah it doesn't allow you to design expensive firewo...rockets and have fun you say ? Well that's why it's realist. If you had fun you would be doing rocket-science wrong.

So my point is that KSP shouldn't go in term of realism but of feature, emulation. Have the rocket part look as realist as the modular design allow it, but keep the physics and gameplay on the fun side. Challenge is good, but needless difficulty is bad. I want a Mechjeb Dv calculator as a stock item (even if to be unlocked), I even want autopilot (be it by training a Kerbun or through electronic) because regardless of what think a few Hardcore moron, automation is part of Space Exploration and when I want to land somewhere (for the 20th time), I want to land on that somewhere to the millimeter.

About pseudo-random Procedural Generation

Won't continue the discussion up there about what is random because it's not the point.

The GREAT interest about pseudo-random procedural generation is the ability to create environment that don't look to have been made by human hand. And this create huge scenery cheaply.

Saw what word I used ? Scenery, because it's not important. What Games Developers should be working on is what the player can actually do on a planet and what challenge he will face. That's good Design. Bad design would be to generate planets RANDOMLY and then wonder why players are frustrated to have to play HOURS before finding out their Solar System have "****ty boring planet" unlike that other guy who fell on Pandora, then a dark gravity hell and a white paradise on his first try.

Don't get it wrong, Minecraft is OUTSTANDING with random Seed because the game is about a static-value (player) exploiting an unknown but forgiving adjustable-environment. But KSP is about a ever evolving-value (player's rocket) built to survive a unknown AND unforgiving static-environment.

But worse the community really wouldn't be able to relate with each others because whatever you accomplish won't be impressive unless you painfully describe the mission's parameter with guess-word like "...then I slingshot around a relatively medium gaz giant to reach a low gravity Kerbin-like planet's moon (which is 30% bigger than the Moon but with 10% more gravity) and aerobreaked in a gravity that was 70% of Eve before landing on a Minmus like ice-sheet but without a lot of relief".

You tell me when that lines start being fun to read for the 30rd time. Not to mention new players seeking help, or people being unable to propose challenge unless they have the exact same planet.

So in what direction do I would love KSP to take ?

- Point of Interest on planets where there is more to do than grind science-point.

- Remake the tech-tree for a more coherent and realistic-looking evolution. With engine upgrade if needed so we can research practical part early but never go too far with in their low-efficiency state.

- A Money/Budget system that do not ask the player to earn/grind but to reach successive millstone/mission to be allowed more budget / parts to use.

- Reason to build extensive space infrastructure, from basic communication satellite network, to manned fuel-extracting base going by space-only transfer vessels.

- Oh yes, I WANT the ability to make fuel from In-Situe resources. (Don't want anything like trade though, that's grindy and boring)

Edited March 30, 2014 by Kegereneku
various correction

[kerbonaut101]

I would love to see other solar systems implemented (but only when the Kerbol system is complete.) I want NO FTL, but other more realistic systems (perhaps this is something that Squad can consult with NASA on?) perhaps they could have Cryo-Sleep?

[Javster]

You may have seen me write this before, but since we have paid for early access for a game in beta, I don't think there should be a group of "testers" who test the updates and get them early: as we buy the game before it is complete, I think every player should be testing at the same time.

We seem to have to wait for updates to be complete, a disadvantage usually found in released games...

And yet when we get the updates, they usually have some sort of bugs, a disadvantage usually found in early access games.

Please excuse my rant, but I object to having to wait longer when I am essentially paying for a game which is not complete.

[rkman]

I think the difference between KSP and hardcore space sims (how many are there besides Orbiter?) is not so much in the level of realism of the physics simulation.

Both are essentially identical wrt to the most important physics simulation for these things: gravity and Newtonian mechanics (yes i know, the way it is implemented is different, but the result is 90% the same).

Compared to Orbiter what makes KSP more a game than a sim is primarily due to two factors:

one is that in KSP everything is scaled down so that everything takes less time to do (less in-game waiting; less boring),

the other is the instrumentation: KSP gives us the bare minimum in terms of dials to read and buttons to push, making it easier to learn - and it includes what by hardcore space sim standards is practically cheating: map mode and maneuver nodes (yes NASA has those to but does not use it in realtime during missions - instead it's all planned ahead of time), making it easier to get anywhere in the first place (that's why IVA-only missions are considered to be hardcore in KSP).

So with additional physics such as aerodynamics and reentry heat, and with (simplified) life support, KSP would still be more a game than a simulator.

I'd say that from a gameplay point of view those things would add depth, but learning to operate realistic instrumentation, and in-game waiting, do not add depth (though from a sim pov obviously those do add depth).

[Jouni]

- Oh yes, I WANT the ability to make fuel from In-Situe resources.

I installed the Kethane Pack for that. After using kethane extensively in one sandbox game, I'm probably not going to use it in new saves, because it makes interplanetary missions way too easy. The main problem from my point of view is that you can produce huge amounts of fuel with tiny converter parts. A more reasonable fuel refinery should be a massive monstrosity weighting hundreds or even thousands of tonnes you slowly assemble over multiple missions.