Why is it so hard to play this game...

[Guest]

without mods?

I thought I'd just stick with stock for 0.23.5, at least for a week or two, but I'm already planning on migrating my old save over to the new version along with all the mods, probably going to start downloading the new versions tonight. The problem is that the aerodynamics are complete crap (arrow-straight up to 10km and then tip to 45 degrees WTF), reentry effects are purely visual, the universe is kind of lack-luster and could use some higher-res textures, small quailty-of-life parts are sadly missing, fuel tanks are much better when they're procedural, fairings (nuff said), missing capsules...

I can do without fancy displays, autopilots, realistic sizing, but the rest of this stuff is just ... missing.

Anyway, here's hoping at least the aero gets a makeover soon. Much as I think ferram4 is one of the best modders out there I also think better aero will make the stock game much more playable.

[cantab]

I imagine a switch between stock and FAR aerodynamics - either way - is going to take some adapting to, they are very different.

But otherwise, meh. Plenty of people have been playing stock or mostly stock for a long time.

[FenrirWolf]

FAR is definitely the 'gateway mod' for me too. Once you've played with it it's really hard to go back to stock. And once you're hooked on FAR then you need fairings to go with it, then DRE, and so forth until you've got a big mod list that you don't feel at home without anymore

[Werwolf]

I had a hard time breaking from the mods too, but I just forced it for a while. Then I realized how rewarding it was to figure out ingenious ways to get things to do what I wanted them to do. Slowly but surely though, mods leeched their way back in.... I need KAS.... I need Kethane... I need Flight Engineer... etc etc...

[The Destroyer]

Don't you mean "why is it so easy" because real aerodynamics and heat are harder?

[Pecan]

And which of this makes it hard to play? (In contrast to 'hard to enjoy'?) I'm with you to a large extent but don't you think getting to orbit is hard enough for newbies even without FAR/DREC (and without FAR what's the point of fairings, usw)?

[Yarrula]

I thought I would really miss Kerbal Engineer, but I've managed to intercept and capture an asteroid without it, I'm content to go modless for a while. Now that I have some experience, the unknown TWR, delta v etc. is not nearly as terrifying as it once was.

[FlowerChild]

reentry effects are purely visual

As an aside, after doing fairly extensive testing on it while porting BTSM to the new Squad release, I believe that DRC for 0.23 works fine with .23.5. I also released that about 18 hours ago, and haven't had any players report problems with DRC, so I suspect it's pretty safe to use as is.

Anyway, here's hoping at least the aero gets a makeover soon. Much as I think ferram4 is one of the best modders out there I also think better aero will make the stock game much more playable.

I'm right there with you on this one. With the new super-stiff joint reinforcement and uber-rocket parts, the game really needs it more than ever IMO, as it's become trivially easy to get insane payloads up into orbit.

[SSSPutnik]

I've gradually been adding mods, and now run with a ton installed.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying all the additions but then I start getting.. (annoyed is maybe the best word) by having too many choices.

Ie should I use this hull or that hull, it actually seems to be getting harder building things because I can't make my mind up!

1st world problem I guess but wondering if anyone else experiences this? One thing to be said for stock is it keeps you nicely on rails design wise.

[cantab]

I felt a bit of that just in my first stock career save. Unlocking tech and quickly became overwhelmed by all the parts. So then I switched to the "do all the science before unlocking new tech" save. That went too far the other way though.

[PDCWolf]

without mods?

Practice makes perfect, a lot of people say the game is not hard at all. It was even harder when there was no map view for example.

The problem is that the aerodynamics are complete crap (arrow-straight up to 10km and then tip to 45 degrees WTF)

Yes, the aerodynamics are crap, but you are also using the crappy ascent profile that MJ uses even when better (both aesthetically pleasing and dV wise) options are out there.

reentry effects are purely visual, the universe is kind of lack-luster and could use some higher-res textures, small quailty-of-life parts are sadly missing, fuel tanks are much better when they're procedural, fairings (nuff said), missing capsules...

Welcome to Placeholder: The game, everything is supposedly there waiting for a "big fix" and it has been so for nearly 3 years.

I can do without fancy displays, autopilots, realistic sizing, but the rest of this stuff is just ... missing.

"It's an alpha" would be the answer here. Although I like to discard that option given how much the devs talk about thing like "scope complete", "feature complete", "sandbox complete".

Anyway, here's hoping at least the aero gets a makeover soon. Much as I think ferram4 is one of the best modders out there I also think better aero will make the stock game much more playable.

This part is like a vicious circle. "you said the game is nearing scope/feature completeness but spaceplane parts need a remake" "Remake won't happen until better aerodynamics" "Better aerodynamics will come once we fix the rest of the stuff" "The game is almost scope complete" and better aerodynamics are not even named anywhere but in the community maintained wiki.

BTW, I don't believe far is close to "better aerodynamics" as the people picture it to be. It's like with "Better females by bella" for skyrim, it's really horrible, but it's the first named and most popular. In our case, F.A.R. is the only option.

[Merinsan]

I went about 20 minutes before I was think "I miss Kerbal Alarm Clock".

I'll probably install it pretty soon.

[Pecan]

Yes, the aerodynamics are crap, but you are also using the crappy ascent profile that MJ uses even when better (both aesthetically pleasing and dV wise) options are out there.

I'm sorry - what settings are you using that make MJ go to 10km then turn to 45-degrees? It's never done that for me.

[Guest]

I'm with you to a large extent but don't you think getting to orbit is hard enough for newbies even without FAR/DREC (and without FAR what's the point of fairings, usw)?

The funny thing about FAR is it allows you to build rockets that look like rockets and use a fairly realistic launch profile, and build airplanes that look like airplanes and don't require massive amounts of additional wings. I'd argue it'd be easier for newbies under those circumstances.

I thought I would really miss Kerbal Engineer, but I've managed to intercept and capture an asteroid without it, I'm content to go modless for a while.

Sure, I've done the same, it's not particularly hard, and I might avoid KER as long as possible because the stock UI is horrid to look at (either that or roll another private build again).

As an aside, after doing fairly extensive testing on it while porting BTSM to the new Squad release, I believe that DRC for 0.23 works fine with .23.5. I also released that about 18 hours ago, and haven't had any players report problems with DRC, so I suspect it's pretty safe to use as is.

Thank you. You might also want to know that Top Men are on the case. TOP MEN.

BTW, I don't believe far is close to "better aerodynamics" as the people picture it to be. It's like with "Better females by bella" for skyrim, it's really horrible, but it's the first named and most popular. In our case, F.A.R. is the only option.

FAR is a great compromise given the nature of this game and how varied craft can be (compared to, say, a flight sim), and it works quite well for what it is. I don't want realistic aerodynamics, I want a better aerodynamic representation for a cartoony game about little green men than "lolpeasoup".

[Stormweaver]

BTW, I don't believe far is close to "better aerodynamics" as the people picture it to be. It's like with "Better females by bella" for skyrim, it's really horrible, but it's the first named and most popular. In our case, F.A.R. is the only option.

It's a vast improvement over stock's "Drag is proportional to mass" model. I can see why some people might dislike FAR but frankly, it's pretty good at what it's there to do.

For me, the limit of my patience in stock is the science. I know a lot of players that use mods still end up with stock-like science mechanics, but I normally play with BTSM and stock science feels really, really weak in comparison. Lots of grinding, lots of EVAing to move science around, lack of accomplishment.

[Pecan]

The funny thing about FAR is it allows you to build rockets that look like rockets and use a fairly realistic launch profile, and build airplanes that look like airplanes and don't require massive amounts of additional wings. I'd argue it'd be easier for newbies under those circumstances.

Good point, well made.

[FlowerChild]

Thank you. You might also want to know that Top Men are on the case. TOP MEN.

Thanks, but the only mods I use other than my own are DRC and PreciseNode (tip of the hat), so I'm set at present with the stock maneuver node improvements making the absence of PreciseNode at least a tad easier to bear

EDIT: And it turns out PreciseNode has been updated, so that's taken care of too

Edited April 3, 2014 by FlowerChild

[PDCWolf]

I'm sorry - what settings are you using that make MJ go to 10km then turn to 45-degrees? It's never done that for me.

It's the old pre 2.0 mechjeb ascent path. If I remember it correctly, it was "straight until 10km, turn 45 ASAP, burn until AP, coast, burn sideways until circularized"

FAR is a great compromise given the nature of this game and how varied craft can be (compared to, say, a flight sim), and it works quite well for what it is. I don't want realistic aerodynamics, I want a better aerodynamic representation for a cartoony game about little green men than "lolpeasoup".

There aren't really much options other than going realistic, going with what we already have (which fits the cartoony part pretty well if you ask anyone), or going for something in the middle (FAR maybe).

[Guest]

It's the old pre 2.0 mechjeb ascent path. If I remember it correctly, it was "straight until 10km, turn 45 ASAP, burn until AP, coast, burn sideways until circularized"

I actually build up far more horizontal velocity before coasting to apoapsis (I'm level at around 35~40km), but the 10km straight up out of the pea soup is just stupid. And boring.

There aren't really much options other than going realistic, going with what we already have (which fits the cartoony part pretty well if you ask anyone), or going for something in the middle (FAR maybe).

FAR is a good compromise but the devs will inevitably do their own thing. I actually trust those guys, they've done a great job so far, I'm just having a gripe.

[FlowerChild]

going with what we already have (which fits the cartoony part pretty well if you ask anyone)

I would disagree. I think most kids watching a cartoon would assume that rockets have nosecones, fins, and are shaped vaguely like rockets for some kind of reason, even if they don't know what it is, and ones that have those attributes fly better than ones that don't

I'm in no way a realism advocate, but I do think that the current aero model does terrible things to suspension of disbelief, removes a large portion of potentially interesting skill-based gameplay, and in many cases is extremely counter intuitive.

Edited April 3, 2014 by FlowerChild

[ArmchairGravy]

Odd, I have over 1000 hours of enjoyment so far, and all I use is KER and Kethane with no plans on using any other mods. Isn't it strange how different people enjoy the game differently? Maybe I should create a thread where I say the game is broken because KER and Kethane aren't stock.

[Levelord]

I play stock most of the time, but it's not because I don't like mods, but it's because of the universal increase in loading times when I use mods and general game instability/version incompatability.

[karolus10]

I'm playing the stock game from long time, and trying various mods on second installment but I still use NavyFish docking indicator (I would be glad to see Navball showing speeds bellow 0.1m/s instead freaking out) and sometimes one of maneuver nodes enhancements.

I'm not fan of "instant" auto pilot programs but I think that we need Proper, precise flight instruments (as well as finished flight planning) in stock game as well as simple programmable SAS, so you can adjust rotation speed limit, lock certain axis and be able to enter SAS target for each locked axis (Pitch, Yaw, Roll, values).

For other automation I would prefer having some way of simple command line/script automation that could be used to send very basic programs to probes as well as being improvement of action groups (like making timed sequences or custom action groups/programs visible and triggered from staging list). Making flight computer programmable in limited way sound better for me than mech-jeb as it would be versatile and would require player (or copy-pasting best command files from forums, lol) to automate some actions in same way like when designing rocket itself (+ educational value and satisfaction when everything will execute as planned).

From other hand I'm very doubtful that such feature would ever make it's way into a game.

I'm not very worried about planets looks and stock parts content until developers will focus on improving core features and mechanics so you cannot call any of them as being merely placeholder.

Edited April 3, 2014 by karolus10

[Superfluous J]

I actually build up far more horizontal velocity before coasting to apoapsis (I'm level at around 35~40km), but the 10km straight up out of the pea soup is just stupid. And boring.

While I agree with this 100%, what I don't agree with is that that ascent profile has anything to do with the stock aerodynamics model.

I start my gravity turn very slightly at about 5-7km, and slowly bring it down to 45 degrees as my apoapsis reaches 20km. When my apoapsis is at 30km I'm at 30 degrees (I even refer to this profile as "30 at 30") and when it hits 50km I go to 0 degrees and keep it there. My circularization burn is almost always 5-10 seconds.

Edited April 3, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[karolus10]

I actually build up far more horizontal velocity before coasting to apoapsis (I'm level at around 35~40km), but the 10km straight up out of the pea soup is just stupid. And boring.

While I agree with this 100%, what I don't agree with is that that ascent profile has anything to do with the stock aerodynamics model.

I start my gravity turn very slightly at about 5-7km, and slowly bring it down to 45 degrees as my apoapsis reaches 20km. When my apoapsis is at 30km I'm at 30 degrees (I even refer to this profile as "30 at 30") and when it hits 50km I go to 0 degrees and keep it there. My circularization burn is almost always 5-10 seconds.

I like to use nav-ball to estimate time when gravity turn should start, I'm mostly starting turn to 60* just before yellow pro-grade indicator reach it in orbital speed mode so you meet with pro-grade marker at 60* mark... from my observation this allow you to simple gauge if you are climbing fast enough to start gravity turn... maybe it's not the ultimate solution for perfect turn but it's working well and even beginner can get good results .

Also I tend to fly into low orbit (more or less as minor corrections may be needed) in a single burn, without coasting to apoapsis, If You gain enough horizontal velocity Your upper stage doesn't need a lot of thrust (1-0.5G of acceleration) to complete the job.

Edited April 3, 2014 by karolus10