Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[regex]

Another argument against this is the fact that user craft can get very complicated and simulating something like an Apollo-style craft seems to be a non-trivial task that Engineer chokes on, even with the updated vessel-simulation code. A stock feature looks really bad when it chokes and dealing with the constant support questions about why the craft isn't reporting delta-V correctly would be quite a task. We don't see this with Engineer, for instance, because users seem to have more patience for mod code. Personally, I think the dev's attention could be better spent elsewhere.

[undercoveryankee]

If a delta-V calculation were one click away in the stock game, it would feel too much like magic.

For me, the process of getting tired of trial and error, designing a couple of ships by spreadsheet, and then looking for a mod to automate what I had already done several times was part of the fun.

[cantab]

I'm going to say no. The rocket equation is the single most important equation in spaceflight, and if the new player is handed a delta-V readout on a platter it turns that equation into a black box, removing the encouragement to learn how the equation works. Better would be a tutorial on how to do the calculations, though we might then need an in-game calculator since not everyone will have one handy.

Making a flight information computer an unlockable career mode part would be an option, but not everyone's going to play career first, and it may put people who first play sandbox off career mode altogether.

Give us the dry mass and mass of fuel in the VAB though, preferably but not essentially per-stage. Manually adding up the parts is annoying, and the map screen info box is non-obvious. It's that adding up, rather than the actual rocket equation, that encouraged me to get KER. And I wouldn't mind seeing a complete switch of the resources (excluding electric charge) to use kilograms, though it would muck up the old fuel tank names.

[Dogoncrook]

I'm going to say no. The rocket equation is the single most important equation in spaceflight, and if the new player is handed a delta-V readout on a platter it turns that equation into a black box, removing the encouragement to learn how the equation works. Better would be a tutorial on how to do the calculations, though we might then need an in-game calculator since not everyone will have one handy.

Making a flight information computer an unlockable career mode part would be an option, but not everyone's going to play career first, and it may put people who first play sandbox off career mode altogether.

Give us the dry mass and mass of fuel in the VAB though, preferably but not essentially per-stage. Manually adding up the parts is annoying, and the map screen info box is non-obvious. It's that adding up, rather than the actual rocket equation, that encouraged me to get KER. And I wouldn't mind seeing a complete switch of the resources (excluding electric charge) to use kilograms, though it would muck up the old fuel tank names.

While it's true it's going to motivate a few people to go look up the info, a lot of people will bounce off right there, who knows how many but I'm sure it happens. The rest go get mechjeb. I'm not sure putting in an obscure way to obtain delta v is going to change anybody's experience.

I'd like to see raster prop moniter be stock with the more advanced pods getting more mechjebian. It would really only work though with multiple versions of each pod type. This way, to see delta v you have to put it on the launch pad then go iva then navigate to the page. It removes some of the challenge in gaining delta v stats but you gain the ability to iva pilot which is a bit of a challenge on its own. If they do this though they need to put in replay capabilities as well so failures can be investigated.

The downside to rpm and even mechjeb being stock though is it won't work on mod parts. It isn't really realistic for squad to update when a new mod comes out. There may be ways around that but, a mod version would still likely be needed.

[reilem]

I'm gonna say yes to this. But only on the account that it isn't too hard to develop and that it would also be an option; not something that's always there. Either thar or something that you need to unlock after a certain stage. Because although I would defenitely use this delta-v readout, I'm inclined to agree with the fact that newbies may have more fun experiencing the game at first with a little less technical stuff being shoved in their face, "What the hell is delta-v and why is it taking up my screen space?". But once they figure out what delta-v is they can then choose wether they want to use it or not.

[Esme]

I'm in favour of a delta-V indicator being easily available, but not necessarily a 'permanently on display' thing as the readings from the navball and altimeter are. Whilst I appreciate the fun to be had by guessing or just throwing stuff together and seeing what works, beyond a certain point, that can get incredibly frustrating, and there indications of delta-V can be useful. It needn't be something as complex as MechJeb's delta-V display, in my opinion; it could just show a total delta-V, perhaps, and even a warning that the figure given is only an approximation, if necessary. If it were also possible to have some kind of in-game link pointing people to where they can obtain more sophisticated tools like MechJeb and Engineer. This latter might require a slightly finer breakdown of sections in Kerbal Spaceport, eg separating mods that give you improved readouts from those that add parts that give you finer control of your ship (better thrusters or reaction wheels, etc).

[Caelib]

Stage-based Delta-V and TWR is really needed for stock ... I personally don't think this would detract from the experimental or "guesswork" nature of building rockets.

[[email protected]]

I say yes (with some reluctance) but maybe as a tech upgrade or feature that only displays in the VAB showing you only the initial estimated delta-V. The trial and error aspect of the game is enormously valuable as motivation to teach yourself the math behind it. Once I learned about Kerbal Engineer I became lazy. I still don't use mechjeb (never have), but kerbal engineer saved me loads of time in calculating where I can go and how efficiently.

[That guy who builds stuff]

Yeah. Once you're flying the ship, go into map mode and click that little "i" on the right side of the screen.

Sounds like a perfect place for dv.

[xcorps]

I say yes (with some reluctance) but maybe as a tech upgrade or feature that only displays in the VAB showing you only the initial estimated delta-V. The trial and error aspect of the game is enormously valuable as motivation to teach yourself the math behind it. Once I learned about Kerbal Engineer I became lazy. I still don't use mechjeb (never have), but kerbal engineer saved me loads of time in calculating where I can go and how efficiently.

I disagree. If I needed a calculator or a spreadsheet to launch a rocket, I would have spent about 5 minutes with KSP. I don't want to do math or learn rocket equations, I want to play an engaging game.

[Jouni]

Another argument against this is the fact that user craft can get very complicated and simulating something like an Apollo-style craft seems to be a non-trivial task that Engineer chokes on, even with the updated vessel-simulation code. A stock feature looks really bad when it chokes and dealing with the constant support questions about why the craft isn't reporting delta-V correctly would be quite a task. We don't see this with Engineer, for instance, because users seem to have more patience for mod code. Personally, I think the dev's attention could be better spent elsewhere.

The game needs proper mission planning software. It's impossible to calculate delta-v for modular ships without player input, so the player just needs a way to give that input.

Playing with a spreadsheet gets boring after a while.

[Tex]

I kinda go halfway on this. Yes, I believe it would be absolutely marvelous to have a stock Delta-V readout, but it also feels semi-cheaty. I propose a halfway system: One where you had to plug in some of the parts' statistics, perhaps just select the names of the rocket parts from a list, and then have it spit out the Delta-V statistics of the given stage. Now, yes, you CAN get the Delta-V readout you need, but you gotta work for it to get it. At the very least it would be more than stock KSP used to have, and you don't have to do ALL the work yourself.

[Red Iron Crown]

Once maneuver nodes were added showing delta-V costs for a burn, all justifications for not giving us dV numbers evaporated for me. How is a player supposed to know if the burn can be completed or not? Why must we resort to mods or tedious external tools to get basic rocket specs?

Trial and error is fine at first when you're trying to learn how to get to orbit or one of Kerbin's moons, but an interplanetary mission is another story. It is extremely unlikely that an inexperienced player will be able to calculate a transfer window, delta-V requirements and ejection angle without mods or external tools.

I think TWR, delta-V and transfer information should be available in-game, both during construction and flight. If we're worried about overwhelming new players, have them unlock in the tech tree.

Apoapsis, periapsis and surface altitude should be available in all in-flight views, too. They're just too important to limit to certain views.

[Red Iron Crown]

I kinda go halfway on this. Yes, I believe it would be absolutely marvelous to have a stock Delta-V readout, but it also feels semi-cheaty. I propose a halfway system: One where you had to plug in some of the parts' statistics, perhaps just select the names of the rocket parts from a list, and then have it spit out the Delta-V statistics of the given stage. Now, yes, you CAN get the Delta-V readout you need, but you gotta work for it to get it. At the very least it would be more than stock KSP used to have, and you don't have to do ALL the work yourself.

Data entry is not fun gameplay.

[benc85]

Add it, and make a toggle. You want to play it blind, you go right ahead good sir. I prefer to use the gift of sight thank you very much...

[[email protected]]

Once maneuver nodes were added showing delta-V costs for a burn, all justifications for not giving us dV numbers evaporated for me. How is a player supposed to know if the burn can be completed or not? Why must we resort to mods or tedious external tools to get basic rocket specs?

Trial and error is fine at first when you're trying to learn how to get to orbit or one of Kerbin's moons, but an interplanetary mission is another story. It is extremely unlikely that an inexperienced player will be able to calculate a transfer window, delta-V requirements and ejection angle without mods or external tools.

I think TWR, delta-V and transfer information should be available in-game, both during construction and flight. If we're worried about overwhelming new players, have them unlock in the tech tree.

Apoapsis, periapsis and surface altitude should be available in all in-flight views, too. They're just too important to limit to certain views.

I think it would be an unfortunate 'improvement' to the game to add so much information and automatic information. It could turn KSP into a 'paint by numbers' type of game where you succeed simply by following basic instructions without ever actually learning the mechanics or gaining an understanding of the underlying systems at work. I'm sick of games that hold my hand, I want to be challenged, its why I love KSP.

[regex]

The game needs proper mission planning software. It's impossible to calculate delta-v for modular ships without player input, so the player just needs a way to give that input.

It's probably easier than I think, but at the end of the day I also think it would suck up a lot of time from other gameplay elements that I feel are more important, especially when we have two mods that have yet to even bother tackling that side of the issue. There is either no interest in it or letting the player define modularity within the craft is a tough problem.

I think it would be an unfortunate 'improvement' to the game to add so much information and automatic information. It could turn KSP into a 'paint by numbers' type of game where you succeed simply by following basic instructions without ever actually learning the mechanics or gaining an understanding of the underlying systems at work. I'm sick of games that hold my hand, I want to be challenged, its why I love KSP.

I agree with this post.

Edited April 24, 2014 by regex

[Red Iron Crown]

I think it would be an unfortunate 'improvement' to the game to add so much information and automatic information. It could turn KSP into a 'paint by numbers' type of game where you succeed simply by following basic instructions without ever actually learning the mechanics or gaining an understanding of the underlying systems at work. I'm sick of games that hold my hand, I want to be challenged, its why I love KSP.

A dV calculator doesn't tell you how to redesign a ship to increase its dV. It just tells you when you're onto something when playing trial and error in the VAB.

[Superfluous J]

A dV calculator doesn't tell you how to redesign a ship to increase its dV. It just tells you when you're onto something when playing trial and error in the VAB.

Agreed. Before I had KER, I had no idea why (or even that) a huge rocket had less dV than a smaller one with the same payload. I work with numbers at my day job, I'm not going to solve the rocket equation for a frickin' video game, so it was all trial and error and "magic," like HarvesteR wanted me to do.

Then I installed KER and spent a few hours with the rockets I thought were pretty good. I removed fuel. I added fuel. I swapped engines, removed parts from the payload, reduced monoprop levels and fiddled with staging. I looked at how these changes affected total delta-V and learned so much about building and flying rockets that now I can do a lot of that stuff without the numbers, just gut-feeling it and estimating based on experience and knowledge.

There is no way I'd have ever gained that knowledge by launching all of those changes. First off there were hundreds of them, thousands if you count different permutations of setups. Secondly, even if I had launched them I had no numerical feedback on what those changes did, except fuel in the tank once I reached orbit, or Mun, or Duna, or whatever. And yes, before you say "see!" I did use that information in the dark days before KER and found it lacking.

I agree that the numbers could scare off a new player. But in my case, their lack almost drove away a player that was trying to transition from new to experienced.

[The Jedi Master]

fuel should be displayed in actual tons instead of made-up units. the "litres" of fuel left in tanks are really useless for relating to your ship's mass unless you look in the game files or wiki the conversion rates. it's convoluted and it stymied me when i was first starting out learning the Rocket Equation through KSP.

*cough*Liters is metric*cough*

[FenrirWolf]

I really do think that more numbers should be exposed and made available to players. 5thHorseman's post is a perfect example of why, and my own experience with KER reflects it too. Having the information available doesn't make you an expert rocket builder overnight, nor does it build a functional ship for you. But it provides the means by which you learn how to do it.

My personal playstyle is that I use the KER chip that gives me information in the VAB/SPH, but doesn't provide the in-flight statistics since I enjoy 'winging it' after I've put my craft on the launchpad and onward to wherever my destination is.

That's not to say I am against having rocket stats available in-flight though. The option should be there, because even if you have the numbers at your disposal, you still have to fly the thing properly. You still have to be mindful of your ship's resources. You still need to have that sense of what your rocket is and isn't capable of. The numbers only serve to make certain things more apparent.

Ultimately the best thing about KSP is that it does not derive its gameplay from random chance. There isn't a dice secretly rolling in the background that determines if your mission to Jool succeeds or not. You're not gonna roll a critical failure that means your Munar lander just crashed instead of touching down successfully. Instead, your failures and successes are determined by your ability to prepare and account for the natural problems presented to you by the laws of the universe. Having the numbers at your disposal gives you the necessary tools to accomplish this. They're not going to save you from forgetting to put a docking port on your ship or realizing you don't have parachutes by the time you're 10,000m from Kerbin's surface.

Edited April 24, 2014 by FenrirWolf

[SkyRender]

At the very least, some sort of analogue to Kerbal Engineer Redux's system should be in place to let you approximately gauge TWR and delta-V. Even if it doesn't show hard numbers, it should at least tell you if your craft can lift off of Kerbin and how long it will fire for at full throttle. I suspect that they'll probably add some sort of "simulation testing" mode at some point to address this.

[Redshift OTF]

I say yes. It needs to be there.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I'm just gonna say this: if I wanted to break out calculators and start writing down numbers and equations, I would go back to school. I personally wouldn't have bought this game if I was required to manually calculate everything myself. Sure, I know about the rocket equation and its importance and I could solve it for any rocket you throw at me, but the fact remains that I bought this game to be just that - a game. Not homework or actual work or similar. A way to relax and wile away the hours building things that explore the pretty places. I don't want to have to waste time figuring out if my thing can do what I want it to do.

So a yes from me, but I can see people like to fly by guesswork and like having to do equations and everything, so as a compromise, I'd be happy with an option to turn the info on and off. Not that I'd ever turn it off though. I guess I can see why the devs want us to do the whole trial and error thing, but seriously, just give me a TWR for Duna for my craft or at least an option to test it before I get there for the first time and find out I'm too heavy to lift off at all. Yes, I could work it out manually, but as I said, I bought this game to relax, not to feel like I'm back in school.

[Paul Kingtiger]

My problem with trial and error is once you get past going into orbit it gets VERY repetitive or you just massively over compensate. Imagine going to the Mun, you can estimate the fuel required, fly into orbit, get it wrong, change the craft, fly into orbit, get it wrong, change the craft, fly into orbit. Or you can take so much fuel that you'll easily have enough to run any mission, it'll get the mission done but building the craft becomes a bit academic. You can't even record how much DeltaV you needed for the mission because there's no counter.

With information readouts you still have trial and error because you don't know how much you need to complete the mission, but you'll be able to make intelligent choices rather than guessing every time. Plus once you've done a mission once, you'll know what you needed and can plan the next craft accordingly.

When I started playing I gave up after a couple of days because the novelty wore off and it was all trial and error. But then I discovered engineer and suddenly it turned into a game I could apply intelligence to...