Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[Clockwork_werewolf]

For some reason some people like to think Kerbals are sloppy engineers only capable of producing inherently broken designs held together by duct tape. To them, proposing something prim and proper like a NASA VAB could be built by Kerbals is ridiculous. Well, I disagree. Take a good look at the parts: at the LV-N engine, at 3-man pod, at the landing legs, at ion engine. Those are cleanly executed pieces of impressive technology. Kerbals are indifferent to safety precautions and are very excited about explosions, yes, but they make an impression of extremely capable and very competent engineers.

Genius is not the same as accuracy and fastidiousness, a mark 1 design can use parts, physics and designs never heard of before. It can be half the weight and twice as efficient as the old engine, it can also have a 10% of blowing up. The Kerbal way is to use it before the blowing up problem is totally fixed. They are very good engineers they just don't quite care so much about safety records. This is for SCIENCE after all.

It's unfair to mistake Kerbals for Orks from a “Certain Universe With 40k In The Name,†or to expect them to build sloppy duct-taped huts.

The Orks from said verse are the only race to have devised stable wormhole tunnels. They may just use them to send snotlings inside someone else's Armour while also sending them mad from the visions they see in the warp but this is the DESIRED result. The Orks can invent things impossible to humanity, eldar and tau. They also like things blowing up. Kerbals are not Orks but only because they are much less violent and generally much nicer people.

[John FX]

Wow, 85.4% to 14.5%.

Seems like most people are in the yes camp.

[FenrirWolf]

Yes I love that quote.

Yes, there should be a DeltaV readout, and other readouts as well.

A very good quote indeed. That was from a dev blog somewhere, right?

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

I agree with a lot of what's being said, but I still can't get the image of a huge-textbook-for-a-manual for the finished game out of my head... the orbital mechanics section alone would be enough to put people off installing in the first place, but I found that applying the information while I was trying the maneuvers everything clicked, and for a while all I could do was sit there going "ohhhhh, so THAT's what that does! I feel so silly for not understanding that when it was just written down..."

It's a very difficult situation from the Dev side too, as is being shown by the amount of arguments being put forth by both sides - on the one hand, they want to have a fun and fairly easy-to-pick-up game, but on the other that game is all about physics, mechanics, and the ability to totally b*lls-up every single interplanetary mission due to too much or too little fuel, until you bite the bullet and get out the calculator and pull up the wiki, or you use one of the mods for the task...

I'm just glad that it's not ME that has to decide on these difficult 'grey area' type things! and even more props to the Devs who do...

[PDCWolf]

The Orks from said verse are the only race to have devised stable wormhole tunnels. They may just use them to send snotlings inside someone else's Armour while also sending them mad from the visions they see in the warp but this is the DESIRED result. The Orks can invent things impossible to humanity, eldar and tau. They also like things blowing up. Kerbals are not Orks but only because they are much less violent and generally much nicer people.

I don't remember nor have found anything about snotlings being sent via wormholes.

A very good quote indeed. That was from a dev blog somewhere, right?

That's Bac9 on his "The making of new KSC" dev blog.

It's a very difficult situation from the Dev side too, as is being shown by the amount of arguments being put forth by both sides - on the one hand, they want to have a fun and fairly easy-to-pick-up game, but on the other that game is all about physics, mechanics, and the ability to totally b*lls-up every single interplanetary mission due to too much or too little fuel, until you bite the bullet and get out the calculator and pull up the wiki, or you use one of the mods for the task...

The biggest problem comes from trying to take something boring, tedious, dangerous but beautiful as spaceflight and trying to turn it into something the majority considers fun and easy. It's just not going to work and these kind of conflicts are going to sprout on every single little step in the development of KSP. Obviously the money is on new players, so yeah, easy and "fun" will always win because that gets you more money.

[Villageidiot]

I answered yes. The reason I feel that it is important is that seeing the numbers gives you a little bit of understanding of what you are actually doing. For example, if you run a mission and did not have enough fuel to get back its easier to figure out how much more fuel you will need rather than, "well, I guess I will add another three fuel tanks!" Knowing helps you plan better and makes the failures a LOT more educational. I read the pcgamer article and I wholeheartedly disagree with them on this. Without any indication of DV its more like filling in a crossword puzzle without the key information. You still have the guess work of figuring out how much DV you need to get places and all of the trial and error that goes with it. I feel as though no gameplay is lost with the addition of said tool.

VI

[Clockwork_werewolf]

I don't remember nor have found anything about snotlings being sent via wormholes.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Shokk_Attack_Gun

[NovaSilisko]

My opinion for this would be to, for career mode, have an upgradeable line of pre-flight and in-flight software for your spacecraft.

For example, the in-flight line could be:

Level 1: no SAS, can only control manually with WSADQE and all that.

Level 2: SAS, can still control manually

Level 3: same as above, delta-v readout, rounded to nearest 100 m/s

Level 4: same above, delta-v readout rounded to nearest 10 m/s, new component equivalent to SmartASS from MJ

Level 5: same as above, delta-v now exact

And so on. Similar story for the in-editor readouts, things like delta-v calculated, center of lift/mass/drag, center of RCS thrust, etc, etc.

On sandbox, of course, anything goes.

[Alchemist]

The Kerbal way is definitely not about blowing up mindlessly or stranding dozens of Kerbals because of series of terribly underpowered designs. It might be closer to compensating for lack of some concerns (like full-scale ground testing or ability to calculate and execute your delta v budget with high precision) with some other things like learning from failed flight tests or building slightly overpowered crafts. And here is the thing: learning on the flight and compensating for what you can't do perfectly at this point with something you have already mastered.

In Orbiter it's difficult to start - you can't do much without learning that control layout and even then, if you are not expert at flight sims, you'll find yourself in the situation "how the hell is this thing supposed to lead me to the runway???" I relatively easily (with the help of the instructions and tutorials) got how to get to Moon and Mars and even land on the pads (of course, that Delta-Glider packs quite some delta v), but I still wasn't able to land that thing on the Earth properly. It gives you highly detailed spacecraft, but it also locks you with a predefined craft with predefined capabilities (that you should learn and master) and predefined situation to execute your mission.

KSP is much more free at the beginner level: you are shown how to assemble a primitive rocket and what buttons to press in flight and... that's all you need to start! When you get some basics you understand where you can go next and can guess what you have to upgrade and gradually learn by trial and error (just don't attempt to go to Jool straight away). Also, the simple and intuitive interface means that once you have idea what you want to do it's pretty easy to figure that by some minimal amount of trial and error and maybe just couple slight tips.

Again, having some extra numbers for better performance is good, just don't turn KSP into "have this number on this display and press tis button to engage autopilot". Ability to do that is great for advanced players, who are having their Kerbal fun at the higher level of planning and executing large-scale or super-efficient missions, but empathizing on that too much can kill all the fun of learning their way to the stars for new players.

I'm completely for some additional indication (especially in VAB - for building large ships you'll be looking at mass and thrust values anyway, so why not to have at least TWR and mass indication; Delta v is a bit more complex question for complex designs, but it would be very useful, if implemented properly), just it should be presented in the "this can be useful if you master it" way, not in the "you have to use it or you won't get anywhere" way.

TL;DR

You can give the player delta V indicator, but you should let him determine how much he needs to reach orbit or land on the Mun, not give some arbitrary values.

What's not Kerbal is learning by "do this, this and that, and maybe you'll understand where what comes from later", the Kerbal way is "have idea - build it - test it - determine what needs to be improved - repeat until it works as good as planned". And the cutting edge science does have some of the Kerbal part - that's going outside the safe zone of fully known rules and predetemined values (just in real world most of these ideas don't reach full scale hardware testing until fully polished on simulations and prototypes, so most of it can't be seen from outside. KSP gives the freedom to throw it together and see if it works instead of "simulating" on the drawing board)

[Jodo42]

My opinion for this would be to, for career mode, have an upgradeable line of pre-flight and in-flight software for your spacecraft.

For example, the in-flight line could be:

Level 1: no SAS, can only control manually with WSADQE and all that.

Level 2: SAS, can still control manually

Level 3: same as above, delta-v readout, rounded to nearest 100 m/s

Level 4: same above, delta-v readout rounded to nearest 10 m/s, new component equivalent to SmartASS from MJ

Level 5: same as above, delta-v now exact

And so on. Similar story for the in-editor readouts, things like delta-v calculated, center of lift/mass/drag, center of RCS thrust, etc, etc.

On sandbox, of course, anything goes.

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I'm curious as to your position on the current SAS. I've seen some people that think it's too strong, or that it makes fins/other aerodynamic considerations useless when building a rocket.

ON topic, I voted yes. I see no reason why not. It would be incredibly useful. I also like the idea of not starting out with it in career mode.

[Tortoise]

How about,

in career mode after a certain amount of science, you get Dv readouts?

Because unless you gain science and learn that getting places requires deltav, you won't know.

[shizophrenic]

I am for a dv readout during design in the VAB/SPH. Wernher von Kerman would do this. During flight i don't think you can actually get the exact amount of fuel you have. An real engine has not an exact fuel comsumbtion like 10 l/sec. it would be more like 10 l/sec plus minus 0,5 l/sec. So you only have more or less good estimate how much you used. And i personally think after Launch all plans are doomed to fail (even more for kerbals). Like my first manned moon landing, was planned on mün happend on minmus. And the actual first mun landing didn't have EVA because on the new lander i put the paracute on the hatch....

If there has do be a readout during flight then it should be based on the kerbalnauts stupidity:sticktongue:. generally i am for some more data (like times/height to apo, peri, ascen, descen) at flight mode, switching between flight and map mode is quite annoying. all data that the game now gives in map mode (and the altimeter from iva) should be at least accessible in flight mode. i don't like the idea to have a mod installed for this.

Some suggested putting some data views into iva makes no sense to me. then next you can ask "why can you see your craft from the outside and control it from here, lets make all controls useable only in iva ".

[Alchemist]

Actually, I don't think making it unlockable in the tech tree will do any good: experienced players can guesstimate what ship they need to get to the Mun without it with no problem, unexperienced ones won't know how much delta v they'll really need even for reaching LKO. And if you use such indication, observing the values of your crafts from the very beginning has more educational value

As for precision: you see precise delta v budget of your craft, you see precise delta v cost of the planned maneuver, but how precisely can you execute the maneuver? The piloting imprecision is already more than enough, especially for long burns: you still have to learn what extra delta v reserves you should actually take

Edited April 25, 2014 by Alchemist

[LethalDose]

How about,

in career mode after a certain amount of science, you get Dv readouts?

Because unless you gain science and learn that getting places requires deltav, you won't know.

Because this has absolutely no basis in reality. Delta V requirements were understood 3 decades before man launched anything into space.

Hohmann published orbital transfer methods and dV requirements in "Die Erreichbarkeit der Himmelskörper" 1925 in and Oberth published "Wege zur Raumschiffahrt" in 1929.

Sputnik 1 was launched into space in 1957.

Edited April 25, 2014 by LethalDose

[FenrirWolf]

While they're at it they can make maneuver nodes an unlockable, too!

...Except that would also be a terrible idea so pls don't take me seriously

[Rusty6899]

For most missions, I have designed my rocket before I get to the vehicle assembly building. The odd time I will have work arounds that have to be made on the fly, but I prefer the feeling of doing my own calculations.

I do think that it would help to have a readout of your ship's mass, as it can get slightly annoying to add up the mass of every single part on your ship manually.

I imagine the people who don't want to see it implemented are people who have put the time and effort into developing a mathematical solution to designing their ships and would feel that the addition of a dV readout would undermine the time they spent learning about it. From personal experience, I found that learning about dV, and how to calculate it and use it in a design process, was a very rewarding challenge, although I imagine it is not something that everyone is interested in.

I would say that there are a few arguments for and against;

FOR...

Some people aren't interested in getting too bogged down in maths and may take more interest in the many other challenges that the game has to offer.

Some people are happy to learn the scientific principles behind dV, but don't want/have time to spend an hour or two, before each mission, doing calculations.

AGAINST...

It undermines the efforts of those of us obsessive enough to learn about the subject.

It may dissuade players who would otherwise try to learn about dV, potentially limiting their enjoyment and the educational potential of the game.

[JokingHinge]

Yes.

I do the calculations on my own, but it takes hours of recalculating for each new part.

[Brotoro]

I just flew a spaceplane into Laythe orbit. Then I opened up MechJeb to see how much delta-V the ship had left (to see how well I did)... and it read zero. Huh? That can't be right...I still have fuel. Sadness.

So I quit and downloaded an update.....and, happiness! It works now to show me my delta-V.

So I'm a much happier player when I can have delta-V data, despite those who are trying to tell us "that's not the way the game was meant to be played."

[Giggleplex777]

I lasted exactly one day and four hours before I needed to install KER in 0.23.5.

[Woopert]

Delta-V indicators should very much be stock, albeit optional.

I'm not usually a fan of the "If you don't like it, don't use it!!!" argument, but if it's just one part, that works similarly to how KER works then it would be totally harmless.

[StrandedonEarth]

Agree that the displays should be available, either through settings options or unlocking via science or achievements.

The Kerbal way is using a rocket capable of putting 100 tons into orbit to launch a 20 ton Mun mission.

[metl]

I rather like the minimal information and open screen real estate. The more data being thrown at you at once, is that much less of the beautiful game that can be seen. Also, the idea behind keeping it basic allows new people who have no idea what to do the ability to pick up and learn the game easily without being bombarded by tons of information with absolutely no clue of what it all means and how it all works. I have no idea how much Dv is needed to make it to the Mun and back, but from trial and error, I have learned how much fuel I need for what engines. I don't always make it when I play with new designs, and that's okay too.

[AbhChallenger]

Very much YES! Just have an option to turn it off for those who want to play without it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Delta-V calculations are tedious to do by hand, especially for multistage craft. Anyone who wants that data regularly (and it would seem there are many) is going to use their computer to calculate it unless they enjoy summing part masses and running the rocket equation repeatedly. There are currently two ways of doing this:

External tools

Examples: Spreadsheet, custom app, web app, etc.

Pros:

- User can highly customize the output to their liking.

- Some can be used when away from the KSP computer

Cons

- Requires data entry for part lists, etc

- Less discoverable than in-game features

- Don't provide realtime data

Mods

Examples: Kerbal Engineer Redux, MechJeb, VOID, etc

Pros:

- Runs within game interface

- Already knows part lists and staging

- Readouts can update in real time

- Allows easier experimentation in VAB/SPH

- Completely optional

- More discoverable than external tools

Cons:

- Some players do not run mods

- Can have a performance impact

- Updates lag behind game releases (not a criticism of the modders, just the nature of mods)

- May contain other features than just delta-V calculation, which may or may not be desired

If a delta-V calculator were integrated:

Game feature

Pros:

- Has best access to game data for calculations

- Is most discoverable

- Updates with core game

Cons:

- May have a performance impact

- Consumes developer resources to implement, test and maintain

- Some feel that it conflicts with the "jury-rigged" flavor of KSP

The big questions are: Is a dV calculator worth the dev resources to implement? Does it fit in with their vision of KSP?

[Clockwork_werewolf]

I know that the "have it but have the option to turn it off" option sounds like a nice idea but that is not how people work or game-play feels when this is implemented.

Why do FPS games not all use aimbots? There would still be positioning, weapon choice, team play, reloading, objectives, cover, and special powers (if there are any). This would make it easier for new players to join and learn. Even in single player all the points apart from team play are still true. The players could then turn it off if the game was too easy. If this seems to off point then...

Why don't they instead show all the enemy's on the map at all times, this is just information after all and would help the new players in the game. In single player it would show all the enemy's on the map and make planing for the player easier. After they get good they could then switch this off and turn on fog of war. This would make all shooters easier to get into.

These are of course silly idea's but the comparison is apt. If it is in stock 99% for people would use it. If you have to change the game though settings then you are not playing the standard game even if you are playing the stock game. This greatly changes the game-play in general. Expect to see a lot of "I have 200,000 Delta-V is that enough to get to the Mun because I keep missing it when I burn straight towards it" Posts.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Clockwork_werewolf