Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[mattinoz]

21 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I second what @regex said.

 KSP is actually an educational program masquerading as a toy. If you want to know the t/w and DV, it's a simple matter to calculate it from the available information.

  Pretend you're a rocket scientist and figure it out. It's much more fun that way!

 

Best,

-Slashy

 

 

It's starts to feel more like work then fun by the third time though.

[Gordon Fecyk]

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

No, it doesn't. That calculation would give an approximation of the vessel's current velocity.

What am I looking at here, then?

--

[klgraham1013]

I think it should be in the game, but I understand the need to do it right.  In the meantime, just put a link to KER on the main menu.  Only half joking.

[StrandedonEarth]

52 minutes ago, Gordon Fecyk said:

What am I looking at here, then?

--

That is how long it would take, at max accel, to bring your current velocity down to 0m/s. That does not mean that your tanks would be empty after that burn.

[Red Iron Crown]

55 minutes ago, Gordon Fecyk said:

What am I looking at here, then?

--

The maximum acceleration and time until zeroing the current velocity at that accel. 57s * 39.5m/s² = 2251m/s, which is pretty close to the craft's current orbital speed of 2269.4m/s. 57.45s * 39.5m/s² would give 2269.4m/s, so it's probably just rounding the burn time (and assuming constant deceleration, too). The number is mostly useful for guestimating suicide burns, near as I can tell.

Those numbers say nothing about whether there's enough fuel to complete that burn, or if there will be fuel leftover afterwards. Think of it as a maneuver node at the current time that zeros out the current velocity.

Edit: @StrandedonEarth is a ninja. 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Red Iron Crown

[IncongruousGoat]

I'm going to... err.. third what @regex said. The game gives you all the data you need to compute delta-V and TWR (although I would like the total mass in the engineer's report to go to the kilogram, for precision). Just get a pencil, some paper, a calculator, and a hefty serving of patience. For me, at least, a big part of the game is running the numbers, trying to come up with delta-V requirement estimates, and then running more numbers. It's all part of the design process, and part of rocket science. And what is KSP but a rocket science simulator? Other than a good way to create virtual explosions, of course.

[kBob]

The following is of course somewhat exaggerated to make a point...you have been warned (but no polymorphs are present so it should be safe).

A lot of  "do it the hard way" here.  Pencil, paper?  You sound like math teachers from the 70's "you can't use a calculator in class because what if you were on a desert island and didn't have a calculator?"   Come on it's the computer age!  Do rocket scientists not have calculators or computers?  As for having it in the stock game, yes please, it's important info and if you don't want it turn it off (in fact it can default to off, then in the tutorials that introduce the topic show the new user how to turn it on and use it, maybe about the time they get into their first orbit).  Why is there so much resistance to having important information that is (or would be) useful for, dare I say it,  a majority of users?  As for accuracy, while it should be as accurate as possible, it's pretty simple to make it clear that it's a guiding figure to help with designing and planning and estimating and not an exact, written in stone, number.

Now excuse me while I go hunt up a meal, strike some rocks together and cook it (well ok given some of the odd places my Kerbals end up that might actually need to happen: maybe a nice survivalist mod for that will come along ) .

[cfds]

4 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

I second what @regex said.

 KSP is actually an educational program masquerading as a toy. If you want to know the t/w and DV, it's a simple matter to calculate it from the available information.

  Pretend you're a rocket scientist and figure it out. It's much more fun that way!

 

Best,

-Slashy

 

 

But why give us a display for the craft mass? Pretend to be a rocket scientist and add up all the masses of the single parts. It's more fun that way!

[ag3nt108]

Its the only mod I use.  While some people may be able to calculate DV accurately and even enjoy doing so I have no idea how to do so.  For that matter I have no desire to try.  Plenty of my missions still fail regardless of knowing how much DV I have in the tanks.  I don't really use DV maps, but i do like to know how much I have in my tank.

[Hevak]

Well having really accurate deltaV is certainly realistic and useful, I kind of agree having it sort of changes the game quite a bit. And I'll explain why. Though I must mention that I do use generally KER and/or mechjeb almost all the time now.

but I remember when I first started, you kind of you know, did trial and error and then built off that. Basically you would get to orbit and then be like. Ok this got me to orbit so I need more to get to the mun. So then you'd kind of build on previous successes in a way which I thing was  a much better way to learn to play within ksp.

but the biggest way I think it really changed the game is this. Before I ever used a deltaV calc at all, I would play much differently as far as going to the mun and such. What I mean is that I would generally get into orbit, make my new maneuver to xfer to the mun and see if I had the deltaV (or burn time or whatever it is in stock)  needed for that burn still. And all my xfer tended to be free return xfers so that if I got there and didn't have the deltaV needed to orbit I could still get back home.  And as such it gave the game a bit of unexpectedness to it. Like getting to the moon and seeing The burn needed to orbit, do I want to chance it? Or is it too close? Hmmm decisions decisions. I think some of that gets a bit lost in a way. 

now, knowing I have the deltaV I rarely do free return xfers anymore because I know I don't need it, and stock ksp really has very little unexpectedness built into it. So I know my ship can get there, orbit, do whatever and return. Without flying that craft ever. Just build one,  check the Dv then go. Nothing to it

A lot of the fun of the unknown gets lost I think with having deltaV so handy. You know doing the free returns to be sure you could get back, or even the returns from Munar orbit that you set up to aerobrake you into kerbin just in case you didn't have enough burn left to bring your apo down once in kerbin orbit, and then enough to renenter and land. Some of that kind of gets lost once you have too much accurate information. So I'm kind of on the side of its better not having it, as far as the way it makes you approach some things planning wise. 

Luckily I'm just bad enough at this game that sometimes I still have to err on the side of caution and do many of the above things. And I still tend to overdo my craft because of this. 

I think this really affects the way many things in the game are approached by most of the more average players. Obviously with the better or more advanced players it probably makes no difference either way.  

Anyways just my thoughts. I'm not really arguing for on side or the other, just posting how I feel it has changed the game from my experience.

Sorry I keep saying deltaV for when using stock. I mean whatever it is you get in stock, burn times or whatever Information is reported, and how much the maneuver set up takes. Like I said I use KER or mechjeb so I don't remember exactly how stock reports things. But hopefully I made enough sense people can follow my thoughts.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Hevak

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, cfds said:

But why give us a display for the craft mass? Pretend to be a rocket scientist and add up all the masses of the single parts. It's more fun that way!

Pfft you use the masses as given? I built a swivel scale out of stock parts and weighed each one relative to the others. Like a real rocket scientist would do. I know exactly how many runways per heartbeat squared I get out of each Mainsail-mass of fuel.

[Dafni]

52 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

 I built a swivel scale out of stock parts and weighed each one relative to the others. Like a real rocket scientist would do.

You do this too? Nice. We should exchange our stock wind tunnels and force measuring rigs one day.

[Padishar]

On 6/14/2016 at 7:34 PM, soulsource said:

(what's perfectly find for a mod, but would cause dozens of flame-threads in this forum if it were stock)...

I'm not picking on you explicitly, loads of people have said similar things, but, I don't actually think this is true.  Sure, there would be some complaints, but I think the number is being exaggerated and could be significantly lessened by clearly explaining the assumptions the calculator makes and coding it so that when difficult situations are detected, the numbers that are "incorrect" would be flagged as having a problem.  E.g. for the classic case of root part being decoupled in an early stage, the numbers for the stages after the root is decoupled could have a warning triangle on (or be a different colour as suggested above) and putting the mouse over it would open an explanation of the issue, "the calculator can only calculate the deltaV that the defined stages can apply to the original root part of the vessel, the root part is being decoupled in stage <n> so all following stages do not provide it any deltaV".  The other classic is deciding when a stage that decouples stuff but doesn't affect the engines or fuel quantities should be staged, e.g. you can have a "stage" that just ejects a fairing and you fire this part way through the burn, the exact time that you eject those fairings will have a noticeable effect on the deltaV.  In this case you could either provide a way for specifying the timing (or fuel use) of each stage or you could simply pick a time and flag the relevant readouts as being inaccurate (e.g. both the fairing stage and the one before would have indicators and an explanation "the calculator can't determine when stage <n> is fired during the mission so the numbers are calculated assuming it is fired at <whenever>.")

As for how difficult it is to implement, I'll be the first to agree that it's a much more complex thing to do than it initially appears.  The mods that do it need to reproduce a lot of stock code for determining which tanks are being drained at what rates.  The "rules" are complex and not documented well which makes it more difficult to account for edge cases.  If this work is done at the same time as the rework of the resource handling system then the data structures that store resource information in parts and the code that determines fuel flow etc could be made shareable between the part code and the code that simulates the vessel, e.g. it has to create a "copy" of the vessel to simulate it (at least those bits of the data that affect the calculations) and if this simulation copy can use the same data structures and code as the actual resource draining code then there will be a lot less room for error.  Currently, various important parts of the information are derived from Unity classes (e.g. PartResource is actually a MonoBehaviour) so can't be "directly" copied and couldn't be passed to other threads for calculating in the background.

[klgraham1013]

Having a "Prone to Error if Rocket To Crazy" message on the readout seems a very Kerbal warning to me.

I have a "miles to empty" readout in my car.  Even if it's inaccurate sometimes, it's still a good addition to the standard fuel gauge.

edit: I get dv in KSP is more complicated than MPG in my car.  Don't kill me.

Edited June 16, 2016 by klgraham1013

[GoSlash27]

8 hours ago, mattinoz said:

It's starts to feel more like work then fun by the third time though.

That's why I created a spreadsheet

4 hours ago, cfds said:

But why give us a display for the craft mass? Pretend to be a rocket scientist and add up all the masses of the single parts. It's more fun that way!

I've lost count of how many times I've actually done that. When designing launch vehicles away from KSP, there's no other choice.

Best,
-Slashy

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I think this is really a question of time commitment. Like most people, I have a job, and a dog, and a girlfriend, and a busy life...that doesn't leave a lot of time for "trial and error" attempts at a Mun landing for example. If I waste an hour or two redesigning and then re-redesigning because of a lack of information I've just wasted all the time I have that day or possibly that week doing nothing and getting nowhere. This doesn't make me want to come back and play KSP next week when I get a chance because odds are I won't accomplish anything and therefore won't have much fun.

For me personally a Delta V readout is a necessity because I need to know that the rocket I just spent an hour designing and building will make it to the Mun, because actually flying there and performing the mission is going to take another hour and that's prolly about all the time I have to play. I like many others just plain don't have the time to fly a half dozen trial and error missions even if I did think it was fun, which I don't. As I've stated before I've had several friends who typically love these engineering/learn as you play style games who bought KSP and they all promptly refunded it. When I asked them why they wouldn't love playing a game that taught them to fly rockets into space they responded that they would, but KSP didn't teach them a single thing and instead expected them to learn themselves the hard way via hours and hours of trial and error, which as adults with lives, they don't have time for.

In the interest of saving the player time KSP needs a Delta V display as an option, those who don't like it or prefer to do things the "old fashioned" way would be free to turn it off or ignore it.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Vaporized Steel]

Everybody has their own reasoning for wanting something added to the game, whatever that is and for what reason. Although in this case I kinda wished that the question "why" can be elaborated.
I to have occasionally made requests, but never with the intention that such a request should be made stock. As long as it is introduced one way or another.

How does it matter whether a new game element is introduced as stock or modded by a third party programmer?
What do you mean by, "I want to play pure stock"
What is the logic behind that? You want something that isn't stock right now, it is being supplied, thus what is the problem then? Why want something to be added as a main element in the game if that is already offered by software addons? Usually not more then a few Kb/mb. Even under 56 Kilobytes/ps on a limited bandwith connection on antarctica it's done faster then a single breath.
Installing KER takes 30 seconds of IRL time. And if you save it in a folder on your desktop you never have to waste bandwith on it ever again unless theres a update.

By my logic, keeping a sandbox game like KSP in a barebone state is the way to go. Less stock elements is less computer requirements and leaves the initiative to the end user in question to what he/she adds to the stock elements.
As for Squad, HEROES! they haven't proven themselves to be very accurate in their piloting systems. Aircraft usually have trouble holding navigational markers in space, I think their own delta V readouts if not extended info panels will suffer from similar inaccuracies. Mechjeb and Ker have proven to be accurate, so please use them.

[Gordon Fecyk]

8 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

57.45s * 39.5m/s² would give 2269.4m/s, so it's probably just rounding the burn time

Hm. The more you know... Thanks.

--

[razark]

7 hours ago, kBob said:

Do rocket scientists not have calculators or computers?

They also have lower-level engineers to crunch the numbers and bring them an answer so they don't have to do it personally.  It's Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Space One Person Doing Everything By Himself.

I'd like to see delta-V in the game, but if the devs decide not to ever put it in, I'm pretty sure there will always be a mod to handle it.

[DaMachinator]

It's pretty easy to calculate your surface TWR by hand. It's less easy, but still doable, to calculate your DeltaV. Nonetheless, I play with KER.

Edited June 16, 2016 by DaMachinator

[regex]

12 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

although I would like the total mass in the engineer's report to go to the kilogram, for precision

I do believe it already is in the latest version.

[JedTech]

3 hours ago, razark said:

I'd like to see delta-V in the game, but if the devs decide not to ever put it in, I'm pretty sure there will always be a mod to handle it.

It's probably better that they do not put Dv in. We have seen over and over again that they only implement a partial solution no where as good as what mods provide.

[mattinoz]

14 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

That's why I created a spreadsheet

I've lost count of how many times I've actually done that. When designing launch vehicles away from KSP, there's no other choice.

Best,
-Slashy

I use a Calca sheet but thinking of writing a swift playground for more fun.

[Red Iron Crown]

11 hours ago, JedTech said:

It's probably better that they do not put Dv in. We have seen over and over again that they only implement a partial solution no where as good as what mods provide.

There are still stock players who don't use mods to think of. And it's not like a stock implementation kills the mods, FAR is still going strong (and more sophisticated than ever) even though stock aero was vastly improved. Should they have not improved stock aero because FAR already existed? And that's leaving aside the console versions, where it will likely be stock or nothing.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Red Iron Crown
Post got partially eaten.

[MaximilianPs]

Definetly yes, engineer should help the casual player be given tips and warnings. Could be an option, so if you don't want it, just disable it. Hi it would be useful and soul help to avoid many frustrating experience which casual player have and thah, maybe he even know why. A sort of help/debug, instead just deltaV