Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[StrandedonEarth]

I very quickly came to the conclusion that it wasn't practical (read fun) to design a rocket for a purpose without, at least, readouts of TWR and deltaV. It just involved too much trial and error and restarting your missions several times because you haven't added enough fuel to get home gets discouraging very quickly

And this is exactly why I finally decided to install KER, so that I could be sure my Eve and Tylo landers could make orbit again without doing multiple missions just to test. Having Eve landers break on the way down was enough hassle.

Thanks Padishar!

[helaeon]

I'm going to say yes... but... it needs to be earned. Probably through the tech tree, or some other science or tests involving the parts you have unlocked.

One of the big accomplishments early in the game is getting into orbit for the first time, before you know anything about delta v or how much of it you need, etc.

By the time you go to Duna you know what all of those things are and the trial and error that's involved if you don't want to calculate it manually or have a complicated staging setup going is tedious... so by that point you should have a Kerbal Engineer or MechJeb type readout available to you, or you've ran the missions necessary to know the capabilities of your engines, tanks, etc to have the delta-v data unlocked for them.

[Red Iron Crown]

One of the big accomplishments early in the game is getting into orbit for the first time, before you know anything about delta v or how much of it you need, etc.

If a player knows nothing about delta-V or how much is required to make orbit, a readout of delta V is not going to reduce that sense of accomplishment. A new player is going to mess around with a few configurations and hit the launch bar, and odds are not good that they'll make orbit. Then they'll mess around with building a little more carefully, and maybe they notice that the readout changes. So they discover there is some quantity that it is measuring, maybe guess that a higher number is better. They still need to figure out how much is needed, how to build a spacecraft with enough, and how to fly it into orbit. A delta-V readout only helps a little bit with the first two, and the third is not diminished by it at all.

I'm more concerned by the scenario in which a new player can't figure out how to build a ship that can get to orbit, and even though their piloting is improving there is no chance that the craft can do it. A dV readout could nudge them in the right design direction before they give up in frustration.

[Jouni]

We would be doing the developers and everyone else a favor if we would make an inventory of all the strange cases that would cause problems with a delta-v system.

The cases where automatic delta-v calculations break are not so strange at all.

Consider the simple case with a reusable mothership and a reusable lander. Your total delta-v varies, depending on how much of the total fuel is consumed by the mothership and how much by the lander. The timing of the landings is also important: the sooner you do them, the more delta-v the mothership is going to get from its share of the fuel.

Cases like this are one of the reasons we need mission planning software in addition to simple delta-v calculations.

[NERVAfan]

I find that the game doesn't quite provide enough for interplanetary stuff yet though (there's no real way to work out your ejection angle or phase angle, except, again, by eyeballing it), and at those distances it's very difficult to work out what to adjust. I think some improvement on that data (and maybe a tutorial on how to use it) would help a lot of people break out of Kerbin's SOI for the first (and hopefully not last!) time.

This. Exactly.

[NERVAfan]

The cases where automatic delta-v calculations break are not so strange at all.

Consider the simple case with a reusable mothership and a reusable lander. Your total delta-v varies, depending on how much of the total fuel is consumed by the mothership and how much by the lander. The timing of the landings is also important: the sooner you do them, the more delta-v the mothership is going to get from its share of the fuel.

Cases like this are one of the reasons we need mission planning software in addition to simple delta-v calculations.

Still, KER type delta-v and TWR calculations would be much better than nothing.

In fact, I doubt I'd actually end up bothering with anything more complex if there was an option to see the KER type numbers.

[Majorjim!]

Yes, yes it should.

MJ

[Brischkopp]

They should add a weight readout, because that's the most boring part of calculating the Delta-V by yourself.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

OK here is a question, why do people desire a feature already available in mods when they could be asking for the Devs to make planets customizable.

At present the only way to add planets is to illegally decomplite the game. I know that the hard coding of the planets may help with game speed but I expect many people (not all though) have the spare computing power to have customizable planets.

Customizable planets would let mods add that second gas giant lots of people want. It would let people make mercury oceaned hot planets. They could make gas planets with a tiny core. They could make an accurate human solar system. They could make closest approximations of exo planets found by Kepler. They could make rock planets with 10 moons. They could make Endor.

This is a feature we can NOT have in any way, where as delta-V is a feature you can have at any time.

Real question: Time is limited, what makes already existing mod features more important for the Devs to work on?

[sanoj688]

OK here is a question, why do people desire a feature already available in mods when they could be asking for the Devs to make planets customizable.

Isn't there already a mod with custom planets ? But I sort of agree that it's not necessary at the moment because mods do a (for the time being) perfectly fine job.

But.. imo it needs to be stock when the game is finished (whenever that may be)

[r4pt0r]

if its a matter of priority i would rank it like so

-career

-finish biomes

-fix stock aerodynamics

-polish the game up(your dv counter thingy, iva for all cockpits, BUG CRUSHING)

-multiplayer support

and assorted parts throughout. then v1.0

but im sure that isnt how others see it. kmp isnt for me so i could do without but hey

[John FX]

I applaud how you apologized while dropping yet another insult. Well done!

Yeah, no. As one of those who voted no, and is against this idea for several reasons already stated, I reject your statement that I want to keep this game only for the obsessive, or that I hate new players. Please refrain from further insults and blanket insinuations.

Wasn`t talking about you. You have jumped into a response to a response to clockwork werewolf who was suggesting that 85% of people be put out to comfort 15% of people.

I`ll state it plainly, Regex does NOT want to keep this game only for the obsessive, or hate new players.

There are elements in the forum though who DO want to keep the game for the obsessive, restrict information to that which is calculated external to the game from basic principles, and maintain superiority over newer players (not hate, desire to maintain superiority over)

Most players do not do this. This a vocal minority.

You know they type, and they are vocal.

Yes, them. Not you. You do not for example state that the entire of society should re-educate itself as to the standard units it is familiar with instead of changing the units displayed in KSP and badger a thread until they stop disagreeing with them. I have seen that. You do not bombard mod devs until they cannot continue with development of their mod with constant questions barely connected with the mod in an attempt to shape the mod to your personal vision. I have also seen that. This is the type of actions from the vocal minority on the forum I refer to that is trying to ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority to the detriment of the game IMHO.

You are actually quite reasonable on the forum in spite of your `not very diplomatic` tagline.

Have you ever built an Apollo-style craft or anything else highly modular? Certain combinations of parts can trip it up and certain staging configurations can do the same. There needs to be a simple way to handle that sort of thing through the GUI. Unfortunately that adds a lot of complications to use.

Regularly. It`s almost all I do in KSP. I am very familiar with the issues you describe. If I could define groups or subassemblies (as we currently do), like descent, ascent then group groups for example `descent+ascent=lander` then each group can have the configuration defined for Dv like `config 5=CM+lander, engines used - CM`

The final grouping would be the entire craft.

Then KSP has all the information it needs to cope with fringe cases as the user has explicitly defined them.

so the Dv for config 5 is easy whereas now it is almost impossible (being a config after a docking and staging). You just need a little explicit defining by the user.

For apollo you would define the ascent lander stage then define the descent then define the lander as descent+ascent (using descent engines) and so forth

config 1 - standard (stage 1)

config 2 - standard (stage 2)

config 3 - standard (stage S-IVB)

config 3 - CM+lander

config 4 - CM+S-IVB

config 5 - lander

config 6 - CM

and so forth.

Then the missions profile could go

config 1, config 2, config 4, config 3

A nice benefit from doing this would be the correct naming of parts as they detach from the craft and the correct renaming of the craft as parts detach. Your lander would be called `lander` or `eagle` and the craft would rename to `stage 2` or S-IVB`, whatever you named it. No more `probe lander probe` parts...

I see it as part of a larger mission control/mission planning system which would benefit the game greatly. Lets face it, once you are making complex craft like this you have reached a certain skill level and could cope with a little defining. If you don`t want the Dv readout then just don`t bother doing that. No input from the user leaves you in the current situation.

Fear of criticism cannot be the deciding factor here as they're going to be criticized one way or the other.

Exactly. By the vocal minority. You know the type. I`m trying to suggest that simply because some people are very vocal over a subject and feel strongly about it that this should not be seen that most people think that way.

I especially feel that the game should not be put into a state that only interests a minority and excludes the interests of the majority. That is just bad business sense. The game should have features for all players.

The mods we have now provide the function which is needed but that is exactly the point. It is needed and so should be stock. Like docking or subassemblies. There was a need, a mod was made because of that need, the mod became part of stock and so received tech support from the devs (this is why stock is important, you get support for that feature as opposed to mods)

The extension of the logic where `less readouts increase discovery enjoyment` eventually leads to `the most fun game possible is with no readouts` and the simple fact that the majority of people do not prefer this or any step toward this and they prefer all the readouts.

Some plainly *do* prefer less readouts and there is nothing wrong with that. We should all play the game the way we want to as individuals and not interfere with others playing how they want.

How about integrating toolbar into stock and then we can just choose the custom readouts we want as individuals?

win-win?

Edited April 27, 2014 by John FX

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

Last thing I'm gonna say on this thread, as I feel I've had my fair say already; even using MechJeb for DV readouts, I still fail and end up with not quite enough to get back to Kerbin so as someone else said, just having the readout doesn't necessarily make the game any easier, and as someone else pointed out, they are not quite 100% accurate; complex LV's still have me reaching for the calculator so I can add up what I've managed to separate into different stages...

[Seret]

I'm going to say yes... but... it needs to be earned.

I'd be happy with that. When you're at the early game stage of "throw a pod at the sky until it sticks" then you can have fun without reams of data and minmaxing. But once you're far enough down the tech tree to be doing complex interplanetary missions it makes sense (and IMO increases the fun) to have some relevant planning tools available.

[metl]

If we are going to add a Dv meter, then why not go a step further and add a complete, automated system which tells you exactly how much Dv you need and will do all of the burns and everything for you, all you do is hit "launch" then once in orbit, hit "Land."

[TMS]

If we are going to add a Dv meter, then why not go a step further and add a complete, automated system which tells you exactly how much Dv you need and will do all of the burns and everything for you, all you do is hit "launch" then once in orbit, hit "Land."

Probably for the same reason that people use KER instead of mechjeb.

Or something.

[colmo]

Probably for the same reason that people use KER instead of mechjeb.

Or something.

Quite. Good response to a slippery slope logical fallacy.

Most people use such tools to automate manoeuvres they've mastered already. I'm a fan of earning such advanced guidance tools.

[Uncle Mort]

If we are going to add a Dv meter, then why not go a step further and add a complete, automated system which tells you exactly how much Dv you need and will do all of the burns and everything for you, all you do is hit "launch" then once in orbit, hit "Land."

Assuming this is a serious point and not a bit of misdirected sarcasm I say that the difference between providing delta-v data and a full automation is more than a "step further"

[JayCheetah]

i dont think so. my most exciting missions are watching the fuel tick down as i burn towards home. will i make it? is my kerbal doomed to drift through space forever?

Just because you like to experience the game your way, doesn't mean it should not be optional for others.

Squad is so keen on having KSP as an educational tool, but the game lacks tools to truly understand on whats going on.

If it wasn't clear already, I say Yes!

[metl]

Having a Delta-V meter serves little purpose if there is nothing to compare it to, such as how much is needed to achieve a certain orbit or transfer.Hence, if they add a Dv meter, then they should also add a system which allows you to select a target and it would give you the required Dv based on your current orbit, plus where to burn to actually make use of that Dv, otherwise a person would easily burn it away without knowing the sweet spot to burn most efficiently. With both of those in play, it is a small step to an "autopilot" function. Then we are at MechJeb.

The other option to make the data useful, would be a map overlay which would show how much Dv would be required, similar to this chart http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25360-Delta-V-map

Again though, it is a small step to having a full-blown autopilot.

With all of that said, I do think the idea of being able to research a tree branch which unlocks computer systems and autopilot functions would be a reasonable compromise. I'm not against a Dv dispay, I am just pointing out that it really isn't something a casual gamer really needs to know or care about, as they won't have the required knowledge to make use of it. It would be just a "I have this much fuel left" placeholder.

[lajoswinkler]

It should because it's a vital thing, and no, it doesn't allow perfect flight. Many factors decide on that, not just delta-v capability.

[BudgetHedgehog]

<snip>

Slippery Slope argument. Why have this game at all if the user is given what you propose? Build stuff, "launch", "land".. Being given the information to be able to perform orbital manoeuvres is not the same as the game performing those orbital manoeuvres for you. You still need to know that to reach orbit, you need 4.4 km/s dV, to get to the Mun you need about 800 m/s and to Minmus about 950. As you said, that means nothing to a new player/someone that doesn't yet understand orbital mechanics. Even if you had MJ installed, showing dV is meaningless if you don't know what to make of the information. So what's the harm in having it? How will it negatively impact your gameplay if a dV display was optional and/or unlockable? That way, people who don't want it can hide it and people who do want it can have it.

Also, there's no reason Squad "should" add things to the game at all - if you have a dV readout, it should be up to you to find out what you can do with how much dV you're given. There's no clause stipulating that "if Squad gives a dV readout, they must also include xyz".. the readout isn't telling you "you can land and return from Duna with this", it's literally telling you "you can change your velocity by this much". I don't see how that's in any way coming close to having an autopilot.

And please don't bash MJ - it has many useful functions beyond the autopilot feature, including information readouts that A, any space program would have anyway and B, KER is missing.

[metl]

It should because it's a vital thing, and no, it doesn't allow perfect flight. Many factors decide on that, not just delta-v capability.

I agree that there are indeed many factors, which is why a Dv meter by itself serves no real purpose, because on it's own, it tells you nothing without some frame of reference to know how much you need. As far as "vital", far from it. Many players have managed to navigate the Kerbal universe without ever needing any Dv information.

[metl]

Slippery Slope argument. Why have this game at all if the user is given what you propose? Build stuff, "launch", "land".. Being given the information to be able to perform orbital manoeuvres is not the same as the game performing those orbital manoeuvres for you. You still need to know that to reach orbit, you need 4.4 km/s dV, to get to the Mun you need about 800 m/s and to Minmus about 950. As you said, that means nothing to a new player/someone that doesn't yet understand orbital mechanics. Even if you had MJ installed, showing dV is meaningless if you don't know what to make of the information. So what's the harm in having it? How will it negatively impact your gameplay if a dV display was optional and/or unlockable? That way, people who don't want it can hide it and people who do want it can have it.

Also, there's no reason Squad "should" add things to the game at all - if you have a dV readout, it should be up to you to find out what you can do with how much dV you're given. There's no clause stipulating that "if Squad gives a dV readout, they must also include xyz".. the readout isn't telling you "you can land and return from Duna with this", it's literally telling you "you can change your velocity by this much". I don't see how that's in any way coming close to having an autopilot.

And please don't bash MJ - it has many useful functions beyond the autopilot feature, including information readouts that A, any space program would have anyway and B, KER is missing.

I'm not bashing MJ at all. It is a wonderful piece of programming. Everyone here is saying the devs "should" include something (Dv readout) so I was simply adding to that "should" request. Why is it okay for you to say that this is information that ANY space program should already have (implying that KSP should have it) yet I cannot use that same argument stating that if they include a Dv radout, that they should include something to reference it to? Do you really have nothing better to support your argument other than that?

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm guessing fairly confidently that no one has returned to orbit from Eve's sea level without doing a delta-V calculation. It is impossibly difficult to just overbuild or trial and error your way to that.

As for a dV meter being close to autopilot, I guess you should follow that slope the other way. Get rid of the altimeter, velocity readout, maneuver nodes and navball, because they're figuring out how to play the game for you, too.