Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[LethalDose]

I'm surprised this discussion is still going on after such time.

I would like to come with a point which is usually not much of a concern with KSP, but it is a huge concern in many other games.

The point is:

How is the game meant to be played?

That is an important question in many games because it helps distinguish between playing and cheating. The important part of it is that the question is not about how given individual player wants to play the game but how the game authors, designers and developers wanted people to play it. How, and why.

This is usually not a point with KSP. It is a single player game so cheating is only what you choose as cheating, be it quickload, revert, usage of certain mods, editing persistence file, modding parts or hacking the game code. But when it is about where the game should go further, I believe it becomes the central point again. It SHOULD become the central point. Because developing a game is not about blindly piling features one on top of another. Especially if you're developing such an open game like KSP. It can be seen on KSP that it underwent such phase in its history and there are still many open ends waiting to be tied. But at least to me it appears that now the development team is going after some central idea again and my guess is that they're not going to let things get out of hand again.

Have any of you who voted Yes tried to stop and think about such ethereal things like what might be the background idea or psychology of KSP? If such simple and easy to implement feature like dv readout is not in the game yet, what might be the reason why is that so? Would it really move the game in the direction where it is intended to go? Not intended by you, but intended by developers?

My guess is no. Each of you is playing their own game and you play it the way which requires deeper scientific approach than what the stock game offers. So you use MechJeb, KER, or other tools and mods which help you play it the way you prefer. There's nothing wrong on that. But the question remains: was the game really intended to be played that way?

There are massive problems with this. Yes, there's "designer intent", but in the case of KSP, the intent seems downright schizophrenic. On the one hand, theres plenty of game flavor that can be generalized as "Kerbalz r dum, lolz", and on the other, there are plenty of cases of advanced information provided (e.g. specific impulse) and relatively advanced physical concepts needed for basic gameplay (e.g. hohmann transfers). Not to mention that they've teamed with NASA and brought the highly technical ARM into the game...

So... What's the desingers intent. You stated above that all you can offer is a guess. And that guess ignores substantial amounts of contrary evidence.

But I guess I should just shove it so you can get back to belittling dissenting opinions and attributing the desire for a dV meter to players that can't handle failure.

[Strikerklm96]

You already can't play the game effectively without either looking up stuff like KSP transfer calculator, or already having the knowledge to calculate it(waste of time). I understand they wanted you to experiment and learn, but it's a semi-realistic physics simulation so that only works up to a point. Once you know enough, you need the delta-v and other data to keep learning, so not providing delta-v doesn't really make ANY sense.

Besides, a noob won't know what delta-v is, so he/she will end up learning and experimenting anyway, rather than just having to look up on the internet how to play the game better, which seems to be the bane of physics games.

[Alchemist]

There's one particular reason why relatively wild guesstimation is viable: piloting uncertainty. In many cases (launch, landing, docking) you might have theoretical values, but you still need either add quite some extra (and guesstimate this amount) or use your experience of how much it really takes you to do this with such design. And when such experience come into the play, there's not so much difference between "this is enough Dv, but I know I'll need to add about this extra" and "as I recall, it takes about this amount of fuel".

Actually, interplanetary missions are the level, where well determined transfers start dominating the playing field to the point that taking exact + minimal extra for them gives notable economy despite the uncertainty of the other parts of the mission. And still, guesstimating works nicely, if you use approach "if I have extra fuel, I'll visit something else".

Still, Dv can be very useful if used right. For example, "the probe was a success, so the manned lander the same Dv"

P.S. Did I just write a text about calibration??? My head is full of analytical chemistry tonight...

[metl]

Because people find it useful. The popularity of KER and info from MJ shows that people want to be told their dV and other orbital and vessel stats at any time they wish. On the other hand, I haven't see a satisfactory answer to why we SHOULDN'T have one that can't be answered with 'don't use it then'.

And no, your '200/360 m/s' is not sufficient because it's still introducing dV into the display. For someone who doesn't understand it, they won't know what it means. Either KSP should have a burn time at full throttle (correctly calculated) instead of dV or keep the node dV display and show it at other times as well. It's like saying this:

'This leg of your road trip is 64 miles and will take you an hour to do'

'Well, how long will the rest of it take?'

'Not telling you. Figure it out for yourself, you should get right almost to the end of your road trip and then you can find out that you won't finish it in time. That's the better option.'

It's incomplete at best and unhelpful at worse.

If you don't see a difference between 200 m/s and 200 units of fuel, that's fine and I honestly don't mind. But why are you arguing that everyone else should play like you because you don't see a difference? Other people understand it and want it, why are you saying they shouldn't have it just because you personally don't need it?

Stressed for importance

This was my entire post in the beginning. A Dv readout BY ITSELF is useless. It is saying, "You can change your velocity by this much, but I'm not telling you how far that will get you." Without another layer of information, such as a map overlay with values mentioned by another past after yours with the pretty Dv chart, the readout alone is as vague as the scenario you just gave using my suggestion. People do find it useful, also many others have no use for it.

EDIT:

Also, am I the only person in this entire forum that has never used a transfer calculator?

Edited April 28, 2014 by metl
more info

[Jouni]

See the RD-170/180. It has a lot of adjustments that were quick fixes but were made in the final design. They actually failed on the first satellite launch more than once, and got lucky on the last. Learning from what went wrong.

What I mean is that:

1. Soviet math, science, and engineering education was good and solid at all levels.
   
2. As a result, they had very good mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, and the best they could produce was easily on par with the best the West could produce.
   
3. The Soviets had certain cultural problems, as well as problems in motivating the workers to do good-quality work.
   
4. Those problems led to low average quality in their products, as well as low-quality manufacturing and materials even in their high-profile projects, such as the space program.
   

Most of the problems in the Soviet space program can be traced to points 3 and 4. While their top engineers could come up with great designs, they had problems in designing reliable technology that could be produced reliably with what was available.

[Jouni]

Have any of you who voted Yes tried to stop and think about such ethereal things like what might be the background idea or psychology of KSP? If such simple and easy to implement feature like dv readout is not in the game yet, what might be the reason why is that so? Would it really move the game in the direction where it is intended to go? Not intended by you, but intended by developers?

I have. I also believe that developer intent can be better inferred from what they do than from what they say.

We have a game about basic physics, using simple mathematics. The core game mechanics are all laid open in a wiki hosted on a Squad server. The game provides exact numerical information on the performance of different parts. As a result, the game is obviously meant to be played using that numerical information, calculating the mathematics when necessary.

There have been other games I have played for a nontrivial amount of time in the last couple of years: Civilization V, XCOM, Left 4 Dead 2, Dragon Age: Origins, and probably some others. All those games intentionally obfuscate the game mechanics to discourage playing by the numbers. The same can't be said about KSP.

[BudgetHedgehog]

A Dv readout BY ITSELF is useless. It is saying, "You can change your velocity by this much, but I'm not telling you how far that will get you." Without another layer of information, such as a map overlay with values mentioned by another past after yours with the pretty Dv chart, the readout alone is as vague as the scenario you just gave using my suggestion.

So why not include the extra information too? As it stands, KSP has half the information (and as Tarmenius said, no easy way of using that half information) which doesn't make any sense, hence my "incomplete at best" remark. It says we need X amount of dV but there's no easy way in stock to see if we have that until we either finish the burn or run out halfway through.

And again, you're arguing against adding a DV readout because you personally don't need one. Why? Hooray, you've never needed a transfer calculator. That's impressive and an honest well done to you. However, not everyone plays the same way as you. Other people either need or would like to know transfer times and/or dV of their craft. Do you consider how you play to be 'the right way' or 'the way developers intended'? If so, great, but it's wrong to argue that other players should play the same way as you because of that.

[metl]

I consider the way I play as the way I play. Nothing more or less than that. I'm not trying to say anyone's way of playing is either right or wrong. Everyone else are the ones being insistent that everyone should be relying on a Dv readout to play. I was simply pointing out that there are many of us who don't rely on one, so it really is not as critical as some would try to claim.

[BudgetHedgehog]

there are many of us who don't rely on one, so it really is not as critical as some would try to claim.

And there are some that do rely on it so why are you saying it's not critical or needed? I'd say it's critical for people who do rely on it. Yes, they could install mods, but the poll question isn't about that. It's asking if stock KSP should have a dV readout and in my opinion, yes it should. That's why I install KER - because it includes info missing from the stock game.

Of course, it's hard to know how many of the 86% of people who answered 'yes' rely on a dV readout rather than those who would just like it as extra info (which, I must remind you, is all it is - extra information), but clearly, the desire for one (whether people need it or would like it) is something most players have. However many people your 'many of us' is, it's not going to be more than the people who would like one.

[Padishar]

Eh... Maybe just have it toggleable or something. Aside from the terribly over-padded GUI in Engineer, my biggest gripe is that I can't turn off the vessel simulation. I don't really care about in-flight delta-V (but I do want the altitude and orbit numbers!) since I tend to over-engineer and having a full-blown vessel simulation going while I'm flying does impact performance (although Padishar has done some wonderful work to help).

Honestly, most of my objection to having a delta-V window in KSP comes from nostalgia, the desire to see more important things fixed/added first, and performance concerns.

Sorry, I must have missed this one earlier. Yes, the vessel simulation does have an impact on performance (especially with large craft) but all you have to do to turn off the vessel simulation is to close the VES tab. This can be clearly seen by running something like Fraps to give an fps count and then opening and closing the VES window. On my dodgy laptop with a 379 part, 3500 ton rocket with 9 asparagus stages and a complex asteroid tug on top, I get about 11 fps on the launch pad looking straight up. If I open the VES window this drops to 8 with occasional drops to 5. On a faster computer the difference shouldn't be as significant but should still be easily measurable.

This level of performance degradation is unacceptable and I will be working on this area very soon (i.e. as soon as my replacement machine arrives). I have a number of optimisations already planned and will also be adding an option to control the rate at which the simulation runs.

The speed of the simulation code depends most on the part count and the complexity of the fuel flow. I don't usually use the vessel tab much during flight. I almost never use it during launch (unless I'm doing specific testing of KER) when the surface and orbit tabs are much more important. Once I've made orbit I turn off the surface tab but leave the orbit tab open most of the time. I usually only turn on the vessel tab briefly to check things before doing manoeuvres.

[cantab]

Either KSP should have a burn time at full throttle (correctly calculated) instead of dV or keep the node dV display and show it at other times as well. It's like saying this:

'This leg of your road trip is 64 miles and will take you an hour to do'

'Well, how long will the rest of it take?'

'Not telling you. Figure it out for yourself, you should get right almost to the end of your road trip and then you can find out that you won't finish it in time. That's the better option.'

This is completely wrong. The current situation is akin to knowing that your journey is 64 miles, and that your car has half a tank of fuel left.

And yes, many modern cars will estimate your range. But they often get it badly wrong because they can't predict what you the driver will do, and it's the same in KSP for certain mission types such as Apollo-style landings. I guarantee I can build and fly a ship and get significantly different delta-V to what any calculator, stock or modded, tells me. Not to mention running out of fuel in real life (in any vehicle) is a bigger problem than running out of fuel in a video game.

[BudgetHedgehog]

And yes, many modern cars will estimate your range.

And KSP doesn't even attempt anything close to that. It literally just tells you how much you need to change your velocity by and how much fuel you have left. It's entirely down to the user to figure out if that's enough, which I repeat, I have no problem doing, but I don't want to spend time doing that when I could be flying the thing instead.

But they often get it badly wrong because they can't predict what you the driver will do, and it's the same in KSP for certain mission types such as Apollo-style landings. I guarantee I can build and fly a ship and get significantly different delta-V to what any calculator, stock or modded, tells me.

Well obviously, if a dV readout was included, it'd need to be accurate and not choke up on complex craft designs. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that KSP should have such a thing and, at the moment, it has nothing close to it.

Not to mention running out of fuel in real life (in any vehicle) is a bigger problem than running out of fuel in a video game.

This is true, but on the other hand, I don't want to feel like the X amount of hours I've put into the game planning an Eeloo mission have been wasted which requires either waiting a substantially long time for a transfer window to send a refuelling mission (which I don't have the time for) or a revert to launch/quicksave/VAB which actually would mean that all progress up to then is wasted, apart from the knowledge that I need more fuel - a problem that could've been avoided if I had worked out/been told beforehand.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm surprised this discussion is still going on after such time.

I would like to come with a point which is usually not much of a concern with KSP, but it is a huge concern in many other games.

The point is:

How is the game meant to be played?

That is an important question in many games because it helps distinguish between playing and cheating. The important part of it is that the question is not about how given individual player wants to play the game but how the game authors, designers and developers wanted people to play it. How, and why.

This is usually not a point with KSP. It is a single player game so cheating is only what you choose as cheating, be it quickload, revert, usage of certain mods, editing persistence file, modding parts or hacking the game code. But when it is about where the game should go further, I believe it becomes the central point again. It SHOULD become the central point. Because developing a game is not about blindly piling features one on top of another. Especially if you're developing such an open game like KSP. It can be seen on KSP that it underwent such phase in its history and there are still many open ends waiting to be tied. But at least to me it appears that now the development team is going after some central idea again and my guess is that they're not going to let things get out of hand again.

Have any of you who voted Yes tried to stop and think about such ethereal things like what might be the background idea or psychology of KSP? If such simple and easy to implement feature like dv readout is not in the game yet, what might be the reason why is that so? Would it really move the game in the direction where it is intended to go? Not intended by you, but intended by developers?

My guess is no. Each of you is playing their own game and you play it the way which requires deeper scientific approach than what the stock game offers. So you use MechJeb, KER, or other tools and mods which help you play it the way you prefer. There's nothing wrong on that. But the question remains: was the game really intended to be played that way?

I'm not sure any of us can speak authoritatively about how the developers intend the game to be played. Honestly, I think that's a moving target as their intentions change as the game develops. Sure, people point to posts by or interviews with the devs and squeeze every iota of meaning out of them and treat them as gospel, but that isn't so. The developers are people, their ideas of what the game should be are changing as it evolves, just like ours are. One of the major benefits of early release software is that the devs benefit from direct feedback from the players before the game's design is firmly cast, and that's what's going on in threads like this one.

If the devs had a firm vision of the game that wasn't going to be affected by player feedback then why would they release it before completion? Why make the game so mod-friendly if not to see what features the community of players find desirable enough to develop?

Of course, the devs are going to make the game as they see fit. It is their game after all, and it isn't a democracy. But I cannot imagine that they completely ignore the feedback from the community and stick to some cast-in-stone plan. It is important for us, as an ancillary part of the development process, to give the devs our feedback on what we think of each release and where we think the game should go as it develops. It does them no good for us to withhold our opinions about it.

If I had been asked if a dV calculator was necessary or even desirable back when Kerbin's SOI contained every landable body, I would have said no. I was playing happily without one at the time, and I seemed to be able to complete missions reasonably well despite my lack of physics training and mediocre piloting. But the game changed. Adding other planets meant there was a system full of other bodies to explore, and I didn't have the skills necessary to get to them. So I learned about delta-V, transfer windows and all that. I wrote spreadsheets, used online tools, and installed mods to make the complicated tasks of interplanetary travel accessible to someone of my modest skill. Are there players that can do these things without any tools? Definitely, but I'm not one of them and I suspect that as the game becomes more mainstream, more and more non-rocket scientist types are playing who are in the same boat as me. So we're getting into a situation where the game contains a substantial amount of content (the other planets) that is nearly inaccessible to a larger and larger fraction of the player base. No one likes being made to feel stupid, and unfortunately KSP in its stock form has a way of doing that for those uninitiated in orbital mechanics.

This cannot be good for the game.

I understand that all of the tools that improve the chances of success are available, if you've got the time to delve into the forums and find the mods or links to web tools that make rocket science palatable to the mathematically ungifted. I was patient and lucky enough to be able to do so. But I feel a game that requires these things of many players is lacking in accessibility. The game should provide the tools that give most players a reasonable chance of success, and I think a delta-V calculator is one of the most important of those tools.

So, to your main question "How is the game meant to be played?", I have to answer that I think we are meant to explore all these worlds the devs have made for us. I hope that they provide the tools to help almost anyone have a chance at doing so.

[John FX]

Lets ignore right, wrong, realistic, and even good and bad gameplay.

You are a game developer, your aim is to sell as many games as you can (obviously)

86% of the people in your forum have voted that they want something in the game and 13% have voted against. The feature will help increase the appeal for new players and ease the learning curve of your game by providing information.

It does not remove features or affect current ones. It`s a single number information display that will take a little coding but nothing compared to the features you are already implementing.

What will you do?

I know what I would do.

I`d throw away my ideas for `how the game should be played` and make the game more appealing to the wider audience. When you get into business you don`t take your personal feelings to the design table. Only autors in the movie business do this and they hardly ever get commercial success...

What you do instead is get feedback from your customer base and act accordingly. I can`t count the times I have had a business idea and almost every thread/element of it gets changed or removed before release to the public. They would have died completely if I were `too precious` over my ideas. Like a baby, they grow into something you hardly recognise but that can stand up in the world on its own merits.

I only hope squad is noticing which voices are with the main body of opinion and which are leading down the esoteric path to less users and eventually no wages for development, arguing for the sake of arguing, or trying to derail the thread into pointless side discussions.

If you actually read the posts it becomes plain which are which. Also it becomes plain that some on the nay side actually have some very valid points but not ones that IMHO change whether the display should be implemented, more that they are things to be aware of and take into account when it is implemented.

Also, we`re moving out of sandbox focus into career focus people, things are changing whether you like it or not.

In Sandbox it does not matter at all how much your rocket costs or whether it is completely over engineered. No Dv readout in this circumstance means no real difference, just build a bigger rocket than you need. sorted.

I can understand how if you only think in this restricted way that a Dv readout might even be unwanted.

Not in career.

In career, the closer you get to the ideal rocket the bigger your benefit I would imagine due to using less resources leaving you with more resources in some way or providing more reward.

In career it will be vital to know information about your craft that is almost irrelevant in sandbox.

Things are changing and much like the perceived imbalance or OP of some new and tweaked parts this will, I am sure, be something that is only seen as imbalanced or unwanted in sandbox.

[hawk_za]

absolutely yes

the time saved by not messing around i also had to go and find out what delta v was

to those who say yes but this game is about discovery and learning i agree but i don't think we should hide the text books from people to force them to first go on forums or you tube to discover firstly on delta v existence THEN go learn how it works.

I agree it should be in the default game especially now with career mode as failure has attached consequences now that finance is starting to make its way into the game so to fail because you did not have enough fuel because there was no way to tell seems a bit harsh to me.

i remember the first time i got to the minmus was only when i had the delta v numbers with the use of kerbal engineer they are crucial since then its become a must have along with mapsat and chatterer

i mean by the same logic of discovery lets then remove the center of mass & thrust tools ...i really hope you see the point I'm trying to make here

Edited April 29, 2014 by hawk_za

[SpaceGremlin]

A delta V calculator by itself is not very useful, because without a delta V map and transfer window planner you're still doing trial and error to get anywhere. So even if a dV calc was included in the stock game, new players would still likely have to come to these forums, or youtube, to get access to the extra tools they'd need to plan their missions.

[Alchemist]

A delta V calculator by itself is not very useful, because without a delta V map and transfer window planner you're still doing trial and error to get anywhere.

The maneuver nodes make the best transfer planner!

[Red Iron Crown]

A delta V calculator by itself is not very useful, because without a delta V map and transfer window planner you're still doing trial and error to get anywhere. So even if a dV calc was included in the stock game, new players would still likely have to come to these forums, or youtube, to get access to the extra tools they'd need to plan their missions.

One thing at a time here...

[SpaceGremlin]

One thing at a time here...

Why? I see them as a set of related features. Knowing how much dV you have isn't really helpful if you don't know how much you need (it is a bit better than trial and error based on fuel amounts, but not much). Currently, players need to go outside the stock game to get these tools. Adding just one still means they need to go looking for the others.

If a dV calculator is implemented, how much harder is it to put a decent dV map in game? Like in the tracking station or mission control.

[Red Iron Crown]

Why? I see them as a set of related features. Knowing how much dV you have isn't really helpful if you don't know how much you need (it is a bit better than trial and error based on fuel amounts, but not much). Currently, players need to go outside the stock game to get these tools. Adding just one still means they need to go looking for the others.

If a dV calculator is implemented, how much harder is it to put a decent dV map in game? Like in the tracking station or mission control.

I agree that those tools should be added eventually. Transfer windows in particular are not easily discoverable. I just think the dV calculator should get implemented first, it's an enabling tool for the others.

[Guest]

Yeah, dV calculator is necessary, and IIRC, Squad already did it (or will) for KSPEdu. TWR readout would also be nice, and something like Protractor for calculating phase angles and transfer windows. Finally, it'd be great to have a way to add node from a landed spacecraft (especially if it took burn time into account like it should).

[Andrew Hansen]

I think that SQUAD should allow you to plan your missions in the tracking station and see how much delta-V they will require, then provide read-outs while you're flying.

I think that having delta-V read-outs is essential, especially for this KSP Edu thing that SQUAD is working on.

[Superfluous J]

I think that SQUAD should allow you to plan your missions in the tracking station and see how much delta-V they will require, then provide read-outs while you're flying.

I think that having delta-V read-outs is essential, especially for this KSP Edu thing that SQUAD is working on.

I just had this vision where you could draw a Planning Node in the tracking station, which is just like a maneuver node but you make it as if you were flying the planet and not a ship. That Planning Node would show how any ship leaving that planet would go. You could drag out your retrograde line to touch Eve's orbit (Or prograde to touch Duna's) and it would show you the "close approach" markers you have now when making maneuver nodes for ships. You could then drag the Planning Node itself around Kerbin's orbit until you got a good encounter with Eve, tweaking prograde and retrograde (and normal, even) to get a good encounter.

Then you could launch a ship, wait for Kerbin to be about where that Planning Node was, and then make your maneuver node (by hand) to do the transfer in much the same way we do today.

Bam. No more need for transfer window calculators.

[Alchemist]

I just had this vision where you could draw a Planning Node in the tracking station, which is just like a maneuver node but you make it as if you were flying the planet and not a ship. That Planning Node would show how any ship leaving that planet would go. You could drag out your retrograde line to touch Eve's orbit (Or prograde to touch Duna's) and it would show you the "close approach" markers you have now when making maneuver nodes for ships. You could then drag the Planning Node itself around Kerbin's orbit until you got a good encounter with Eve, tweaking prograde and retrograde (and normal, even) to get a good encounter.

Then you could launch a ship, wait for Kerbin to be about where that Planning Node was, and then make your maneuver node (by hand) to do the transfer in much the same way we do today.

Bam. No more need for transfer window calculators.

I already use it since there are nodes: take an object in orbit - plot escape with almost no relative velocity at the edge of SOI - here's the plotted orbit that's almost identical to the planets orbit - plan your transfer!

[Superfluous J]

I already use it since there are nodes: take an object in orbit - plot escape with almost no relative velocity at the edge of SOI - here's the plotted orbit that's almost identical to the planets orbit - plan your transfer!

That is an extremely good idea. If it's just slightly faster and ahead, or slightly slower and behind, it could last in-game centuries I bet.

I think I have a task for my next episode...

EDIT:

Though as I think about it, it'd miss some of the functionality I'd like, and the ship actually does have to stay near Kerbin without re-entering its (invisible) SOI. You'd almost have to do it with HyperEdit to make sure it was a good orbit.

Edited April 30, 2014 by 5thHorseman