Should KSP have a Delta-V readout?

[Uncle Mort]

The point boils down to what is too much information and what is fun.

True, and currently 87.33% think there's more fun to be had in having delta-v readouts. I realise that's not an argument in itself but it definitely should make the Devs reconsider.

[Jouni]

actually doing calculations or looking at numbers doesnt fit with how i see kerbals. i place a node, drag dials till it does what i want it to, and launch. seems more "kerbal" to me. if in the vab or in orbit i already know my craft can make it to duna and back that takes away the excitement from the game for me. thats my opinon.

It doesn't really matter what feels like the kerbal way.

Squad deliberately chose to make KSP physics real enough that real-world concepts such as delta-v are useful in the game. They also chose to represent part properties numerically to the player, giving him/her all the information necessary to determine delta-v and other useful statistics. If a player chooses to not to compute the statistics, he/she deliberately chooses to make the game harder than it would be by default (assuming that the player is able to compute such things). Also, because Squad chose to withhold that useful information from the player, they are making the game more tedious to play.

Basically, not computing delta-v is a similar self-imposed restriction as not using asparagus staging or not using turbojet boosters in rockets. It may make the game more fun for some people, but it's not the default option.

[wasmic]

Here is my opininon:

Delta-V readouts should be in stock. Why? Because it's not fun to lose a mission to Duna due to too little fuel, make a new mission and also lose that due to too little fuel. It might be fun to have the occasional explosion, but failures due to too little fuel have never been fun - to me. It's too anticlimatic and gives a too large letdown - something that won't happen if your mission fail early in the mission.

[Sophistry]

What is the difference in a single player FPS between a map and a map that shows all enemys, there direction and how hard they are? The extra map is more information and should therefore make the game better so why do we not have it?

All of north America makes up just 5% of the world population, by your logic this means the world can safely ignore all Americans because they are just a vocal minority. "Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang" http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/only-20-percent-of-americans-surveyed-believe-in-the-big-bang/

Your map analogy is flawed, and over-simplifies things. You assume all single-player FPS do not have such a map, when some do when it serves the mechanics of the game For example, there's an old stealth-focussed FPS I like called I.G.I. 2. It features sprawling levels filled with enemies you have to get through, and the "map" screen displays all enemies who are visible from a birds-eye view (ie. 90% of them). Now, you COULD instead spent 10 minutes hiking up one of the hills in the level, get out a pair of binoculars, and then spend an hour of real time tracking each individual pack of guards.

The information is useful and does not remove challenge from the game, because it enables you to plan your strategy and get information you need like the paths of enemy patrols while outdoors, but all it does is give you information you can get in other ways, in a manner which is less time consuming and simple for the player.

A better comparison to FPS mechanics would be "why do a vast majority of FPS games have crosshairs?" In a world without crosshairs, you could still use two thin strips of masking tape on your screen to do the same thing (trust me, back in the days when X3 Reunion was a system shredder for some people, one of the most touted ways to increase your frames per second was to disable the HUD and use exactly that trick). But they are included in games because the majority of people who play that game want that easier, simpler way of accessing that information.

And your point about a majority not always being correct is also a logical fallacy: this is not a question of right and wrong! This is a subjective decision based on personal preference. The personal preference of the majority is in favour of the feature, so it should be included.

I do however think that concerns about cluttering the currently-neat interface, and confusing new players is a valid one. The people who would benefit from this change would be players with middling levels of experience (like myself). To generalise and speculate:

People who have less experience NEED, I think, to build that "instinct" about what aspects of rocket design work and which don't. Their concerns are probably more structural than anything else. Also they are unlikely to have gone interplanetary, so if they strand someone due to a lack of Dv, it's still relatively easy to get them back, and a failed mission means a relatively small amount of real time has been wasted.

By the time you begin going interplanetary, you tend to be skilled enough that the things you learned when you were new become routine: this is the point where I think most people start installing mods like KER and MechJeb, because they simplify the building block skills and activites, letting you concentrate on the stuff that's more fun. For the record, I still run stock because I'm lazy and not a technical person. Also at this stage, needing to know Dv is far more important, because a mission that gets stranded it's much harder to return them. A failed mission can also mean wasted real-time of several hours, especially if you launched your mission in several bits and docked them in orbit before sending them off.

People more skilled than me can either already easily do the things a Dv indicator would help with, and/or have put mods in the game, so it would be useless to them.

If then a substantial chunk of players would not find it a useful feature, I definitely agree there should be some way of switching it off or hiding it. If this chunk was not a minority, I would say "ok, let's leave it as a modded feature, because there is no point wasting developer time on something which will not benefit most people." However, the poll above shows that amongst the forum community the majority of people would benefit from it.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Sophistry

[Col_Jessep]

Here is my opininon:

Delta-V readouts should be in stock. Why? Because it's not fun to lose a mission to Duna due to too little fuel, make a new mission and also lose that due to too little fuel. It might be fun to have the occasional explosion, but failures due to too little fuel have never been fun - to me. It's too anticlimatic and gives a too large letdown - something that won't happen if your mission fail early in the mission.

This is a very good point!

Losing a mission to a giant explosion can be fun. At least you get to see some fireworks. Even better if you can save the pilots(s)!

Running out of fuel is just obnoxious. Either you have to launch a tedious rescue mission or you just terminate the flight.

There was a time when most of the community flew their rockets just by the seat of their pants but those days are gone. I think the majority of players enjoy planning complex, interesting missions. Many enjoy increasing the difficulty with mods but want to have more essential information about their vehicles at the same time. Withholding crucial information like delta-v arbitrarily doesn't make any sense to me.

Every engine specifies exactly how much thrust it has, Isp, mass... We can even tweak how much fuel is pumped into fuel tanks but giving us specific information on how much delta-v results from those documented values is supposed to be a bad thing? This seems inconsistent to me. It's certainly no fun!

[rkman]

If the Kerbal way is to not fly by the numbers, why does the game give us numbers on fuel flow, thrust, temperature (right click on an engine), and delta-v (maneuver nodes)?

Yes sounds like fun, though really it should be over engineered, that is the Kerbal way.

Until money becomes a factor in career mode.

A job that can be done on the first try is no kind of achievement and therefore not much of a rush to complete successfully.

Does not mean it is better to succeed only after an arbitrarily large number of tries.

[Col_Jessep]

Until money becomes a factor in career mode.

Wait, I thought the idea of government agencies was to spend all their budget and then some? ;P

[GusTurbo]

I voted yes.

Having a delta V readout doesn't even guarantee mission success. You may have enough dV to make all of the required burns in a mission, but you might do something inefficiently or mess something up, requiring more fuel than you planned. Considering how long it takes to do things in this game, it's really no fun to fail multiple times because you have no idea how much fuel to budget.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

why does the game give us numbers on fuel flow, thrust, temperature (right click on an engine), and delta-v (maneuver nodes)?

fuel flow is more rough than delta-v, without it you would not know if you had 90% or 5%, perhaps the numbers should be more vague but that's how it is. Thrust is to tell the difference between engine sizes, efficiency and power. Thrust can't tell you where you can get only what that one part does. Temperature is show to know when an engine will explode, maybe this too should be more rough but temperature is a simpler thing to understand than Delta-V. Why do maneuver nodes show delta-v, probably because the only other option would be no numbers or just time for the burn. Again it could be interesting with only a rough 100% burn time on the readout. The game already has a lot of information in it, the ships delta-v is just about the only thing not handed to us on a plate. Delta-V, ship design and flying are the only things left to estimate. You could in fact use others ships downloads and Mechjeb to never need to learn how to play at all. This is all we have left to do.

Until money becomes a factor in career mode.

This is a VERY good point. When money is introduced efficiency will matter and delta-V becomes a lot more important, will this make delta-V be required? not really but since it is already available in more than one mod trying to get it in stock still seems unimportant.

Which brings up an important point, this is a decision already made by the Devs, people may not be voting "No" because they do not feel this is an issue that they need to vote on, people voting yes though have a vested interest in voting. Those not on the forums also do not have a say. It is difficult to say if this is a fair representation of KSP players.

Does not mean it is better to succeed only after an arbitrarily large number of tries.

For me yes, or more accurately a job that takes more effort and design is worth more than one that is easy.

but failures due to too little fuel have never been fun - to me

But to me they have, one mission to Duna got back with an aero break at ridiculously high speeds with 8 fuel left, this was very fun and very memorable. Another mission slammed into the mun due to fuel loss, I felt emotion, I learned things like have plenty of fuel on a space-plane when trying to land on a gas less object (yea it was a bad move).

Your map analogy is flawed, and over-simplifies things. You assume all single-player FPS do not have such a map, when some do when it serves the mechanics of the game

I have never said it doesn't serve the style of the game but for me it doesn't serve the game-play mechanics. There seems to be an idea that turning off an option is the same as adding an option. This is the same problem as assuming that everyone is male until they specify they are female. This is not a logic fallacy but it creates the idea that male is normal and female is abnormal. The human mind is changed by what is defined as normal. Many people play with delta-V readouts and so do not see the problem with making it stock, the problem is it is impossible to see how a new player would find this situation. As stated earlier we all could play with f2 disabling our fuel reserve but we don't because it is normal and we make the game harder in other ways. Normal is defined by stock, if you change stock you are not giving new options (as you can always mod) you are in fact restricting the games style.

why do a vast majority of FPS games have crosshairs?

This is a good question and it is why I wrote the original map question. The idea was not to make a iron clad statement but to get people thinking about whether an idea is always good or whether it depends on the situation. In my opionion KSP has all the data readouts we need and everyone is free to get more though mods, but the standard game should stay without. Killing Floor is one of my favorite games because it does not have a cross hair (when hip shooting) this makes the difference between new players and veterans much greater.

And your point about a majority not always being correct is also a logical fallacy: this is not a question of right and wrong! This is a subjective decision based on personal preference.

"subjective decision based on personal preference" So keep it personal preference like it is now. Is anyone stopping people useing delta-V readout?

The personal preference of the majority is in favour of the feature, so it should be included.

But why does the majority get to control the minority? When they are already free to do what they want?

Right lets have a statement that opting out is the same as opting in, first one gets a prize (not really).

[Pecan]

...a job that takes more effort and design is worth more than one that is easy...

If you aren't calculating deltaV you aren't 'designing' for any particular mission. DeltaV is one of the critical criteria a design must meet in order to even be viable - being successful depends on much more.

If you are calculating deltaV it doesn't matter much whether you use paper, calculator, spreadsheet, application, mod or stock - except in how convenient and reliable it is. Other than the challenge (and satisfaction) of it there is nothing 'better' about refusing to use the tools available, nor is it more 'real' - no engineering organisation boasts of doing all its calculations by hand ^^. [Lol, nor does any organisation that wants to stay around long boast of using (as opposed to testing) equipment when they have no way of knowing if it is viable or not, even if the cost/time/risk is negligible it's just a waste of effort.]

The ability to opt-out of using a tool is important but making it inconvenient to use one (and it is much less convenient to keep installing and updating mods rather than use stock) is a failing.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Pecan

[TheD007]

KER is easy to install. delta-V is important but has a steep learning curve forcing players to realize the importance of it on their own is the key to them understanding it. if you hand all the flight data to new players there will be less driving force for them to understand it while if they have to find a mod or use a calculator they will be better prepared. now one thing SQUAD could do is add it to the game but have it default to off so that a player must actively search the settings menu to enable it.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

If I build a ship for Duna and return, I have designed it for that mission. I did not calculate its Delta-V in anyway. It was a success though by the skin of its teeth.

no engineering organisation boasts of doing all its calculations by hand

Heh no they are large organizations achieving a goal not a single person playing a game.

The ability to opt-out of using a tool is important but making it inconvenient to use one (and it is much less convenient to keep installing and updating mods rather than use stock) is a failing.

And we reach an important point, I wouldn't have a problem with it being stock if the game started with it disabled and took no effort on the part of the programers (which it will not).

Is it inconvenient to use? Does the extra effort of reinstalling outweigh the Dev time taken up? Is the percentage of players who want this great enough to justify the time taken up? Is it a good design decision? Are we the ones to decide this or should it be left to the Devs?

[Uncle Mort]

Is anyone stopping people useing delta-V readout?

But why does the majority get to control the minority? When they are already free to do what they want?

It's not a matter of opting in over opting out. I feel that what the majority is saying is that the game isn't complete without delta-v statistics. Yes we can opt in by adding a mod. In previous versions mods provided parts and functions that since have become stock. It's a game in development, we players provide feedback here on the forum and also by modding for what is felt needed. The game developers should take note else why bother putting the game out at this stage?

[Uncle Mort]

Are we the ones to decide this or should it be left to the Devs?

It's the Devs game but they'll be daft to ignore input from users.

[Pecan]

...And we reach an important point, I wouldn't have a problem with it being stock if the game started with it disabled and took no effort on the part of the programers (which it will not).

Indeed; we reach the point where any remaining disagreement between us is only a grumble over a pint. Consensus, as far as I'm concerned - it's up to Squad to decide and it should not be 'in your face' at all but it's clearly something a lot of people (arguably a majority) want.

[ETA off-topic: hmmm, and this seems to be a English argument at the moment, oddly enough.]

Edited April 26, 2014 by Pecan

[Red Iron Crown]

KER is easy to install. delta-V is important but has a steep learning curve forcing players to realize the importance of it on their own is the key to them understanding it. if you hand all the flight data to new players there will be less driving force for them to understand it while if they have to find a mod or use a calculator they will be better prepared. now one thing SQUAD could do is add it to the game but have it default to off so that a player must actively search the settings menu to enable it.

I don't buy this. Hiding critical numbers from players doesn't help them realize the importance of them, they may not even realize that those numbers exist.

Having a delta-V display in game leads a new player to "What do these numbers mean?" and "How do I modify my design to change these numbers?" Not having it leads to "I keep adding engines but can't get to orbit/the Mun/Duna." Showing delta-V increases the likelihood of a player learning how dV works, because it introduces the concept to them and shows how changes to a design affect it.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Grammar

[MGCJerry]

YES! I would buy the game again if it displayed dV during construction. I have yet to do a single dV calculation for any of my craft. Math is not my strong point and for me it simply gets in the way of enjoying this game. Reminds me of having to do my homework before I can enjoy myself. But moooom I don't want to do dV calculations before I fly to Mun! So, yes I'd like to see standard information displays, especially a radar altimeter!

[Pecan]

Yep, it worked that way for me Red Iron Crown - I installed KER because there was lots of posts about how much it helped design rockets ... and had absolutely no idea what it was telling me! So I found out and started using it and my rockets got better.

[macegee]

Delta-v is the essential concept of space flight. It is a must have for my KSP. Devs are making big mistake by not implementing it. I do not want to be dependant on mods for such an essential feature. I want to play stock. And I want delta-v/twr/burn time info.

[xcorps]

merged to prevent double posting

Edited April 26, 2014 by xcorps

[xcorps]

I don't buy this. Hiding critical numbers from players doesn't help them realize the importance of them, they may not even realize that those numbers exist.

Having a delta-V display in game leads a new player to "What do these numbers mean?" and "How do I modify my design to change these numbers?" Not having it leads to "I keep adding engines but can't get to orbit/the Mun/Duna." Showing delta-V increases the likelihood of a player learning how dV works, because it introduces the concept to them and shows how changes to a design affect it.

Spot on. Prior to KSP, I had read/heard the term Dv, but I assumed it had something to do with maneuvering vectors.

After KsP, I learned what it was, but actually became less interested in figuring out how to apply it to a rocket than I was before I played KSP.

Then I started using KER so I could get to LKO. Then I figured out that TWR is not very important compared to Dv ( thanks to a post by you, I think). Then I finally understood that if I want to play KSP, I need to know how much Dv I have in a rocket. If I had to manually calculate it or guess my way to Duna, I would uninstall.

Indeed; we reach the point where any remaining disagreement between us is only a grumble over a pint. Consensus, as far as I'm concerned - it's up to Squad to decide and it should not be 'in your face' at all but it's clearly something a lot of people (arguably a majority) want.

[ETA off-topic: hmmm, and this seems to be a English argument at the moment, oddly enough.]

Just curious, how do you figure the majority is arguable?

It's over 80% of the respondents in this thread. Mechjeb has been downloaded 334,289 times. KER has 82,858 downloads.

I'd say the demand for the information is clear.

[AmpsterMan]

I say yes.

[Alchemist]

Some say that having Dv indicator might be too much for new players, but there are some points:

1) nothing forces to use it for first launches. At this point it's even less critical than TWR, because with insufficient Dv you'll still fly (just not too far), but with insufficient TWR you won't even take off.

2) it's worth observing from the very start - it will be useful to discover "Hey, I finally got to orbit, and this ship had more Dv than the previous designs, so it seems that I need this amount of Dv to reach orbit with such ships!"

3) If you use it, you still have to learn what amounts of Dv it will actually take to do something. I find it rather fun to guesstimate "how much fuel would this take?", but having dV display will just turn it into "so, how much dV do I need for this?". It makes easier to switch between different scales of missions, but doesn't solve all the problems automatically.

And one more thing to consider: it might be more harm for the new players to have... entire solar system. Because they may start setting a bit too high goals and then complaining that they can't get to Jool right away and the game forces them to learn multiple intermediate levels

[Sophistry]

As stated earlier we all could play with f2 disabling our fuel reserve but we don't because it is normal and we make the game harder in other ways. Normal is defined by stock, if you change stock you are not giving new options (as you can always mod) you are in fact restricting the games style.

In my opinion KSP has all the data readouts we need and everyone is free to get more though mods, but the standard game should stay without. Killing Floor is one of my favorite games because it does not have a cross hair (when hip shooting) this makes the difference between new players and veterans much greater.

"subjective decision based on personal preference" So keep it personal preference like it is now. Is anyone stopping people using delta-V readout?

But why does the majority get to control the minority? When they are already free to do what they want?

The thing is, this is not information the game doesn't already give you! It just gives it you in chunks, so you have to sit down with a calculator and work it out yourself. All a Dv indicator would do is mean I won't have to keep two internet windows open while I play, one to the parts list on the wiki (to work out dry weight on the fly) and to an online Dv calculator. I'm not asking for the game to add anything really: I just want the game to take the numbers it already gives me, and do the sums itself!

You seem to think a Dv indicator would change the basic flow of the game somehow: it really wouldn't. A value for the delta-v of a craft, when viewed in isolation, is useless unless you've found out the Dv requirements for your planned mission, either by experimentation or looking it up online. If you're the kind of person who just builds and sees what sticks, you aren't going to know those facts; all the change the people who play like that will experience will be the opportunity to look at the Dv readout and think "Awesome, look how much ridiculous power my rocket has!"

And why should the minority get to control the majority? You're asking 85% of players to be inconvenienced so 15% can keep going as they are. And while opt in and opt out are different, let's examine the effort someone would have to do to do each:

To opt in you currently have to install a mod, which involves faffing around doing stuff I don't really get (as I said before, not a technical person in any way). Also, mods lag behind updates, so after each update there could be days or over a week when people can't play KSP in the way they want anyway, so if they did want to play they have to revert to pre-mod Dv calculation again.

To opt out, someone would have to click a checkbox in the options. Job done.

So you're asking 9 out of 10 people (near as damn it) to go through extra work, lose time playing KSP, and be generally shafted, so the tenth doesn't have to click a box in the options?

[Pecan]

Just curious, how do you figure the majority is arguable?

It's over 80% of the respondents in this thread. Mechjeb has been downloaded 334,289 times. KER has 82,858 downloads.

I'd say the demand for the information is clear.

Well yes, you, I and all the 'aye' voters would say it's a clear majority and by any statistical measure of this sample it is. What's "arguable" is whether we are a representative sample of all KSP users. Again, you and I would agree that we are, but for the sake of consensus I'm letting the 'nay's have their quibble :-)