Let's give SQUAD our point of view.

[Comrade Jenkens]

About the NERVAs, you know that in reality NERVA uses a different fuel (liquid Hydrogen) right?

I've always assumed that the liquid fuel was Hydrogen and the Oxidiser was oxygen. That works for both the rockets and the NERVAs.

And how would fairings detract from the fun? They would simply make the rockets look nicer. Maybe we should get rid of nosecones as they detract from the fun as well?

[Red Iron Crown]

About the NERVAs, you know that in reality NERVA uses a different fuel (liquid Hydrogen) right? Changing it only to use fuel does not make it realistic. Dev's already stated that they are not ready introducing a new propellant.

ObsessedWithKSP handled your other points well, but this should be addressed. It's never been said what propellant Liquid Fuel represents, but it doesn't matter. A NTR can run on any propellant, without oxidizer. No new propellant is required. It would be more realistic to have the LV-N run on liquid only, and I think it would be good for gameplay, too. Most SSTOs use jet engines for in atmosphere ascent, then a rocket engine for circularization/orbital maneuvers. Having a rocket engine that runs on LF only would make their design simpler as the player doesn't need to guestimate how much oxidizer to bring along; all fuel is good for either the jet or rocket engine.

Edit: Comrade Ninja!

[Dodgey]

I would like to testify as a person who would prefer to play with stock aerodynamics instead of FAR at this point in time, and please explain how Squad has broken a promise for say reentry heating, it's in development, can you link me to where they say it will not be happening in the game?

Edit

As schizophrenic said below me not implemented yet does not mean forgotten, I feel like a lot of issues people are having with the devlopment of the game would be solved if they would just wait, I mean it's early access, you knew what you were getting yourself into.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Dodgey

[shizophrenic]

not implemented yet doesn't mean forgotten.

most mods Focus on one aspect. that one solution to do something how that aspcet could be done. but is it the ONLY solution?? from dev Point of view it wouldbe ONE concept that is more or less proven that it works. nothing more.

[rtxoff]

Well i played already FAR and removed it again. What's so fun about beeing limited to building rockets that look like in real life? For me it is fun building them asparagus style looking like pancakes and bringing up heavy equipment into orbit with one launch which is impossible to do with FAR. So i guess people differ and have different tastes, but building a space station in 100 launches always carrying a tiny piece of it under the fairing that is no fun at all for me. That is considered grinding and most gamers find that to be no fun at all. Just because they have not delivered some feature yet does not mean they broke their promises. They never said it's gonna happen immediately. We are at 0.23.5, there is a long way to 1.0. Dev's are well aware that there are problems with preloading textures and so on but this is an alpha, what do you expect? A fully featured game with no bugs at all?

I am sick and tired of this 'argument'.

That is a personal feel about it but it does not make the argument more or less valid. It is an rock solid argument and if you have nothing to contribute to it i would suggest you to accept it.

Things will come right into their place people just have to show some patience.

[DrDima]

Soo, hm. It's been a while since I've played KSP, a year now since I really tried it again. I basically went trough the same process I did when I first started playing and what made me stop in my tracks was the same thing that made me stop playing a year ago. The performance of the game is still awful. I have a 200 part big ship in orbit and I'm getting regular frameskips. To me this is what kills it.

Personally I don't care much for career mode, because I like the creative aspect of the game. Yet again though I'm getting limited by part count and I feel like the game loses its appeal.

I can't help but think that Squad is being a little misguided as to what they prioritize. They're focusing on content, when the core of the game is just as messy as it was before. With one more year of software development experience(event though I'm only a student) I feel they should clean up and optimize their code, and offer more mod support. Career mode could've easily been made by a modder if the tools were there, and currently it's impossible to my knowledge for modders to do what Squad needs to do - optimization.

Oh and I also remember seeing a resource system diagram by squad that was shown as in-development back then too. Hmm why am I still using Kethane?

I don't think Unity 5 will fix this. Slow code stays slow code no matter how many cores you put behind it. If the underlying idea of simulating every part anytime it's loaded stays I don't think I'll revisit the game a lot. I still stand by my purchase and think it's a great concept, but the way it's going I've only become more cautious about buying unfinished games.

[boomerdog2000]

Oh and I also remember seeing a resource system diagram by squad that was shown as in-development back then too. Hmm why am I still using Kethane?

Because Squad, and I assume their QA testing group, found the proposed resource system to be boring and not add what they wanted to the game. Personally I thank them for taking the time to try and create a fun system that adds something to the game instead of just using the first thing they came up with when it didn't work out.

[Stargate525]

Well i played already FAR and removed it again. What's so fun about beeing limited to building rockets that look like in real life? For me it is fun building them asparagus style looking like pancakes and bringing up heavy equipment into orbit with one launch which is impossible to do with FAR.

I've actually found that my payloads have INCREASED since installing FAR. And... I could be misreading it, but is your argument really going to be 'I don't want my space sim to accurately simulate space?'

[Dodgey]

With regards to the issue of FAR and DRE it comes down to how much of a game vs a simulator do you want KSP to be. Which brings it into the realm of personal preference. Some would want the game game more like orbiter and some not. Personally I think a good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't have to mod a game to make it more easy, only harder. That way you are less likely to scare people of with your leaning curve, as well as opening up your player base.

[rtxoff]

I've actually found that my payloads have INCREASED since installing FAR. And... I could be misreading it, but is your argument really going to be 'I don't want my space sim to accurately simulate space?'

If you actually look at the game description on the homepage and on the steam store page it is not described as space simulator, Steam store says: "KSP is an multi genre game where players can create their own space program". For me that makes sense or else it would have been called NASA simulator or the like. Also there are little kerbals in the game not humans. Kerbin is much smaller then Earth and so on. Me for my part bought a game not an simulator. Also what does accurate aerodynamics have to do with accurately simulating space? I understand that many of you guys want an accurate simulation, but what problem do you have with mods? Why does the stock game need to be 100% simulation? Unity is truly the wrong tool for such an undertaking, but it is perfect for a fun game. U are lifting more payload with FAR? Well i would bet all my money if someone opens up a new challenge to see who can lift more payload into LKO FAR or stock, FAR will loose. Not to mention some monstrosities people build already and got to LKO. That ones would not have reached even 10.000m before becoming unstable with FAR. You like to play like this? I really have no problem with it, play how you like. But let me also play how i like.

[Stargate525]

Also what does accurate aerodynamics have to do with accurately simulating space? I understand that many of you guys want an accurate simulation, but what problem do you have with mods?

*snip*

You like to play like this? I really have no problem with it, play how you like. But let me also play how i like.

You need the aerodynamics in order to simulate planetary bodies with any degree of believability. As it stands, atmospheres are like brick walls, and the drag model is insane.

I'll tell you the same thing. If you don't like realistic aerodynamics, get someone to MOD IT BACK. Right now, it's being geared as an educational tool. It is in the best interests of that cause to make things as intelligible and realistic as possible. Arguing that 'you can mod it' and 'I like it the way it is' is anathema to actual improvement and critique. It reminds me of prissy children who, when given critique, throw their tools down and stomp away yelling 'then you do it!'

[Tuareg]

You need the aerodynamics in order to simulate planetary bodies with any degree of believability. As it stands, atmospheres are like brick walls, and the drag model is insane.

I'll tell you the same thing. If you don't like realistic aerodynamics, get someone to MOD IT BACK. Right now, it's being geared as an educational tool. It is in the best interests of that cause to make things as intelligible and realistic as possible. Arguing that 'you can mod it' and 'I like it the way it is' is anathema to actual improvement and critique. It reminds me of prissy children who, when given critique, throw their tools down and stomp away yelling 'then you do it!'

exactly this ^^ what we currently have (climbing with a plane means speeding up, falling with engine on max output is slowing down) is just silly. the problem is that most of us have common sense and logic and we wish to use it to solve the challenges but in KSP no logic or common sense works at all. and its especially true about aerodynamics...

[rtxoff]

This discussion is wandereng to much into a aerodynamics discussion. If they at some point fix the aerodynamics model i will accept the new situation as it is because the dev's decided so. Sure it also have advantages but not only. The point is that people start crying and demanding here claiming that everything was swept under the carpet while in reality they still working on it. I am not demanding not to implement all the features that where announced, but i beg you all to be patient and let them do it the smart way. Rushing out too much reality features too fast can destroy the fun out of the game. And in reality it is primary a game and not the educational tool you would like it to be. A game primary needs to be fun and not to simulate the real world. If the real thing makes more fun then we can talk about it however in this case it is a matter of taste. And a discussion about taste ist senseless.

It reminds me of prissy children who, when given critique, throw their tools down and stomp away yelling 'then you do it!'

What for someone is an improvement can be hell for somebody else, we should show more tolerance about people not liking our own tastes.

[KerbMav]

My best guess: They might be waiting with lots of realism improvements for the day they implement difficulty settings/gameplay options.

[r4pt0r]

i scratch build rc planes as a hobby, and its clear to me that stock aerodynamics need some lovin'

[sjwt]

Please guys, I see a lot of constructive posts here, but can we keep this discussion on track, and remember, AeroDynamics are on the list of What not to Suggest, due to (If I recall correctly - Moderators are not infallible) having been mentioned in most updates that they will be worked on. There is little constructive advantage in discussions of such nature.

This does not mean do not discuss AeroDynamics, but try to be constructive about it.

[Stargate525]

What for someone is an improvement can be hell for somebody else, we should show more tolerance about people not liking our own tastes.

I get that. I'm less saying that about the desire to not want better aerodynamics (which I still don't understand), but about the counterargument 'well if you're going to complain, then you build one.' It's not constructive, and your ability to critique something is independent of your ability to do what you are critiquing. Olympic judges are not professional figure skaters or divers, game critics aren't developers, and watchdog groups aren't politicians.

[The Destroyer]

On the MP topic: Back way ago, when it was discussed, nobody really had a great solid idea to to timewarp, and the game was in very early development.

Now, KSP has grown. Part modules, lots of things under the hood to help. Then KMP happens. SQUAD actually probably takes inspiration from KMP to make the new multiplayer.

Maybe the "its not posisble" statement was true- back then.

Also, be aware that this is the inital server tests- not anything solid or "Actual connections between KSPs"

[rtxoff]

I get that. I'm less saying that about the desire to not want better aerodynamics (which I still don't understand), but about the counterargument 'well if you're going to complain, then you build one.' It's not constructive, and your ability to critique something is independent of your ability to do what you are critiquing. Olympic judges are not professional figure skaters or divers, game critics aren't developers, and watchdog groups aren't politicians.

Sorry, but does this add anything to the actual discussion about the game? You are analyizing me not my arguments, please refrain from that. It is not that important what i think about aerodynamics, for me it is more important that many new player join the KSP community and like the game. However i think making the game too realistic will not contribute to that. There are many people out there having problems doing a normal reentry or ascend into orbit yet people demanding more realism in KSP like deadly reentry and such. You will most likely scare off new players with such realism instead of giving them a chance to get into the game. I try to speak for all of them and not only my own egoistic wishes for the game. However it is not required to resign on them, i just install all the mods i like/need and i have the game i want without excluding a great ammount of people that are new to KSP until the developers sort things out and include optional reality features. I really hope this features will be optional because i think it would do no good the other way.

[tychochallenge]

Sorry, but does this add anything to the actual discussion about the game? You are analyizing me not my arguments, please refrain from that. It is not that important what i think about aerodynamics, for me it is more important that many new player join the KSP community and like the game. However i think making the game too realistic will not contribute to that. There are many people out there having problems doing a normal reentry or ascend into orbit yet people demanding more realism in KSP like deadly reentry and such. You will most likely scare off new players with such realism instead of giving them a chance to get into the game. I try to speak for all of them and not only my own egoistic wishes for the game. However it is not required to resign on them, i just install all the mods i like/need and i have the game i want without excluding a great ammount of people that are new to KSP until the developers sort things out and include optional reality features. I really hope this features will be optional because i think it would do no good the other way.

In real life nothing in nature is 'optional'. When re-entering at high speeds, expect to build up heat on whatever is reentering. If the heat is too much, the object disintegrates; simple as that. It seems very unrealistic to me that a Mk1 capsule can survive reentry speeds greater than 100,000 m/s (yes i have tested this). I can see obvious flames and superheated plasma surrounding the craft but no heat buildup for some reason...(yes I know thats on the what not to suggest list, but thats not my main point here). I think new players should have to deal with these realisms because that is what forges better craft-making skills and memory power (remember to put on a heat-shield, etc). In real life, there is no option to turn down the heat, enable simpler aerodynamics. Also, NASA and other space agencies had to deal with those problems early on, so I see clear reason why new players will have to deal with them too. So, when things like deadly reentry and/or realistic aerodynamics are implemented, there should be no option to turn them down/off.

[rtxoff]

In real life nothing in nature is 'optional'. When re-entering at high speeds, expect to build up heat on whatever is reentering. If the heat is too much, the object disintegrates; simple as that. It seems very unrealistic to me that a Mk1 capsule can survive reentry speeds greater than 100,000 m/s (yes i have tested this). I can see obvious flames and superheated plasma surrounding the craft but no heat buildup for some reason...(yes I know thats on the what not to suggest list, but thats not my main point here). I think new players should have to deal with these realisms because that is what forges better craft-making skills and memory power (remember to put on a heat-shield, etc). In real life, there is no option to turn down the heat, enable simpler aerodynamics. Also, NASA and other space agencies had to deal with those problems early on, so I see clear reason why new players will have to deal with them too. So, when things like deadly reentry and/or realistic aerodynamics are implemented, there should be no option to turn them down/off.

I do not think a game should be like real life. They will not be able to do it like in real life anyway. I already mentioned this a few post before, in first place it is a game not an real life simulator.

Many popular space games had nothing to do with realism yet they where very popular. Wing Commander, Star Wars series to mention a few.

How many of you build an exact replica of the Space Shuttle, installed all the reality mods required to simulate an realistic reentry + landing and actually landed that thing exactly at KSP runway only by gliding?

I don't think anyone did this, because to do this 100% you will actually need 100% engineering information about the shuttle which we simply not have, for example (but not only) the software running the computers on the shuttle. Also to simulate it the right way you need tons of data about the flight profile of it and so on. You will have to actually rebuild all the command pods and all parts that are in KSP and perform flight tests with them on a planet that has the same conditions like Kerbin to collect enough data to be able to simulate that, everything else would be only an guess and approximation at best.

You see? Wanting an game to be realistic is just so ridiculous.

I will stop now commenting on this thread because i feel that it everything was said already what needs to be.

[Red Iron Crown]

Dangerous reentry is dramatic, and reasonably well understood by even the non-space enthusiast crowd. I play Space Agency occasionally on my phone (despite its laughably wrong physics), and even it has reentry heating. I think it would be a good addition to the game.

Though I definitely agree with gpisic's point about gameplay and fun trumping realism in games, I think this might be an area where the two happily coincide.

[Dodgey]

So again the argument boils down to a matter of mostly opinion, as it has many times which isn't a bad thing. So when discussing features which affect the difficulty of the game, because it's not like the effects of reentry scale with how far along the game you are. It's always there for players new and old, so you have to ask how much more difficult would this make the game for a new player (note this applies to all mechanics including aerodynamics)? How likely is this mechanic to drive off new players? Ect ect. Now, this isn't the only consideration to take but it is an important one. It is always preferable to have to mod the game to make it more difficult than to have to mod it to make it more easy.

On the topic of "NASA has to deal with this so should we". NASA has to deal with a lot of things, Kessler syndrome, time delay for the transmitting of commands to probes, reliability of parts on spacecraft, n body physics, orbital decay, life support, precise delta v calculations, ect ect. My point is it's a game, and feature addition consideration should be made around gameplay, not just realism, and even if reentry heat was added why wouldn't you be able to turn it off? Certainly there will be mods to adjust it/turn it off, why not make it a toggle option like gravity. Basically realism by it's is not a good reason to add something into the game, forging better memory skills is just silly and should be left to brain games and increasing better building skills just doesn't make any sense, the skills wll adjust to fit the environment. Example, FAR players can find it weird to build without FAR because the aerodynamics are different and vice versa.

If you want a game that is as realistic as possible play a simulator. Design decisions should be made due to gameplay, not realism.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Wanting an game to be realistic is just so ridiculous.

Incorrect. I want the game to be as realistic as possible within reason. Yeah, clouds, re-rentry heating and aerodynamics are realistic and I would welcome their addition into the game. But there's simply no point in requiring players to rebuild command pods and do flight tests simply because you think it should be either 100% or 0% realism. Pick and choose different elements to maximise realism while still making the game fun.

[Captain Sierra]

Incorrect. I want the game to be as realistic as possible within reason. Yeah, clouds, re-rentry heating and aerodynamics are realistic and I would welcome their addition into the game. But there's simply no point in requiring players to rebuild command pods and do flight tests simply because you think it should be either 100% or 0% realism. Pick and choose different elements to maximise realism while still making the game fun.

This is pretty much the big dilema of all games. I once had the privilege of a long conversation with a Planetside 2 developer about sniper rifles, which are horribly underpowered by RL standards. They must land a headshot to kill and their velocity is so low it's laughable. The most powerful ones fire at 650m/s despite the descriptions talking about Gauss acceleration. Realistically, that muzzle velocity should be in the 4 digits. The conclusion of the discussion was that if they were on spec with reality, it would be painfully easy to die to a sniper, something nobody enjoys. What has stuck with me is this: "reality does not always make for good game balance." -Matt Higby.

KSP is unique in that it walks a fine line between reality and gameplay, embodying the best of both. Back to the topic of the thread, I personally am losing a lot of faith that Squad will get the job done. It seems like the focus is tunnel vision career mode. All career mode developments only further career, while sandbox developments further both. I think sandbox is being neglected because most of what is left to do is things that all come down to implementation, as opinions are across the board. Some people want true-to-life aero & re-entry while others want mild heating and simplistic flight models. There's no good way to please everyone with one system, so some form of modular difficulty, which in teh case of KSP, can really be complexity instead of difficulty, has to be implemented which is again something the devs aren't keen on. They find themselves in this jam and the solution is to go work on something else. While it is fantastic (I really do respect the hell out of squad for what they've done) this is the case, it creates this unfinished appearance with no sign that it will be rectified. That is what concerns me about the current development direction.