Roleplay tips for the realism inclined

[architeuthis]

For the love of science and a good challenge we can roleplay over KSP's little simplifications and thicken the game's veneer of realism. Considering the sandbox nature of the game these sorts of things can help keep the game fresh and add interesting layers of depth and nuance. I thought it would be neat to compile a list of roleplay techniques used by the community.

Here is one to start off with:

If you're using radiator systems in KSP Interstellar or Near Future Technologies you should consider not radially mounting your radiator panels such that they can "see" each other. Thermal radiation is just a form of light, it shines in all directions from an emissive source. Ultimately, the point of a radiator is to reject waste heat out into the depths of space so that it doesn't melt your spacecraft. However, if the radiators aren't mounted 180 degrees apart then they will be effectively radiating heat on to each other rather than away from the spacecraft. If your panels radiate on to each other then the total heat rejected by the system will be reduced by the view factor F, which is engineering parlance for the fraction of radiation leaving one surface that is intercepted by another surface. If you assume that the panels are of equal dimensions and have a roughly common edge (i.e. the radius of placement of these panels is small compared to their overall length) then the view factor is approximately

F=1-sin(alpha/2) where alpha is the angle between them.

and the total heat rejected by your radiators will be

qnominal*(1-F)=qactual

I often see screenshots where people mount their radiators at right angles to one another. This reduces their effectiveness by roughly 30%. Panels with smaller angles are even less effective.

For applications in an atmosphere heat is usually removed more quickly by forced convection than by radiation so it is okay to mount panels more closely (in this case they would be called fins). Here surface area is the main thing you really need to care about.

tl;dr point your radiators away from light sources (such as other radiators).

[Aethon]

K. I'll bite. I try not to let nuclear engines burn up/ crash at Kerbin.

[Mipe]

Inhaling kerosene while playing KSP is highly discouraged.

[peadar1987]

I play KSP while also flying actual rockets.

[Xavven]

I impose these personal restrictions for roleplay reasons:

1. Every effort must be made to minimize risk and loss of life to Kerbals. No one-way missions. Extra delta-v margins (around 1000 m/s depending on the mission) must be present, and rescue missions must be attempted when things go wrong.
   
2. Escape towers must be present on all manned Kerbin launches. Career mode players with early tech may launch without escape towers until the tech is unlocked.
   
3. Use FAR. For stock players, build aerodynamic looking rockets with nosecones.
   
4. Use fairings. For stock players, build payloads that would fit reasonably well into a fairing without looking like a giant bulb on top of a skinny rocket.
   
5. No pancake rockets.
   
6. Use Deadly Reentry. For stock players, only re-enter the atmosphere with the MK1 or MK1-2 capsules, or space planes. Assume all other ships and parts within reason would burn up when re-entry flames appear (Duna land+return still possible. Not sure about Eve returns.).
   
7. During re-entry, 10 g of sustained force is allowed for a maximum of 1 minute. 15-25 g is allowed for a maximum of 10 seconds. Otherwise, the crew is presumed to be injured or dead. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Horizontal_axis_g-force)
   
8. Require a hitchhiker storage container for all manned interplanetary journeys to serve as living quarters.
   
9. All landers must carry at least two Kerbals (no single-man landers) for safety reasons.
   
10. No command seat riders during ascent/descent on any celestial body, with the exception of BACKUP Lunar Escape Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems. The primary lander must contain all riders inside. Command seats are ok on rovers and short range suborbital hoppers.
    
11. RCS nozzles may not point at any other part of the ship. This is easily achieved by placing thruster blocks at key locations and combining them with linear RCS ports, as well as mounting them on cubic octagonal struts when necessary to give better clearance.
    
12. Radioactive nuclear material may not re-enter Kerbin's atmosphere. This includes the LV-N engine, as well as the PB-NUK thermoelectric generator.
    
13. Solar panels must be retracted and stored in a fairing when travelling through the atmosphere. Exceptions: OX-STAT (non-extendable and presumed to be aerodynamically flush with the surface), SP-W and SP-L have their own protective case that would protect from high wind force.
    

That's all I can think of for now. I'll add more later if I think of anything else.

[Drew Kerman]

I use Mission Controller Extended for pricing and contracts and manage my own budget spreadsheet. Adds another challenge to building rockets with as little waste as possible in terms of fuel and materials spent

[Godot]

Aside from using DRE, FAR + Proc. Fairings and Tac LS it means for me:

1. Minimizing Crew risk, that means, EscapeSystems as soon as they are suitable and a certain overhead in fuel calculations to be prepared for bad case scenarios ... it also means that no manned mission is planned as a one way mission

2. Cost efficiency of carrier systems ... meaning that I write down the costs of missions (and subparts of the vessels) in Excel and with every new mission under a higher tech level (if there are suitable rocket techs) I check if I can use the higher tech parts in order to make the systems I need (for the next mission) cheaper

3. Reusability ... every part that is planned to be separated before reaching orbit is fitted with parachutes so that its escent is slowed down enough to not explode on impact. Same goes for every part of the spaceship that (together with the capsule) makes it back to Kerbin and gets separated on reentry

4. For longer manned missions (1 months upwards) I try to fit a hitchhiker storage container as living space onto the spacehip

5. Testing & Certification ... manned Landers and rovers (sometimes also unmanned probes/rovers) get tested on Kerbin (for atmospheric landers) or Mun (for vacuum landers) before getting sent on interplanetary missions. In many cases (when working with a very high modularity of systems) I also do unmanned tests with the carrier rocket that is destined to get a payload into orbit (in this case I just simulate a payload with fuel tanks that have the appropiate weight of the planned payload capacity)

6. Probes first if possible ... usually I first send probes to a planet/moon, before I do a manned mission

Edited June 4, 2014 by Godot

[[email protected]]

I concur on the usage of FAR, Fairings, deadly reentry and escape systems.

I'd just like to be able to disable the F5 and F9 functions for career saves so I could avoid the temptation when things go badly awry.

I'd also like to point out that I prefer difficulty over pure realism, so I pilot everything by hand and have never used mechjeb, despite it would be a more realistic way to run a space program.

[Orionkermin]

Many have already been stated, but here's a few more I use:

-No manned missions past "High over Kerbin" with fewer than two kerbals. (So Mun and beyond needs extra bodies)

-No magic reaction wheels. (I use a Module manager cfg to remove them all from pods and severly nerf the reaction wheel parts)

-No rescue missions, past LKO. (Anything else is too far away to save anyone before they run out of resources. They must find a way on their own or perish)

[klappertjes]

I even go a little stricter on "living space" so that the longer the mission the bigger the space needs to be, but it's mitigated by the fact that I count any structural parts that look like they are accesible to the kerbals, not just literal hitchhiker modules and labs.

RCS can't hit solar panels and other fragile stuff like that. I'm less strict about more sturdy parts, but if it can be helped ...

Building a rocket or plane takes 7 days. Technically, refurbishing a plane takes ([Cost as per KER]/10,000) days if I can be bothered to do the bookkeeping on that one.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd just like to be able to disable the F5 and F9 functions for career saves so I could avoid the temptation when things go badly awry.

That can be done by editing the persistence.sfs file. Look for these lines:

CanQuickSave = True

CanQuickLoad = True

Change them to False and have fun!

[[email protected]]

That can be done by editing the persistence.sfs file. Look for these lines:

CanQuickSave = True

CanQuickLoad = True

Change them to False and have fun!

I will have to do this tonight when I get off of work.

[peadar1987]

I usually just try to be disciplined for quicksaves and quickloads. Something that is a glitch, I allow myself to quickload (or something that would never happen in an actual space programme, like I go off to cook dinner and when I come back, I find the pod has reentered without me pointing the heat shield in the right direction).

Something that is my bad piloting, I have to live with. And so do my poor Kerbals!

[Xavven]

I usually just try to be disciplined for quicksaves and quickloads. Something that is a glitch, I allow myself to quickload (or something that would never happen in an actual space programme, like I go off to cook dinner and when I come back, I find the pod has reentered without me pointing the heat shield in the right direction).

Something that is my bad piloting, I have to live with. And so do my poor Kerbals!

Agreed! There's a difference between save scumming and reloading due to a bug or because of an IRL interruption.

[peadar1987]

Agreed! There's a difference between save scumming and reloading due to a bug or because of an IRL interruption.

That's not to say I don't save scum on occasion. Some things are just too tedious to do by trial and error. For example, my Eve lander. I didn't know how deep into the atmosphere it needed to go to aerobrake and land safely, without burning up, so I agreed with myself beforehand that I would test it out, instead of assembling a new craft in orbit and launching it to Eve each time.

I hand-wave it away as something that an IRL space programme would be able to simulate or estimate beforehand. Again, if I make a piloting mistake, it's game over. No quickloading if, once I get down to the planet's surface, I guide the craft down onto a bumpy landing spot and she tips over (sorry Bobgan, you might never be coming home)

[Xavven]

That's not to say I don't save scum on occasion. Some things are just too tedious to do by trial and error. For example, my Eve lander. I didn't know how deep into the atmosphere it needed to go to aerobrake and land safely, without burning up, so I agreed with myself beforehand that I would test it out, instead of assembling a new craft in orbit and launching it to Eve each time.

I hand-wave it away as something that an IRL space programme would be able to simulate or estimate beforehand. Again, if I make a piloting mistake, it's game over. No quickloading if, once I get down to the planet's surface, I guide the craft down onto a bumpy landing spot and she tips over (sorry Bobgan, you might never be coming home)

Yeah, aerobraking calculation is a tool I wish would be added to the game just like the maneuver node planner. I don't really consider it save scumming when you make a conscious decision that you are doing simulation runs. OTOH, there is this http://alterbaron.github.io/ksp_aerocalc/

I haven't used it, so I can't vouch for its accuracy. I usually just put more dV in my transfer stages and skip aerobraking altogether (way inefficient, I know.)