Scalable Difficulty Factors

[Northstar1989]

Surprisingly, I couldn't find this anywhere on the Already Suggested list, so here goes:

I suggest the eventual addition of scalable difficult factors in KSP. That is, factors you can adjust when creating a new save. The factors should include (but not necessarily be limited to) the following:

Science Multiplier - A basic multiplier that affects the value of science rewards. This would affect the total amount of science available on each celestial body, for each experiment type.

Science Transmission Factors - Adjustable factors to the maximum % science gain that can be attained from transmitting a given experiment type. I.e. some players might reduce this to 0% for all experiments- making transmission useless- or set it to 100% for all, so they never have to return experiments.

Cost Multiplier - Works on Budgets. Would multiply by some number (could be less than 1 to REDUCE costs) the final cost of spacecraft built in the VAB/SPH. Could also be used for more "realistic" costs when combined with a higher Fiscal Reward Multiplier.

Fiscal Reward Multiplier - Similar to Cost Multiplier, but scales rewards for completing contracts. This would be more an alternative for flavor, since the effect would be nearly the same. It might allow players to create a harder or easier "Start", though, by making starting cash (I assume there must be such a thing- and any allowances provided for "free" over time, if they come to exist) less or more valuable, when combined with a commensurate Cost Multiplier (for instance, cutting both costs and rewards by half would make the starting cash twice as valuable)

Rocket Scale Factor - Adjusts the relative size of rocket parts (using the Rescale Factor already on parts). Want a rocket that's realistic-size, or on the same 1/11th scale as Kerbin, instead of the default 64% scale? Go ahead! Affects difficulty by affecting the ease of finding suitable landing sites- and affects drag (larger objects have better ballistic coefficients) once a realistic aerodynamics model is implemented, or if running FAR.

Planet/System Scale Factor - Adjusts the relative size of the planets and Kerbol system (including distances from the sun and orbital velocities) by the selected factor- with the currently used 1/11th scale being the default (for simplicity, 3-4 settings could be available: Default/Fun, Miniature/Easy, Kerbal-Scale/64%, Realistic). Probably the most significant way players could adjust the difficulty- and allows KSP to satisfy both casual gamers and realism freaks, without having to take sides like the devs currently do on the side of having a "fun-sized" Kerbin and Kerbol system...

ISP Scale Factor - Adjusts ISP ratings of rocket engines, within a certain limited range- allowing players to uprate ISP by 5-10% for easier gameplay, or down-rate it by 5-10% for a level more appropriate to Apollo-Era technology (current ratings closely match modern-day technology). By preventing a more than a 5-10% tweak, the look and feel of KSP can still be maintained within relatively tight bounds...

Fuel Realism Toggle - Switches the current stock fuels (assuming they are not replaced) with more realistic fuels- that is, Liquid H2 (LH2), Liquid Oxygen (LOX), Kerosene, etc. This would probably be a feature added later than the other difficulty factors, but would go a long way to satisfy realism nuts, without forcing the devs to take sides...

Re-Entry Heating Factor - Increases or decreases the production of re-entry heat (once implemented) or part heat tolerance ratings by a certain %. Like ISP Scale, probably only within certain limited bounds- say 15-20% up or down...

Rocket Build Time Toggle - Implements build-time for rockets, the default being "Off". Probably not worth adding due to coding complexity except as a post-1.0 release (although it's already been implemented in some mods, so it can't be *THAT* hard to get right).

I think that a difficulty system like this would go a long way towards making KSP appeal to a wider audience. It would allow more experienced players to turn up the difficulty (an in many cases also the realism- as with Planet/System Scale) to challenge themselves, while simultaneously allowing newer players to turn down the difficult while still learning. The realism-orientation of many of the difficulty factors would also allow realism nuts to set realistic values for the different facts, and be satisfied.

I know of NO OTHER game that doesn't have at least some kind of difficult factor. Even other Indie games, like Faster Than Light, have at least an "Easy" and a "Hard" mode. As well as Sandbox games like SimCity (it affects your starting cash, Demand for growth, and the incidence of natural disasters, mainly) and the Civilization series. I think the devs ought to at least CONSIDER adding difficulty factors for KSP.

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. I make no secret- I consider myself a "realism nut", and would appreciate more of a challenge in KSP. That is, I would GREATLY like to see more realistic scale, aerodynamics, etc. in KSP, and would probably play with up-rated cost factors. But I don't actually PLAY with any of the realism mods because they have too many bugs (Real Solar System, I'm looking at you- and your ground that Kerbals sink straight through), which could easily be resolved if the realism factors were designed into the stock game as a "hard mode" in the first place.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Northstar1989

[AlamoVampire]

This is an unneeded thing. I am just being brutally honest. You can already make the game as hard or as easy as you see fit simply by either using cheats or mods and self imposed freedoms/restrictions. Also given the ease at which this game can be modified by the end user it makes such a suggestion moot. I do applaud the thought and effort you put into your idea tho.

[Sky_walker]

Not needed. If someone wants to cheat - there are better ways to do that. For legit players it holds little to no value.

[pxi]

Also given the ease at which this game can be modified by the end user it makes such a suggestion moot.

ÃŒn some respect you could apply that argument to just about any suggestion made on this forum.

Personally, I think it is worth considering. The fact that difficulty/realism/logistics mods exist and are used at all indicates that there is some demand for it.

[Red Iron Crown]

The first four seem like good ideas to me for scaling difficulty. The rest of them I don't like, IMO the non-career-specific game mechanics should be the same universally in the stock game.

As an aside, begging for rep is beneath you, Northstar. You have good ideas and you express them clearly, let the rep come naturally.

[Northstar1989]

Also given the ease at which this game can be modified by the end user it makes such a suggestion moot.

That answer has been made by at least one player to nearly every single suggestion of new features *EVER* made for this game...

It's NOT adequate. Mods experience bugs that could easily be fixed with "Stockization" of the respective features (such as the bug I mentioned with Real Solar System terrain), and have to jury-rig code in unusual/inefficient ways rather than simple designing the code to do something.

Adding some of these features as difficulty sliders makes them optional (so only players who want to can use them) or allows the same player to have two different saves with different settings without having to make two separate installations of KSP.

Regards,

Northstar

Edited June 24, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

The first four seem like good ideas to me for scaling difficulty. The rest of them I don't like, IMO the non-career-specific game mechanics should be the same universally in the stock game.

I wouldn't consider the last four to really be a different universe or game mechanic- just a different scale. It's still the same rocket equation, the same landforms, etc. and I think it's the only valid way to "Stock-itize" mods like Real Solar System to some degree at this point- though I really think KSP should have been built to an at least 20% or 25% scale in the beginning, rather than a 1/11th scale...

As an aside, begging for rep is beneath you, Northstar. You have good ideas and you express them clearly, let the rep come naturally.

Thanks for the compliments! You're probably right- I'll delete that aside begging for rep.

Regards,

Northstar

[BudgetHedgehog]

Is this where I post my 'realism vs believability' post? Because I totally should. Northstar even posted in it.

I'm totally down for the first few ideas - sure, have Science or Cost multiplier, but the further I go down that list, the less important they seem to get. ISP Scaling? Fuel Realism? They both seem like a lot of work that would only really interest a certain portion of the players and not be used by the others. I don't care what that fuel kerbals use - it's different planet, they could be using liquid flooby for all I know or care - the point is it's fuel and it's liquid. It gets the job done and it doesn't bog me down with details or realism. Even here on Earth, we don't say "and the Space Shuttles SRBs are close to running out of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or APCP", they're just running out of fuel. It's fuel, it burns and provides thrust, that's all I need and want to know. Any more than that is wasted on me because I honestly don't care about it. The most I need to know is that I have enough of it.

Planetary scaling? Like I said in my post, yeah, Kerbins atmosphere/size is pretty unrealistic but it is, after all, a different planet. Who knows what it's made of... Could be almost entirely made of osmium, who knows..

This is my biggest problem with people trying to apply realistic ideas to a game. It takes place on another planet that is entirely unlike Earth. Basic laws of physics apply (aerodynamics, re-entry heating etc) but stuff like 'realistic fuels' and 'realistic size/gravity' have no place in stock KSP because it is, simply put, not supposed to be realistic. It's a different planet altogether and I have no problem suspending my disbelief for that. Forcing kerosene or Earths gravity well on it just feels.. wrong.

[AlamoVampire]

Iirc squads position is that if a mod already handles a need such as mechjeb for autopilot squad wont add such a feature themselves. See my original response for the rest of my argument

[MKI]

most of the first 4 I agree with. The rest should belong more to mods rather than the stock game.

With the next update bringing actually game over screens, there should be a difficulty. Things such as science, reputation, build costs, and starting money all could be tweaked to create a more difficult career.

Now everything else you suggested i do not feel should be in the stock game as an option. Sizable planets/rockets change the core fundamentals of the game, so they should be mods. (and are already)

Scale factors again change the core fundamentals of the game and should stay to mods. (how can you relate to someone else when your playing with different isps?)

Some things such as re-entry heating could be added as an option, but this can be worried about once we get re-entry heating in general.

Other suggestions such as different fuel types all go beyond what KSP's current scope is, and thus should be mods(which they are). The current fuel system isn't realistic but handling fuel types shouldn't be a part of the stock KSP experience.

[cpast]

Iirc squads position is that if a mod already handles a need such as mechjeb for autopilot squad wont add such a feature themselves. See my original response for the rest of my argument

Squad certainly has no such position. Many features they've added previously existed in mod form. When they say a feature won't be in 1.0, it's not because a mod added it, it's because they don't feel like it's in scope for the game. Autopilot is not going to be in 1.0 because the stock game is intended to be lots of trial-and-error, with the player hand-flying everything they build. Weapons won't because it's a peaceful game. Et cetera.

On the original suggestion:

Things like planet scale absolutely should not be adjustable without mods. I've touched on this in other posts, but KSP needs to have a sense of what it is as a game. Mods can change that, but Squad should frankly ignore mods when deciding what will go in the game (at most, they might look at mods for prioritization, but not for "should we add this"). Stock games should differ as little as possible in craft physics - if I have a stock game, and you have a stock game, and I send you a craft, it should work exactly the same for you as it did for me. IIRC, the specific reason that Squad doesn't want to do randomly generated solar systems is literally to keep the game experience unified - everyone knows about what it means to land on Eve, but everyone would *not* have a sense of your specific setup. That immediately implies zero variation on planet scale, because that would produce the exact same problem. The "keep experience unified" actually applies for all scales (that should never, ever be changeable within stock), and also, IMO, to things like engine ISP. RealFuels shouldn't be in stock at all; in a game played with aliens in a solar system mildly based on our own, but with significant differences, there's literally no reason you should assume that the fuels are the same.

Edited June 25, 2014 by cpast

[AlamoVampire]

I personally think it is horrible that they will not have a built in mechjeb by 1.0. I personally think this is a huge mistake but, it isnt my game, and I have no say over anything they add or do not add. But, the point is, to me, it is a huge fail to have these huge rockets that are hand flown. Not even NASA or the Russian Space Program have rockets w/out automation. BUT again, this is just me being jaded by my own views. Suffice it to say, only TIME tells where we go.

[cpast]

I personally think it is horrible that they will not have a built in mechjeb by 1.0. I personally think this is a huge mistake but, it isnt my game, and I have no say over anything they add or do not add. But, the point is, to me, it is a huge fail to have these huge rockets that are hand flown. Not even NASA or the Russian Space Program have rockets w/out automation. BUT again, this is just me being jaded by my own views. Suffice it to say, only TIME tells where we go.

Someone somewhere had a comparison (I don't have the link, but someone else may). NASA and Roscosmos cannot lose astronauts. They simply do not get to; when they lose *any*, the manned space program is shut down for years while the craft type undergoes extensive reviews. In contrast, a crash in KSP is not supposed to be total disaster. It's supposed to be a learning experience. You don't have to take any measure possible to avoid it; the stakes are far lower. Space agencies also don't have prepackaged autopilots; much of the information needed is specific to each craft. I say this as someone who uses Mechjeb extensively - the functionality doesn't belong in stock, because that ruins the trial-and-error gameplay, and discourages players from saying "Hm, I wonder what happens if I do this?"

[AlamoVampire]

Someone somewhere had a comparison (I don't have the link, but someone else may). NASA and Roscosmos cannot lose astronauts. They simply do not get to; when they lose *any*, the manned space program is shut down for years while the craft type undergoes extensive reviews. In contrast, a crash in KSP is not supposed to be total disaster. It's supposed to be a learning experience. You don't have to take any measure possible to avoid it; the stakes are far lower. Space agencies also don't have prepackaged autopilots; much of the information needed is specific to each craft. I say this as someone who uses Mechjeb extensively - the functionality doesn't belong in stock, because that ruins the trial-and-error gameplay, and discourages players from saying "Hm, I wonder what happens if I do this?"

I agree with you on actual HUMAN space flight needing to be 100% perfect 100% of the time. I do however disagree with you on the claim the functionality of mechjeb does not need to be in stock. I think it SHOULD be in stock. I am an RC Pilot and I also have spent way too many hours doing the old MS Flight Sims set to 100% real settings, AND have flown real aircraft. That being said, i know the value of the information alone in mechjeb from TWR and DV to all the other basic information that Squad intentionally leaves OUT. NOT being told how much our vessel weighs in is just plain bad designing. NOT being told what our DV values are or our TWR values again, just plain bad design. Now, ugh I cannot believe I am going to do this...makes me feel dirty...BUT... IF we have say scaled difficulty factors, and lets say, they give us the options for perma kerbal death and destructive reentry heat and damage, NOT having automation will result in death after death after death after death and where pray tell is the fun in that? If you put up a science station into orbit and you go to land your experiments that you have spent, lets say 5 years <game time of course> doing and now you want to LAND that research, and you have the "suggested" factors added in, and have set up the game to make re-entry 100% realistic and kerbal death 100% permanent. NOW, lets say, you do not have automation, and your station is in orbit halfway between kerbin and the mun. This makes for an exceedingly FAST orbital speed as you hit entry interface. Now, given no automation, and you crash through the atmosphere at 2-3km a second, how long before you go boom? Well, not long if you are ballistic, longer if you are an SSTO. Lets say you cant slow down, and you forgot to quicksave prior to returning to kerbin and you die in reentry for the want of automation. How does that help? it doesnt.

You go to add in hard mode, you NEED automation, pure and simple.

[Red Iron Crown]

Ugh, this thread isn't about MechJeb or adding it to stock, let's talk about the OP's suggestions and leave that for another thread.

Is this where I post my 'realism vs believability' post? Because I totally should. Northstar even posted in it.

I'm totally down for the first few ideas - sure, have Science or Cost multiplier, but the further I go down that list, the less important they seem to get. ISP Scaling? Fuel Realism? They both seem like a lot of work that would only really interest a certain portion of the players and not be used by the others. I don't care what that fuel kerbals use - it's different planet, they could be using liquid flooby for all I know or care - the point is it's fuel and it's liquid. It gets the job done and it doesn't bog me down with details or realism. Even here on Earth, we don't say "and the Space Shuttles SRBs are close to running out of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or APCP", they're just running out of fuel. It's fuel, it burns and provides thrust, that's all I need and want to know. Any more than that is wasted on me because I honestly don't care about it. The most I need to know is that I have enough of it.

Planetary scaling? Like I said in my post, yeah, Kerbins atmosphere/size is pretty unrealistic but it is, after all, a different planet. Who knows what it's made of... Could be almost entirely made of osmium, who knows..

This is my biggest problem with people trying to apply realistic ideas to a game. It takes place on another planet that is entirely unlike Earth. Basic laws of physics apply (aerodynamics, re-entry heating etc) but stuff like 'realistic fuels' and 'realistic size/gravity' have no place in stock KSP because it is, simply put, not supposed to be realistic. It's a different planet altogether and I have no problem suspending my disbelief for that. Forcing kerosene or Earths gravity well on it just feels.. wrong.

I agree with this just about word for word. I know Northstar would like the game to be more complex and realistic, but I'm not sure that's desirable for the core game. Some economic multipliers can scale the difficulty to some degree, but I really think the in-flight mechanics should be constant across all difficulty levels.

Greater complexity and realism are best left to mods, in my mind.

[Kegereneku]

I see a fundamental problem with Northstar1989's suggestion it's that it confuse difficulty balance with core-mechanic.

And I can't keep myself from noting it's not the first time he try to suggest his favorite mod to become stock in a convoluted way.

The 4 following points are indeed parameters you could reasonably balance to modify your Career-mode experience without changing the core-mechanic, they seem to only make career-mode shorter/longer, change manned/probes proportion and make it easier/harder to overdesign rockets.

- Science Multiplier

- Science Transmission Factors

- Cost Multiplier

- Fiscal Reward Multiplier

The rest isn't and you can notice how they always imply to make "stock" entire mods or imply to add some other suggestion.

- Planet/System Scale Factor aka "I want my RealSolarSystem to be made stock", it would basically ask the Dev to produce 3 entirely new games : one with bigger planets, one with longer distance, one with both. All of them rebalanced with new planet and texture.

- ISP Scale Factor is just a cheat that most player would certainly keep on all the time because it lessen frustration without being an interesting challenge by itself.

- Fuel Realism Toggle aka "I want the first step for my alchemy/resources mods" and it would do more than change the fuel name since KSP isn't and will never be a simulator, switching fuel would imply to later respect their energy density, then mass, all the way to "I want my Realistic mods made stock".

- Re-Entry Heating Factor, aka "make reentry mod stock"

- Rocket Build Time Toggle ... aka "another mods" which is not a factor but would require to create said new feature.

All in all, the main reason KSP can't propose options to satisfy any players' whims is that it would require to design and balance several different games.

Sorry if I sound harsh Northstar1989 but I hate seeing people suggest their mods added as core-mechanic under the pretext of "needed options".

Edited June 25, 2014 by Kegereneku
forgot one

[Jouni]

- Fuel Realism Toggle aka "I want the first step for my alchemy/resources mods" and it would do more than change the fuel name since KSP isn't and will never be a simulator, switching fuel would imply to later respect their energy density, then mass, all the way to "I want my Realistic mods made stock".

KSP is a simulator, and it has always been one. There's only one major part of the game that's based on arbitrary game mechanics: science. Everything else is basically physics simulation.

The main difference between simulators and other games comes from game mechanics. In simulators, game mechanics are basically laws of nature: they create a world that follows its own rules. In other games, game mechanics are designed with their immediate gameplay consequences in mind.

[regex]

Science Multiplier -

Science Transmission Factors -

Cost Multiplier -

Fiscal Reward Multiplier -

These are good ideas.

Rocket Scale Factor -

I'm pretty sure this doesn't have any bearing on what you say it does, most especially about difficulty and landing sites, even using "real" scale on 1/11th planets. It's cosmetic and is best kept to mods; it's why we have a rescaleFactor in part configs.

Planet/System Scale Factor -

Quite frankly stock just needs to be bigger, it's a complete joke right now that actually impeeds the adoption of better aerodynamics. Difficulty "sliders" for this are silly.

ISP Scale Factor -

Fuel Realism Toggle -

These are not bad suggestions, but fuel really just needs some better "Kerbalization". A pared-down Real Fuels would work great, maybe with Kerosene/LOX, LH2/LOX MMH/N204, and Liquid Methane (basically because they're the fuels I use)...

Re-Entry Heating Factor -

Agreed.

Rocket Build Time Toggle -

Highly unrealistic in the current mod implementation since most space missions are easily months or years in the planning/building and many different companies work on said missions, and launch them from many different sites (each with its own purpose). Considering KSP has one launch site with one pad, build times are completely unneccesary and artificial.

[Kegereneku]

KSP is a simulator, and it has always been one. There's only one major part of the game that's based on arbitrary game mechanics: science. Everything else is basically physics simulation.

The main difference between simulators and other games comes from game mechanics. In simulators, game mechanics are basically laws of nature: they create a world that follows its own rules. In other games, game mechanics are designed with their immediate gameplay consequences in mind.

No, no, no. A simulator have the intent of being as close as possible to reality, only simplifying because of technical limitation.

"Orbiter" is a simulator. It integrate new data from the real world as we get them to make itself as realistic as possible regardless of what is "fun".

"KSP" is a video game and does not INTENT to simulate real physics only have a lookalike gameplay mechanism.

Do you only have any idea how much KSP cheat with physics for the express purpose of making it a entertaining game ?

The Kerbol system was made 1/11th of that of our solar system because it would make launch to orbit shorter and easier. As a result the planets are made of material with unrealistic mass.

The orbital physics have been set to a patched-conic approximation rather than the N-body that would allow Lagrange point because it made orbit stable.

The game have a race of green little creature because this is clearly not Earth neither our universe, and doesn't have the same planets and moon.

Calling KSP a simulator is okay as an abuse of language to explain how it is different from other space game. But this is not a Simulator. Else you might as well call Mario-Kart a "Racing Simulator".

[Vaporo]

Good ideas:

Science Transmission Factors-Gives a large incentive to return spacecraft on highest difficulty, or encourages more probes on lower difficulty.

Fiscal Reward Multiplier- A very easy to implement easy/difficult adjustment.

Stuff that's kind of good:

Rocket Build Time Toggle- As it's been mentioned, this is a little bit of an artificial and arbitrary setting. Most real-life space missions are planned months or years in advance, so it can just be assumed that most missions were planned and the rocket was being constructed for years before the player hits launch. This would also just become a bit annoying because A. the space center is just losing money while the rocket is being constructed, and B. It could cause you to miss perfect launch windows.

Science Multiplier- SQUAD may want a sense of cohesiveness in the community of "Duna's surface always give X amount of science." Otherwise, this is just a simple way to scale difficulty.

Cost Multiplier- Redundant to fiscal reward multiplier. And it would be annoying if crafts you download from other players cost more or less than they claim.

Bad ideas:

Rocket Scale Factor- Bad idea. Parts should always scale to be the same size.

ISP Scale Factor-More community cohesiveness problems.

Fuel Realism Toggle- Fuels should just always be the same in order to avoid confusion.

Planet/System Scale Factor- Yet more in-game and community cohesiveness problems! It would be horrible to download a ship that says it can reach Ike, but tghen find out it only works of the easiest level.

Own category:

Re-Entry Heating Factor- I'm not certain where this one should go. It would cause a small amount of disjoint within the community, but not enough to justify it being a real problem. However, it is such an easy difficulty scale factor that it's hard to pass up.

[Jouni]

No, no, no. A simulator have the intent of being as close as possible to reality, only simplifying because of technical limitation.

"Orbiter" is a simulator. It integrate new data from the real world as we get them to make itself as realistic as possible regardless of what is "fun".

Other people use a different definition. Look at the Wikipedia, for example.

A simulator is a game, where game mechanics are used to simulate the process of an action. The opposite of a simulator is an abstract game, where game mechanics are used to decide the outcome of the action. For example, when launching a rocket, you could roll a die, and the launch would fail on 1 and be successful on 2-6. Most games use both simulative and abstract game mechanics, so in practice we call a game a simulator, if it uses far more simulative than abstract mechanics.

Obviously a simulator can mean different things in other contexts, but those contexts are not relevant to the discussion.

[Kegereneku]

That's not really the definition you linked to and you miss the context in which I answer Northstar.

I see what you mean by abstract but there is no scale for how abstract something is, and having a physics engine doesn't mean you'll be simulating real physics. You could as well be computing a fictional world where Green-alien build clunky firework that happen to look like rockets and where real equation are anecdotal. (forgot to say that earlier but KSP also doesn't compute the real link between ISP and atmosphere density)

However there are other game/software with the intent and dedication of truly simulating reality with far more complex equation and far less simplification.

That's why I said :

"Calling KSP a simulator is okay as an abuse of language to explain how it is different from other space game. But this is not a Simulator. Else you might as well call Mario-Kart a "Racing Simulator". "

Yes, you can call KSP a simulator because it's less abstract than other games, but it is not and won't be a full-fledged simulator a small-gap away from real physics and caring for a so called "full realism toggle" like Northstar1989 would like to become.

This is not a call to never change KSP or never get a better aerodynamic model, this is just a callback to what KSP is above everything else : a GAME. I'm willing to bet real money that if KSP tried to be more and more realist it would lose most of its public.

[karolus10]

I would say that only career mode could made be harder by offering you more limited budget, but it's not very necessary as You can try to limited expenses by yourself.

Also there is really no need to fear reentry mechanics that much as it will be much more forgiving than IRL, because of smaller reentry speeds in KSP.

Iirc squads position is that if a mod already handles a need such as mechjeb for autopilot squad wont add such a feature themselves. See my original response for the rest of my argument

You must mind that maneuver nodes and flight planning (not available in current game besides nodes) may be expanded in future so you could design mission profile before leaving the launchpad, with such capability and proper instruments you could achieve precision similar to the mech-jeb.

EDIT_1: diffrent system scale options would seriously affect delta V required and difficulty to get anywhere, but as far as I know It's not gonna happen.

Edited June 27, 2014 by karolus10

[Jouni]

Yes, you can call KSP a simulator because it's less abstract than other games, but it is not and won't be a full-fledged simulator a small-gap away from real physics and caring for a so called "full realism toggle" like Northstar1989 would like to become.

I'm not really sure which definition of a simulator you're using.

In gaming, simulators are a major class of games. For examples of those games, you can go to Steam and see, which games are listed with tag "Simulation". (The last time I went there, the first thing I saw was an ad for KSP.) This is probably the primary definition of a simulator, because it's the one most commonly used in the last couple of decades.

In science and engineering, simulators are basically computational experiments. Because time is expensive, computers are slow, and memory is scarce, the usual goal is to make simulators as simple as possible, while still capturing the relevant phenomena. In some of my papers, I've done experiments with simulated DNA. This basically means taking a real DNA sequence, duplicating it, and altering the sequences with random mutations that make some statistical properties of the collection similar to those of real DNA sequence collections. In one of my favorite papers from other fields, people investigated altruism and tolerance from an evolutionary perspective. In their simulation, xenophobic altruism and tolerant selfishness were viable combinations, while evolution kept the populations of tolerant altruists and selfish xenophobes to a minimum.

In the above examples, the simulators were relatively simple programs that arguable captured relevant phenomena. They definitely didn't try to simulate the underlying processes as accurately as possible, which apparently is what simulators should do, according to your definition. I really have no idea, where simulators like that might be used.

[Kegereneku]

Let's just agree that it is context dependent.

There is no true definition of simulator, or it became meaningless as newer game-engine allow to simulate more and more physics, be it based on true to Ker...Earth physics or hypothetical physics to test theories. Nowadays even FPS game can simulate physics with relatively good realism just to have a fancy background (like waterfall and object falling).

When I said KSP will "never be a simulator", it's in the meaning that it is not meant to be more realist than fun. You have Simulator which have the intent to be as realistic as possible but simplify their interface to compensate the lack of a true cockpit/driving wheel/gearbox/pedal/MFD/force feedback/autopilot. And sometime, only sometime, those simplify their physics to attract a younger audience before giving them the access to the normal "FULL REALISM" .

But KSP is nowhere near that case. Its goal was not to make a Simulator like "training simulator", it's to make a video game that deliberately simplify the less interesting aspect of rocket-science to make its fun more accessible. Aspect like the planets' size and distance, orbital mechanic, the relation between ISP/thrust/atmospheric density, fuel density, gyroscopic gimbals-lock,

KSP wasn't made REALIST to begin with, so it would require major rewrite that will only satisfy realism-nuts so they can pretend KSP is serious-business. I'm pretty sure not giving false-information to kids is another reasons KSP will not make itself pass as more realist than it is.

btw: the result of that paper you quote can be seen as "totally abstract" since we don't know how much variables where taken into account or what to understand from the result.