"Two Career Paths" Idea: Aeronautics or Space (with the option of space for aero)

[rodion_herrera]

I realized that, unlike when you're doing an "imagined" career (say, in the "science" days of 0.23, or the "sandbox" days of earlier builds), you can opt to stick to purely atmospheric missions/research and still earn points (in the case of 0.23, the biomes) or simply just enjoy flying around Kerbin (sandbox) and perhaps visit easter eggs as the reward. But with v0.24, it seems that early on, there seems to be no incentive to try out a pure aeronautical career path, perhaps because, a) the mission generator doesn't seem to generate missions that require long atmospheric flights, or recovery/discovery flights to different areas of Kerbin, the aerodynamic related components don't appear on the tech tree til much later, or c) I felt that there seemed to be no thrust into that direction of exploration/testing (or am I wrong? I haven't gone deep into career--are there missions or tests for atmospheric vehicles?).

So I was thinking, what if in the beginning, you can opt to try an almost purely aeronautics career, that can STILL evolve into a space career, or just skip aeronautics altogether and just aim for a pure rocket career. By this, I mean, the rewards/profit, and perhaps even science collection, should be adjusted somewhat, to give emphasis that the player chose an aeronautics-heavy career path. It can perhaps even unlock certain bonuses, if at the "end" (I don't know what signifies the end of the "aero" career path at this point though) of this career path, the player chooses to go on towards a space career.

I am curious as to how the career will evolve, if the player chooses a path that focuses more on aeronautical operations, PLUS space, as opposed to just jumping right away into space/rocketry missions.

Just thoughts, meant for discussion. Please share opinions, thanks.

Edited July 18, 2014 by rodion_herrera

[Rocket Farmer]

Well that idea would open a large amount of issues.

Planes and SSTO planes in particular are much more complicated than normal rockets. A noob trying to build planes right off the bat could very easily get frustrated and quit as it isn't as easy as "moar boosters."

On the other hand experienced plane and SSTO plane designers would get a huge boost on low cost orbital insertions. A well built atmosphere only plane can deliver a 1-3 tonne payload into LKO at almost orbital speeds (ramp up speed in air breathing over 2k before letting momentum carry you out of the atmosphere). The plane burns 70-80 units of fuel and then returns and land on the runway for 100% recovery while the payload has at most a 100 Delta V burn to orbit.

The returns diminish but I have had SSTMun and SSTMinmas spaceplanes that could drop 1 tonne payloads off on the surface and return. SSTGilly and SSTIke were botderline as efficient and my SSTDuna wasn't as efficient as a rocket and never could land like the others (Duna flying isn't easy).

So it would be both too hard an too easy.

[LethalDose]

Well, I think you can still attempt an "aeronautics first" career mode. Just stick largely to the lower half of the tree. You may just have to wait for appropriate contracts to show up to support that play-style though, since it's pretty far off the beaten path of what the devs probably expect the player to do.

A more balanced approach may be more successful, where you complete each "tier" of the tree before you can move onto the next one, or maybe pre-define the progression order somehow, e.g. purchase all the "aero" advancements on a given tier before you move onto others.

[G'th]

I really wish there was a "Kerbal Aerospace Program" tech tree, where you have to achieve flight before you can go on to space.

I mean, building a plane in KSP isn't actually all that hard, and it could actually be quite easily explained in a KSP style tutorial for the newbies. SSTO's are a bit more complicated, but they should be, and honestly SSTO's under a "KASP" type tech tree wouldn't be something you'd naturally attempt until you're into the rocketry part of it anyway. Learning to fly a plane is even easier.

The big issue with it however is that you'd have to add a LOT of new aero parts to the game to make the aeronautic half of the tech tree as fleshed out as the rocketry half would be. It'd basically be Firespitter and B9 combined with some other bits and bobs that are still missing. But if you have all that, then you have an early game that'd be really interesting.

It'd definitely give us a reason to explore Kerbin other than to just farm enough science to get the moons. With a re-balance pass on the Kerbin biomes (to accommodate the aeronautic nodes) and a multitude of new experiments, you could have an early game where you explore Kerbin, but don't have to waste countless hours flying to each and every biome just to get to basic rocketry. The way I see it, ideally you'd want to be able to just hit up may be 3 or 4 different biomes (there's about that many just around KSC) with the basic experiments you'd get (at various altitudes of course) and then you'd have enough science to go for rocketry, or for more advanced plane parts.

Edited July 18, 2014 by G'th

[Liowen]

I would like to see something like this, but more focused on probes first and then manned missions. It might be easy to do with a techtree revamp, but at the same time I can understand why they are doing more with manned missions to keep it fun for more people.

[Pecan]

You're all right, I think - isn't it nice to have concensus :-)

Unmanned rockets and manned flight should logically come first - rover wheels very early, if not first as well. Only later would you have the ability to perform manned space missions.

[rodion_herrera]

...where you have to achieve flight before you can go on to space.

I guess this was the basic driving force of my idea.

I would like to see something like this' date=' but more focused on probes first and then manned missions.[/quote']

Oh yeah, unmanned and manned would also be a good branching/option, because it follows a historical flow. Well yes, Kerbin is not earth, but I was still wishing for a tech flow similar to that found in earth history.

Thanks for the input.

[SoldierHair]

I would also like to see an Aerospace tech tree.I hate ('don't like' might fit better) rockets for the same reason i hate modern tanks, they are all the same (of course, this is my personal opinion from my personal hindsight, so i don't want anyone to start arguing because they have a different opinion, therefore i am 'wrong').

I find planes and SSTOs way more interesting to make and fly.

[Pecan]

...I find planes and SSTOs way more interesting to make and fly.

So it's only staged rockets you don't like but SSTO rockets are fine?

[sewerbird]

After a few bootstrap rocket contracts (perhaps up to LKO) to get wings/landing gear, I've found that atmospheric test contracts with high science yields have allowed me to advance through the tech tree to the useful spaceplane parts just fine.

[SoldierHair]

So it's only staged rockets you don't like but SSTO rockets are fine?

I'll give you that, i do like SSTO rockets.I like the idea of assembling and/or refueling in orbit.

I only have a problem with Kerbin-atmosphere-to-destination multistaged rockets.To be fair, they are a bit boring, aren't they?As i said, they all seem the same.But again, this is all my opinion.I'm fully aware that some people don't like winged stuff in general, that everything is boring in its own way.I don't really have any real observations against rockets (because 'hurrdurr, rockets boring' is an opinion) , i like planes more.

[lammatt]

planes are pretty odd now.

while the stock aerodynamics are worse than FAR,

the current FAR's drag model is kind of strange too, plane picks speed up way too quickly when descending(even when a very shallow descend) making landing crazily hard if your plane have large lifting surfaces. (just like their first iteration when 0.23.5 just came out)