A little bit disappointed about career mode

[Tokay Gris]

So, maybe the new career mode isn't for me.

Granted, I am just starting the career, so maybe it gets better.

But the contracts I did get so far are a little... hm... unrealistic?

Why on Kerbin would I want to test a big booster at an altitude of 1000m? Not that it can't be done. But what is the purpose of that? The first booster was tested on the ground. Makes sense. You can do that without ever lifting. Just test that thing. But to get that thing in the air with a specified velocity and THEN fire it?

And why would I want to test an engine splashed down? Can be done, of course. As far as I know it doesn't even need fuel for that...

Same goes for radial decouplers.

I can just imagine the face of Jeb Kerman... "You want me to do WHAT?"

I kind of reminds me of a hardcore diving certificate we once created... "under the ice... in a wreck... in a wetsuit... with your wife... all at once"

So, I will try some more. Again, not that those contracts can't be done. They can. I did some of them. But so far I don't get it. So far cash is not the problem. Doability is not the problem. But my rational mind (sometimes too rational) can't think of a reason to do that.

Maybe I should not have accepted such contracts. But this is still a game. I can't tell the guy giving the contract that his test is worthless.

Well... Way back when science was introduced, I started a bunch of rockets, sent them to the celestial bodies and did missions... But those missions?

Ah well. Just a rant. Maybe it gets better. Or maybe career mode just isn't for me.

[Doge]

Yeah I'm a little disappointed too because the contracts could be much more fun but 75% of them are "test x booster at x height at x velocity". Totally agree with you.

[Renegrade]

I'd just like to note here that Squad is still working on contracts - the actual content of the contracts will be improved for 0.25.

That being said, I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

You two might want to check out the mod named "Fine Print", it helps flesh out the stock contracts.

[Pecan]

[View from the sandbox]It's a mode where you start without wheels or wings, have no idea what a satellite is and can't fire so much as a firework but have a big engine for manned missions. The whole reason you do anything is to gain science advances so you have all the tools you need ... to do the things you've just done. You want realism, logic and sense!?

"Why on Kerbin would I want to test a big booster at an altitude of 1000m?" because some calculations on its performance seem anomalous and need to be checked. It seems the seams might crack at decreasing pressure while under thrust.

"And why would I want to test an engine splashed down?" because you're getting paid *shuddup, shuddup, the idiots don't know they're asking for stupid tests. Just smile and take the money!*

You can justify anything if you put your mind to it, especially in fiction and particularly in science fiction. Seriously though, some odd test requirements might be called for in real-life R&D - whether you want to accept such test contracts is a different matter.

[Tokay Gris]

Hey, I love this game.

Of course it is still Alpha.

And its not about "fleshing out". It is about the sense of such contracts.

I mean, it would make sense if you first had to test a booster on the ground. Then test it with a "payload" of some kind. But as it is, I had to test boosters with a Kerbal on top. Jeb likes that, of course. But it does not make sense.

I still am grumbling over that "test big booster at 1000m with 300 m/s speed"-contract. Who would ever do that? Untested on the ground, untested to lift anything... the first test is "lift it up, get it to a speed hard to accomplish, then start" (300 it was, I think, at 1000m? Can be done, of course... but WHY?)

[Tortoise]

The current contracts are only placeholders anyways.

[Tokay Gris]

You want realism, logic and sense!?

Nah. Not really. Just something that fits into the whole thing.

"Why on Kerbin would I want to test a big booster at an altitude of 1000m?" because some calculations on its performance seem anomalous and need to be checked. It seems the seams might crack at decreasing pressure while under thrust.

I did not test it before. That is the point. The FIRST test I have to do with a thingie that is "new" (to the RP-Kerbal) was "get it up and start it there".

"And why would I want to test an engine splashed down?" because you're getting paid *shuddup, shuddup, the idiots don't know they're asking for stupid tests. Just smile and take the money!*

Yes, of course. They want that test done, so i do it. But it kind of breaks the feel of the game, I think.

Let me put it like this: It's like somebody in my job would give me a drug to test. But would say "we only pay you if you test that drug in a bypass operation underwater on a space station with only an AMBU®-bag" (guess what my job is? ;-)

You can justify anything if you put your mind to it, especially in fiction and particularly in science fiction.

I beg to differ. Especially in SciFi, you need some working explanation. In Fantasy, you can use the "deus ex machine"-method. But in good SciFi, you can't.

Oh, you can, but then you end up writing bad SciFi. Look up "Xenu" sometime... THAT is really bad SciFi.

You have a point anyway. Maybe this should rather go into the suggestion box. Some kind of consistency testing for the contracts.

[tygoo7]

The current contracts are only placeholders anyways.

^ Yeah. I'm sure that in 0.25 there will be more contracts and fixes since most of that is already planned. In the mean time you could use FinePrint and MCE since they both add some interesting contracts and MCE adds some career mode extras.

[Pecan]

I mean, it would make sense if you first had to test a booster on the ground. Then test it with a "payload" of some kind. But as it is, I had to test boosters with a Kerbal on top. Jeb likes that, of course. But it does not make sense.

Ah yeah, that. The tech-tree is just ALL wrong, which is why I never played science mode. Contracts seem moderately interesting but career only really tempted me with the cost-effectiveness design challenge. Unfortunately, since you get everything back but the fuel that therefore comes down to "make the most fuel-efficient spaceplane". All that leaves you is "grind for science, with added annoyance".

Anyway, it's all meant to be a 'tycoon' game, which is why Squad won't give us the numbers to design properly in stock (deltaV, etc.). Obviously, money, science, tech-tree, et-al arranged non-sensically is more accessible to newbies than "here's a number you don't understand yet" [/sarcasm]. We shall see - I still have hopes for the future iterations, but I've pretty much written-off career as anything interesting or educational.

[Wanderfound]

."And why would I want to test an engine splashed down?" because you're getting paid *shuddup, shuddup, the idiots don't know they're asking for stupid tests. Just smile and take the money!*

To find out if it's reusable after a splashdown landing, of course. And high altitude booster ignition has relevance to spaceplanes.

I don't find the testing contracts to be at all unrealistic. In fact, I think they add a substantial amount of realism to the game. Putting equipment into extreme circumstances is what testing is all about.

[Wanderfound]

Let me put it like this: It's like somebody in my job would give me a drug to test. But would say "we only pay you if you test that drug in a bypass operation underwater on a space station with only an AMBU®-bag" (guess what my job is? ;-)

If you had to do underwater bypass surgery with limited tools, wouldn't you be interested in the report of someone who'd done it before?

Ex-neuroscientist (medically retired) here: looking at stuff in bizarre situations is a large part of what we do. If you want to understand something, push the limits until it breaks. You don't really know what something does until you mess it up.

[WestAir]

The reason they have you test in the air instead of on the ground is because they can test it on the ground themselves. They need your rockets to do the in flight tests.

[Pecan]

To find out if it's reusable after a splashdown landing, of course. And high altitude booster ignition has relevance to spaceplanes.

I don't find the testing contracts to be at all unrealistic. In fact, I think they add a substantial amount of realism to the game. Putting equipment into extreme circumstances is what testing is all about.

Absolutely, that's why I said in my first post odd requirements might be required in real life. Simple tests can be done in the lab/workshop, it's only the odd ones that will need something more. To that extent it's the 'test a decoupler landed' types that are the odd ones out but even they can be justified by "nah, we don't think there's any point either, but the insurance company insist so it's got to be done". Like I said, anything can be justified. Any scientist (or anyone developing something new) knows tests are mostly tedious repetition with minor, carefully controlled, variations, partly unlikely boundary cases and just occassionally something interesting.

You'll have seen that my disappointment is with the illogical tech-tree still but, as I have said elsewhere, I still haven't given career mode a fair test (ha!) yet so it might be more sensible than it looks. So far all I'm doing is test launches verifying old designs and updating cost reports. Now that does sound like real life!

[FleetAdmiralJ]

I think the odd contracts have made career mode for fun to me b/c in order to test some of the things, I'm having to figure out how to build rockets in ways I never did before. It's taken me out of my comfort zone and made me try new ways of doing things instead of grinding out my usual standard designs that I use over and over and over. Also, why test landing gear on escape trajectory from the Mun (as I had to do once)? Because they're Kerbals, of course!

They will probably get around to making other contracts (I'm not sure what type of contracts you are looking for?) but personally I think I find some of these more entertaining than "put a satellite into orbit"

[Kamuchi]

I find it rather refreshing as in my previous career I could launch the biggest disasters.

I never built or used SSTO`s because a rocket was 100 times simpler and you could send 100 times more mass into space, this time around I`m still in early career and switched to, attempting, to use 2 SSTO`s to reduce costs [crew&satt]

Going to other planets isn`t a simple "strap on 100 boosters" but requires some planning so that you don`t lose all your funding.

Unless using the fail cheat and return home a millionaire

[Pecan]

...I never built or used SSTO`s because a [staged] rocket was 100 times simpler and you could send 100 times more mass into space, this time around I`m still in early career and switched to, attempting, to use 2 SSTO`s to reduce costs [crew&satt]...

FIFY.

Yes, I'm playing around with SSTO rockets now too. Planes are more trouble than they're worth so I'll eat the extra fuel-cost of a VTOL just to get to orbit in 5 minutes reliably and without lots of effort.

@wanderfound - I really like your designs though. If only I had the patience to fly them ^^.

[Wanderfound]

@wanderfound - I really like your designs though. If only I had the patience to fly them ^^.

(obligatory ten characters required to post)

[Wanderfound]

@wanderfound - I really like your designs though. If only I had the patience to fly them ^^.

Incidentally, Mechjeb (when it's working properly, which it ain't right now; gimballing roll issues) takes a lot of the drudgery out of flying spaceplanes. Use the surface mode on Smart A.S.S. to control pitch, roll and heading until you get up over 25,000m before taking the controls manually.

[Tollazor]

Why on Kerbin would I want to test a big booster at an altitude of 1000m?" because some calculations on its performance seem anomalous and need to be checked. It seems the seams might crack at decreasing pressure while under thrust.

Oh for the love of the Great Krakken, how you have lost your Kerbal Way.

Kerbals don't do things logically, they do them according to The Way Of The Kerbal (Kayway).

Indeed, WHY test it on the ground, when you can test it at 22,000 feet at 300m/s? If it works up there, it works on the ground.

Don't try and use boring Human Logic to try and reason out Kerbal Contracts, embrace the KayWay.

[Kamuchi]

FIFY.

Yes, I'm playing around with SSTO rockets now too. Planes are more trouble than they're worth so I'll eat the extra fuel-cost of a VTOL just to get to orbit in 5 minutes reliably and without lots of effort.

Don`t have enough parts yet to dubble with vtol`s yet, still have my minmus contract that I want to do with my satt ssto refitted for science to get better at it

11 hours&+29gb of footage and haven`t left orbit with that disaster

[Pecan]

If you can get to Minmus you can build a VTOL - all it takes is ~100m/s deltaV after your de-orbit burn and one or two parachutes (I use 2 drogues on a 300t vehicle). Practicing exactly where to do the burn and how to set your periapsis is the thing. Get it right (or use MJ) and you can hit KSC, if not the launch pad or runway without fuss, the parachutes bleed-off almost all the descent velocity the atmosphere doesn't, leaving just a little kick for the engines to nullify. Helps to have legs made of girders and probably not a good idea for DRE!

[lammatt]

unrealistic?

how about testing the launch clamps on mun surface?

honestly, no one points a gun at your face to do EVERY contract.

only the one you'd like to.

problem solved, case closed.

[LethalDose]

[View from the sandbox]It's a mode where you start without wheels or wings, have no idea what a satellite is and can't fire so much as a firework but have a big engine for manned missions. The whole reason you do anything is to gain science advances so you have all the tools you need ... to do the things you've just done.

This. The number of times I've done goofy stuff to get tools that I needed to do the goofy stuff I did to get the tools...

wait... did I just circle back in that sentence?

W/e, the tech tree is weird.

[Legal2k]

unrealistic?

how about testing the launch clamps on mun surface?

Hell yeah, i never figured out how to do that

[fairytalefox]

On the other hand. Guys, did you ever talk to real life customers? Compared to some of them, Kerbal contract givers are kind of paragons of sanity and common sense.

Edited August 1, 2014 by fairytalefox