0.25 Discussion thread

[Ippo]

By the way, I have just recently started playing with RSS + RO, and I agree that it would be way too difficult for the majority of people. However, it doesn't have to go full blown simulator to be made more realistic: I heard that 6.4x is a nice compromise.

But honestly we can even keep this scale, as long as we get some basic staples of astronomy like tilted axes.

[Red Iron Crown]

Heck regex even said to leave the Kerbin system alone other than reducing its gravity, it's a great introduction to players learning to fly in space.

[Whirligig Girl]

Whoops, the HypePlane's strayed off the black line (read SR-71). Autopilot, TURN THE PLANE, DAMMIT.

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to a retexture of the Mk1 and Mk2 lines, which IMO don't fit with stock AT ALL. A retexture at least would make them look like they were part of the Kerbal universe.

EDIT: At least, I hope the parts will be retextured to look more like the SP+ parts, which actually look a bit like the stock texturing style (as in the rocket style, not the outdated C7 style).

THERE IS NO HYPEPLANE. Only HYPETRAIN. I keep telling you guys, HypePower is not well suited to flight.

[Guest]

GregroxMun: I don't read regex as suggesting making everything real-sized, but using non-insane densities for planets.

No, I actually am. KSP should have a proper solar system. It should be the Kerbin solar system, but it should be proper.

E: That being said, upping the solar system by half-again and fixing a few small things could still work pretty well while also solving the aerodynamics issue on Kerbin by increasing the required orbital velocity. For reference, before someone goes all ape crap about making things bigger and it not being a simulator, that's half-again as big, meaning Kerbin goes from 9% the radius of Earth to 14% the radius of Earth, with a corresponding decrease in density to keep the gravity at one gee.

I think also an argument could be made for using the real solar system as an option in the KSP.edu version, since otherwise you will be giving children a quite-wrong impression of how hard or easy spaceflight actually is.

When my daughter is old enough to play KSP there is no way I'm going to let her launch without at least 6.4x Kerbin and FAR installed. In her mind, that's going to be the way KSP is and always was.

Edited August 26, 2014 by regex

[Ippo]

"But daaaad! All my friends are launching flat space stations in one single launch with turbojets!"

"IN THIS HOUSE WE FOLLOW THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM AND BALANCE YOUR C.O.L!"

Edited August 26, 2014 by Ippo
typo

[Whirligig Girl]

GregroxMun: I don't read regex as suggesting making everything real-sized, but using non-insane densities for planets. Right now some planets in KSP are approach star levels of density. That's...not exactly a good way to teach kids about space travel. I think also an argument could be made for using the real solar system as an option in the KSP.edu version, since otherwise you will be giving children a quite-wrong impression of how hard or easy spaceflight actually is.

No way that's what he's suggesting. That would be even LESS realistic as a space game. Kerbin's smaller than Pluto. Although I REALLY like the idea of Real scale Kerbin for KSPedu version. Besides, NovaSilisko told me on the Science of the Spheres IRC that KSP is in an alternate universe.

@Linear: please click this video link.

Buzz Off!

[ialdabaoth]

note: multiplying the size of all the planets by 3.2x would make them JUST plausible if somehow their cores were molten osmium. At 6.4x, they actually start looking like reasonable (if a bit on the heavy side) iron-core rocks.

[Guest]

No way that's what he's suggesting. That would be even LESS realistic as a space game. Kerbin's smaller than Pluto. Although I REALLY like the idea of Real scale Kerbin for KSPedu version. Besides, NovaSilisko told me on the Science of the Spheres IRC that KSP is in an alternate universe.

@Linear: please click this video link.

Buzz Off!

Then why does it only matter to you about the solar system size - not about the alternate shock heating etc?

[Thomas988]

Am I the only one who's noticed that the tone of the forum has gotten a lot more aggressive and cynical over the last few weeks? I don't like it at all.

I feel it too. I'm scared. This isn't the KSP community way.

[Aethon]

"But daaaad! All my friends are launching flat space stations in one single launch with turbojets!"

"IN THIS HOUSE WE FOLLOW THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM AND BALANCE YOUR C.O.L!"

Lol. (Pops popcorn. Prepares to follow this tense discussion to the devnote thread.)

[Dizzle]

I'm with regex on most of these points. This game is great for teaching orbital mechanics, but it does leave you with some misconceptions that can be difficult to unlearn.

[Ippo]

I feel it too. I'm scared. This isn't the KSP community way.

It must be the summer: all those that could go on vacation did, and while they are sipping margaritas the forum is inhabited by gollum-like creatures that sit in the dark complaining. (that would be me)

[Whirligig Girl]

I should note that I do enjoy using RSS and 6.4:1 scale. But I enjoy much more stock scale. It's much more fun, even though it feels like less of an accomplishment. You don't have to feel that the game is as hard as real life. No game is as hard as real life. First Person Shooters, Real Time Strategies, and whatever Minecraft is.

When you compare KSP to other space games out there, KSP is the most accurate in physics.

[Guest]

It must be the summer: all those that could go on vacation did, and while they are sipping margaritas the forum is inhabited by gollum-like creatures that sit in the dark complaining. (that would be me)

I've been baking all day with my daughter, coming on ksp to poke holes in the crudely-constructed arguments of people who don't want things to change.

[Whirligig Girl]

I'm with Mr.Grumps on most of these points. This game is great for teaching orbital mechanics, but it does leave you with some misconceptions that can be difficult to unlearn.

Try comparing that to the misconceptions the game fixes. Most people think you have to go straight up for a long time to get into space, then you just float there.

[Thomas988]

It must be the summer: all those that could go on vacation did, and while they are sipping margaritas the forum is inhabited by gollum-like creatures that sit in the dark complaining. (that would be me)

That's just the thing: KSP just doesn't have people like that, or at least not from my perspective. I think our community is MUCH more well-mannered and respectful than most gaming communities, so when I see threads like these where everyone is insulting each other it really hits me hard.

[Guest]

Try comparing that to the misconceptions the game fixes. Most people think you have to go straight up for a long time to get into space, then you just float there.

Why do we have to limit ourselves? This is the only solid point i've seen you mention for weeks.

[Guest]

That's just the thing: KSP just doesn't have people like that, or at least not from my perspective. I think our community is MUCH more well-mannered and respectful than most gaming communities, so when I see threads like these where everyone is insulting each other it really hits me hard.

Actually, we've been making well structured arguments, and apparently people disagree with that.

[Guest]

I'm with Mr.Grumps on most of these points.

Do you think you can dial back the aggression and insults here? You're scaring other posters. Thanks.

[Superfluous J]

Also, WHY does everyone capitalize my nickname?

I don't! Not even at the beginning of sentences!

The big problem I have with your approach, regex (and just to be sure I'm directing this at a lot of people but you're the most prominent and you also happened to post the next thing I'm replying to), is that you're not critiquing, but criticizing. Words like "crap" and "garbage" and "sucks" are incensed. Would you react differently to these two sentences? Because I would:

1. You should rework the widgets, they look a bit out of alignment.
   
2. Those widgets are crap. Align them properly next time, eh?
   

Both sentences suggest the same thing, but one is positive, helpful, and encouraging while the other derides and talks down. You are deriding and talking down to people who made a game that you love enough to make a bulleted list of things you want changed/improved. That just seems odd to me. It will never not.

So for fun I'm editing your list. To make sure nobody thinks it was you, I'm changing your name in the "quoted by" field. Also, I expanded a bit so what is below may not be EXACTLY what you want. Sorry about that it's really hard to not do that while editing.

• The video artists should be instead put to work on the game instead of the videos, as great as those videos are. Things that I feel would serve the game better than videos are:
  
  • Fairings and cargo bays, and other awesome parts.
    
  • Pretty up the game, like Environmental Visual Enhancements.
    
  • Kerbin-side assets, like more airstrips and launch sites.
    
  • Polish up the stock planets and finish the biome maps.
    
  • Add a bunch more objects/planets to the solar system in order to make it really come alive.
    

  [*] If the game is to really become the teaching tool the devs (and I) want it to be, I think it needs:

  • More realistic aerodynamics. Maybe not FAR, but something between that and stock.
    
  • Isp should affect thrust, not fuel consumption.¹
    
  • Jet engines need a rework as well.² ferram4 has some great ideas there.
    
  • The solar system should have a realistic (not real! just possible) size while still keeping the fun factor
    
    • One way to make it friendlier to newer players is to have Kerbin as a realistic planet with a gravity of 0.75 G.
      
    • Using realistic engines and part masses would make launches from such a Kerbin a breeze, and pretty quick, while retaining a fairly decent payload fraction.
      
    • This would increase realism without affecting core gameplay goals like accessibility.
      

    [*] Add reentry heating and effects.

    [*] Add life support. It perfectly illustrates the difficulties involved in space flight, just like reentry heating.

    [*] Add axial tilt to planets. Give Kerbin a mild tilt.

    [*] Utilize the asteroid generation routine to its full potential and add more objects in: KBOs, Jool trojans, comets, an asteroid belt, etc...

    [*] Realistic fuels and such would be awesome, but they're not really needed (besides, gives us something to mod).

    [*] The nuclear engine really only needs Liquid Fuel.

  [*] Add Kerbal Engineer to the game as stock. Allow people to turn it off if they don't want it (or on if they do).

  [*] Maneuver nodes could use some work, both in functionality and bug fixes. I have some ideas about this.

  [*] Add the ability to use multiple launch sites at different latitudes. Use those video artists who are making assets now to make them unique and fun.

  [*] The tech tree in career mode could use a rebalancing and more nodes. I prefer launching manned from the start as I think that's the Kerbal Way, but have misgivings regarding the rest of the tree. One really easy way to find balanced tech trees is to add an easy (with config files) way to modify all aspects of the tree. Eventually a tree or set of trees will emerge that players really like, and they could be added to the game.

  [*] Wrap up all these game modes into a selector of sorts that allows you to choose features you want in your save. Add difficulty selectors for certain features (reentry heat, life support, etc...)

  [*] Multiplayer should be released as DLC once the game is completed.

Whew. That was more work than I thought it would be.

¹ I didn't know this! You learned me, regex.

² Isn't this just a consequence of their atmosphere choices? If atmospheres change, jet engines will need to as well. If they don't, jet engines will become terrible if you nerf them too much.

Edited August 26, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[Whirligig Girl]

Then why does it only matter to you about the solar system size - not about the alternate shock heating etc?

I don't see the connection. For one thing, Re-entry heating is something that is planned, whereas real-size solar system is something that has been repetitively not-planned.

I can't understand why you all want to ruin everyone's fun by insisting that the planet sizes be changed when you already have a great mod by a great modder that does it. For Kraken's sake, just play the game with mods and make it a simulator, jeez.

[Guest]

I can't take this any more - it's pathetic. Look at what's happening. Suggestions are being made, we're giving our input.

When this input isn't the general trend of thought on the forums, people get horrifically spiteful and start accusing eachother of things.

We all see on the forum people giving constructive criticism, but this time a few have decided it needs a little more strength to go with it. Don't take this 'strength' as hate or aggressiveness.

[Guest]

I don't see the connection. For one thing, Re-entry heating is something that is planned, whereas real-size solar system is something that has been repetitively not-planned.

I can't understand why you all want to ruin everyone's fun by insisting that the planet sizes be changed when you already have a great mod by a great modder that does it. For Kraken's sake, just play the game with mods and make it a simulator, jeez.

Has it really been said they don't want to change the scale of the system? AFAIK they've only given reasons as to why it's the scale it is now.

We have a difference of opinion, equally both valid yet you force me to use mods? Why can't we have a more realistic game and you use mods?

[Ippo]

When you compare KSP to other space games out there, KSP is the most accurate in physics.

Except for the part where kerbin is 3 times denser than osmium and it has magic air.

Look, I get it that it is a lot of fun like this, but really, this is not about making a simulator, it's just about making a solar system that is not plain impossible according to physics.

KSP is already a good teaching game, but it could be so much more (and this is what frustrates people like regex and I), and it doesn't even need to become the next orbiter to do that.

[tater]

NO! That would never do! Why are you ALWAYS so insistent on real scale kerbin when you have your great little mod there for you! For the last time,

[breaths in deeply]

KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REALISTIC

Re-entry heating, proper aerodynamics, rudimentary life support definitely should be put in the game. But Kerbals are in an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE.

IT IS A GAME. IT IS NOT A SIMULATOR. I REPEAT: NOT A SIMULATOR. NOW, REPEAT WITH ME: NOT A SIMULATOR.

It is certainly supposed to be realistic, it's only a matter of what order approximation. If not, there would be no point to it at all. My kid had "Rocket Math" where he built rockets with no relationship to reality (one was a firetruck with Atlas rockets as boosters). To the extent it becomes divorced from reality it becomes unpredictable, and frankly useless. I'm fine with little alien guys, and until I get bored and mod up, I'm fine with a "stock" game. That said, the default work on the game should in fact be as realistic as possible, then if they need to simplify, do so afterwards. Why? Because reality is a known entity they can compare with. Cause and effect work. Once you start messing with reality, you get unintended consequences.

Example: you want people to want to build orbital stations as part of fun gameplay. If your unrealistic choices make stations pointless (you can launch and return pretty much anything into orbit with no concerns as to aerodynamics, etc), then stations are bypassed in gameplay. You can build one for fun, but they have zero utility. There are countless other examples possible. Other games have done this in different genres, always dumbing it down (how'd that work for PotBS?). Not to say the game should be RSS/RO/etc as stock, but that the basic paradigm should be one of realism.

Edited August 26, 2014 by tater