0.25 Discussion thread

[Sky_walker]

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.

Let me repeat one sentence that nicely sums it all up:

Battlefield will teach you more about shooting than KSP about space flight.

If you think you know "stuff" about spaceflight just from playing KSP - you know less than a random BF player does about shooting.

Isn't that what's on everyone's list of "How to improve the game"? Anyway, you asked, so here is how I would try to have things in KSP within about a year, skipping anything that the devs have confirmed they are working on:

• Stop making cinematics and put those artists to work on more concrete things in the game, such as fairings and cargo bays, and other awesome parts.
  
• Said artists are also freed up to do things like pretty up the game, like Environmental Visual Enhancements does.
  
• Said artists could also be creating other Kerbin-side assets, like more airstrips and launch sites.
  
• Said artists could also polish up the stock planets and finish the biome maps.
  
• Said artists could add a bunch more objects/planets to the solar system in order to make it really come alive.
  
• This game is crap as a teaching tool even though it is vaunted as such. We need more realism. Therefore:
  
  • Fix the aerodynamics immediately. The stock implementation is completely unintuitive and offers the new player no experience whatsoever they can draw upon. This would also solve the problem of people calling a launch in KSP a "gravity turn" when it is clearly not.
    
  • Fix rocket engines such that isp affects thrust, not fuel consumption. It's backwards and teaches players the wrong thing.
    
  • Fix jet engines so that they work in a realistic manner. ferram4 has gone on at length about this in other places.
    
  • Fix the solar system so it has a realistic size (Note: Keep the Kerbin system, it fits the Kerbals just fine, and I like Kerbals!) 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.
    
  • Add proper reentry heating and effects that really mean something.
    
  • 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, enough to make launches from other latitudes than the equator mean something.
    
  • 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). OTOH, the nuclear engine really only needs to use Liquid Fuel.
    

  [*] Add Kerbal Engineer to the game as stock; it is indispensable.

  [*] Fix the maneuver node functionality. I have a suggestion in that addresses some additions I think would be excellent.

  [*] Add the ability to use multiple launch sites at different latitudes.

  [*] The tech tree in career mode needs some serious progression work and more nodes. I prefer launching manned from the start as I think that's the Kerbal Way, but otherwise the tech tree is crap. Others have written volumes on how bad it is, I'm not going to go into detail.

  [*] 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...)

  [*] While not really on my personal list of "Things That Should Be In The Game", polish up and release the resources feature that was already built. People obviously want it. WHOAH, this is on the What Not To Suggest list, so I'm not going to suggest it. But it really should be done.

  [*] Stop work on multiplayer now. Release it as a DLC once the game is completed.

Given SQUAD's current development speed, that should keep them busy for a year or so. Undoubtedly some of this is probably on the list of things they're going to do at some point, but given that there is no public roadmap for this game I'm going to list the items anyway. I'm not invested in Career mode myself, so I won't touch on it. Suffice it to say I enjoy it as-is but can see some potential for it to be better. There are tons of great suggestions already in on how to make the feature better and I think it should be made better, for those who enjoy it.

Brilliant post.

That pretty much sums up all of the major things in KSP I'd love to see fixed / changed / what I consider to be better priorities in KSP dev.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Franklin]

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.

At least for me, it's because the game's softly marketed by Squad as a learning aid which, as has explained, is disingenuous on a number of fronts, including planet size/density/tilt. A game's a game if you call it a game, but don't pretend it's a physics/space learning tool when it's not accurate.

edit: And it's not like these fixes are wildly changing to the core game. It's just number and scale tweaking. Like you said, a mod's already been made that can do it, so Squad can as well.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Franklin

[Guest]

Let me repeat one sentence that nicely sums it all up:

Battlefield will tech you more about shooting thank KSP about space flight.

If you think you know "stuff" about spaceflight just from playing KSP - you know less than a random BF player does about shooting.

This simple analogy really does sum it up.

[WololoW]

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.

Do NOT misquote people, as that is literally libelous and can get you an infraction on this forum and in legal troubles in real life.

Now onto the next point, this game actually creates the misconception you just said it fixes. Thanks to the current implementation of aerodynamics, it is more efficient to burn straight up to 70+km and then circularize, rather than actually performing a gravity turn like is necessary in real aerodynamic systems.

[Whirligig Girl]

At least for me, it's because the game's softly marketed by Squad as a learning aid which, as has explained, is disingenuous on a number of fronts, including planet size/density/tilt. A game's a game if you call it a game, but don't pretend it's a physics/space learning tool when it's not accurate.

Compare it to any other space game and tell me you didn't learn the truth about something you otherwise would have not learned.

Also I haven't found any evidence that SQUAD themselves are marketing KSP as a learning tool. They just want the physics to be authentic in the setting they've created. All of the orbital mechanics is textbook-perfect. The planets are smaller, sure, but that doesn't make it any less real. You still sling around something the same way you would in real life.

[Guest]

Compare it to any other space game and tell me you didn't learn the truth about something you otherwise would have not learned.

Also I haven't found any evidence that SQUAD themselves are marketing KSP as a learning tool. They just want the physics to be authentic in the setting they've created. All of the orbital mechanics is textbook-perfect. The planets are smaller, sure, but that doesn't make it any less real. You still sling around something the same way you would in real life.

The orbital mechanics are in no way textbook-perfect...Don't comment on things you don't understand.

[Franklin]

You still sling around something the same way you would in real life.

Well no, not even this is true. But this is more nitpicky than planet density, which is why it hasn't been addressed yet since regex's post.

[Ippo]

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.

You know, this argument could be reversed. If the planets were to be scaled up, you could just use a RSS patch to rescale them down.

In all honesty, I have to say that you say everyone's fun you mainly mean yours.

There are many good points in this thread, and you are dismissing them all just saying that it would ruin your fun, with no further explanation.

[Red Iron Crown]

Compare it to any other space game and tell me you didn't learn the truth about something you otherwise would have not learned.

You really should give Orbiter a try some time. If realism and authenticity is the goal, it puts KSP to shame.

I don't think utter realism and authenticity is KSP's goal, but it's plain wrong to say it is the most realistic space game.

[Guest]

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.

I'm not known for being "diplomatic" (I admit, I sometimes regret it, but often times I don't ) and, while I get what you're saying, I also think some things need to be said the way they are said. It's because I do love this game very much but I also feel it is going to end up being a very watered-down exercise in wasted potential that must be modded to make it functional (like Oblivion, for instance, another game that I put upwards of a thousand hours into).

Also, half your edits weren't needed.

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

Presumably this would be "too hard" for newbies to grasp but without a delta-V or TWR display, it's no more baffling than the rest of the game. Interestingly, it would also make the "MOAR BOOSTERS" maxim much more true.

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.

ferram4 can better educate you, something about how the stock jet engines use intake air as reaction mass and thus actually being some 16x more efficient than they actually should be.

[Whirligig Girl]

Let me repeat one sentence that nicely sums it all up:

Battlefield will tech you more about shooting than KSP about space flight.

If you think you know "stuff" about spaceflight just from playing KSP - you know less than a random BF player does about shooting.

Brilliant post.

That pretty much sums up all of the major things in KSP I'd love to see fixed / changed / what I consider to be better priorities in KSP dev.

Bull. Not only is it easy to unlearn what you learn (How simple is it to be told Isp actually works with thrust, or Gravity turns let gravity turn you, or planets are much bigger.), but it is also most of these things I agree with. There should be accurate aerodynamics, there should be re-entry heating, and there should be life support.

You should be able to intuit KSP's rules so you don't have to constantly do math to get things to work.

Say it with me now: KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM IS A GAME, NOT A SIMULATOR.

[Franklin]

I haven't found any evidence that SQUAD themselves are marketing KSP as a learning tool.

http://www.kerbaledu.com/

Only educational institutions can purchase the game from KerbalEdu / TeacherGaming LLC

[Ippo]

Say it with me now: CAPS LOCK IS RUDE.

Also, you are still completely disregarding the points that have been made (in fact, we specifically said more than once that we don't want stock to be a simulator).

[Sky_walker]

Say it with me now: KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM IS A GAME, NOT A SIMULATOR.

1. Don't use excessive font formatting.

2. Using bold and purple on text doesn't make it right. Underline doesn't help with that either.

3. Repeating something doesn't make it right.

4. Noone said anything about turning KSP into a fully-fledged simulator. We have Orbiter for that. Next time - before jumping on people with gigantic fonts and capitals - please, learn how to read carefully.

[Whirligig Girl]

You really should give Orbiter a try some time. If realism and authenticity is the goal, it puts KSP to shame.

I don't think utter realism and authenticity is KSP's goal, but it's plain wrong to say it is the most realistic space game.

I said GAME not SIMULATOR.Orbiter is not a game. Orbiter is a simulator. A totally different thing.

It baffles my mind that people think a game with little green men needs to be realistic.

I have tried Orbiter, but could never get into it. I even flew a spaceplane to orbit, but found the simulation to be more difficult than fun.

[WololoW]

Say it with me now: CAPS LOCK IS RUDE.

Also, you are still completely disregarding the points that have been made (in fact, we specifically said more than once that we don't want stock to be a simulator).

This GregroxMun is intentionally being rude and I suggest everyone else take a leaf out of the forum rules and report him for it. He should know that this community does not harbor toxic members and that rudeness is not tollerated.

Also, he is specifically disregarding any post that he can not come up with a good/rude retort for, so take what he says with a grain of salt.

[Guest]

Bull. Not only is it easy to unlearn what you learn (How simple is it to be told Isp actually works with thrust, or Gravity turns let gravity turn you, or planets are much bigger.), but it is also most of these things I agree with. There should be accurate aerodynamics, there should be re-entry heating, and there should be life support.

You should be able to intuit KSP's rules so you don't have to constantly do math to get things to work.

Say it with me now: KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM IS A GAME, NOT A SIMULATOR.

I don't want real aerodynamics, the game shouldn't be a simulator.

Want larger planets so their density isn't poor.

[tater]

I think repeating the yell, "it's a game, not a simulator" is wrong-headed. This is the excuse used in many games to head into fantasy land (magic dead windward sailing (of square riggers) in games supposedly about sailing, for example).

It IS a simulator, but the Kerbol system is not the Sol system. That's the way it should be looked at. Simple issues of scaling can make it better, and even make it more fun, as such scaling can mean more things to do (because in a game, people only do what is incentivized in my experience).

[Sky_walker]

I said GAME not SIMULATOR.Orbiter is not a game. Orbiter is a simulator. A totally different thing.

Orbiter IS a game.

Here you can see how the simulator looks like: http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/vehicles/soyuz/photos.asp

[tater]

Say it with me now: CAPS LOCK IS RUDE.

Also, you are still completely disregarding the points that have been made (in fact, we specifically said more than once that we don't want stock to be a simulator).

To be fair, I have said stock is (should be) a simulator, but with the explicit caveat that it can be a lower order one.

[Ippo]

Orbiter IS a game.

Here you can see how the simulator looks like: http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/vehicles/soyuz/photos.asp

Come on now, you know what everyone means with "simulator" and it's not that.

[Guest]

Please guys, a realistically-sized Kerbin solar system is mainly just on my own personal wish list (since that is kind of what was asked for), I don't expect it to be in the stock game because "it wouldn't be fun"~ (even though I think it is great fun).

Obviously Kerbin itself it could use a bit of an increase in radius while retaining the same gravitational pull to help with balancing an aerodynamic overhaul. With that, I'd argue for the same for all the other planets, as well as their orbit's SMAs, for good measure. But that's about as far as I think the stock game could handle it before people went overboard.

[Aethon]

Thanks to the current implementation of aerodynamics, it is more efficient to burn straight up to 70+km and then circularize, rather than actually performing a gravity turn like is necessary in real aerodynamic systems.

What what WHAT???

I hope I'm misunderstanding what you typed here, otherwise I'm going to beg to differ.

[Sky_walker]

To be fair, I have said stock is (should be) a simulator, but with the explicit caveat that it can be a lower order one.

KSP will never become a simulator. Ever. Not even with all the mods there exist in the world for KSP.

Unity engine isn't build to handle that in a first place.

Come on now, you know what everyone means with "simulator" and it's not that.

I'm just trying to make a point that orbiter IS a game. It's very realistic, by far more than KSP with even best mods installed, but still - it is a game.

[Guest]

regex its just being used as an example the of the many changes people want.

We can't be blamed for the hateful and disrespectful replies of others

I got infracted earlier for calling someone 'wrong on many levels'. Let's see what happens now?