Realism in KSP

[Stevie_D]

The people who keep pushing the extreme realism agenda as if it's pre-ordained, and that the devs are letting themselves down by not doing so, seriously need to take a step back and look at the larger picture.

You're playing a game involving -fictional- aliens who dont exist on a fictional -alien- world in a fictional alien solar system learning how to get into space with their -own- ideas. Yes the devs are making it slightly mirror our own space program, but even still, not only would total-realism turn a lot of gamers off and make it even more niche than it already is, there's no justifiable basis for it to be totally realistic, and again.....aliens. You cant scream out "Warp drive shouldnt be incliuded, its too fanciful!" when you're playing an alien and not look a bit silly. If you go by your own rulebook of "current knowledge",...well there's more evidence of warp drive than there is of alien existence...and yet you're quite happy to play one.

Im not even suggesting the devs go warp drive myself, or think it should.

It's meant to be a game at the end of the day, for fun. And the devs have to try and make it as fun for as many people as possible in order to make money, the reason they're doing it in the first place. Their goal of fun is what the majority of gamers want, not what the minority want. And then they try and balance it with common sense.

So please, take a chill pill before thinking of pushing total realism and think the devs will listen. Yes, some stuff like life support could be simply implemented and still be fun, but pushing the realism agenda to its limit and arguing real world scales and real world fuel is a waste of our time, the devs time, and yours. Common sense needs to prevail. I'm not suggesting people not post their opinions, im just suggesting you to set yourself a more realistic understanding of what a game is, what this game is, and what is within the dev's design goal.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Rowsdower
Thread title changed to reflect the ongoing discussion

[Linear]

There has been no one at all pushing for total realism, go back and read the posts.

We have been using examples of ideas that generally aren't widely accepted to show that people on the forum can sometimes not be as willing to accept someone else's idea and move on.

If it's all fictional, i could sit here and say i don't like the way we need fuel. If it's alternate, why? Fuel is boring.

But no, that's stupid...But wait...Why, then, if that's a stupid statement, can't we ask (or want) for a little more realism?

Also, this thread will be locked soon, this doesn't need to be discussed any more. We respect your opinions, respect ours. Please.

[Red Iron Crown]

One of KSP's selling points is its realism. They even mention it as a main feature on the website: "Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should."

That's not to say that everything should be as realistic as possible, it is important to have gameplay that is fun and satisfying. But realism should be the default starting point, only modified where necessary to improve gameplay.

More importantly, it should have enough realism to match players' expectations, which are based on their experience in the physical world. Just about everyone knows that streamlining something reduces drag (or at least allows it to go faster), not so in KSP. Almost everyone knows that reentering an atmosphere from space involves a dangerous amount of heat from which the spacecraft must be shielded, not so in KSP. Everyone knows that most every kind of animal life needs food, water and air to survive and these are not available in space, not so in KSP. These are things that confuse new players, because they contradict what they expect based on their experience in the real world.

That's not meant as a criticism of Squad for not having those features implemented yet; the game is a work in progress and IMO they just haven't gotten to them yet. But they are features that should be implemented because they increase the authenticity of the game, and only modify them as necessary for playability and accessibility reasons.

[Wallace]

Why can't we use wizard magic to send our kerbals into space? Like, Kerbals are fictional so therefore we should have wizards too.

[sal_vager]

Hi, I'd like to remind everyone present that all threads should be civil, polite and avoid any fallacious arguments or fighting

Carry on (minus the above)

[Vanamonde]

If folks could avoid statements like "That is wrong" and calling things "stupid," you'd be a lot more likely to influence the people who disagree with you. Nobody likes being insulted.

...people on the forum can sometimes not be as willing to accept someone else's idea and move on.

Such as the idea that a lot of us don't want strict realism?

Larger solar systems/planets, for example. What possible benefit is that? It's just more empty space, and all it means is more time spent fast-forwarding through the dead time in warp. Nobody sits through that in real time anyway, so why even stuff it into the game in the first place?

[Sky_walker]

Larger solar systems/planets, for example. What possible benefit is that? It's just more empty space, and all it means is more time spent fast-forwarding through the dead time in warp. Nobody sits through that in real time anyway, so why even stuff it into the game in the first place?

Discussed through about five pages in this topic: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90612-0-25-Update!

Plenty of arguments from both sides.

[technicalfool]

Why can't we use wizard magic to send our kerbals into space? Like, Kerbals are fictional so therefore we should have wizards too.

Only if it comes with pointy hats.

Maybe some modders can re-engineer the nosecone parts for that. Your magic points per minute = ((number of kerbals on board * courage) / stupidity) * number of hats worn.

Engines can turn a number of magic points per minute into an amount of thrust. This works instead of OR as well as conventional fuel types, and works at the engine's normal I_sp.

Operating drives using magic points may result in Kraken summoning episodes, depending on the stupidity of all boarded Kerbals / number of kerbals.

I'm sure it'll work.

[Sky_walker]

(...very long rant...)

So please, take a chill pill before thinking of pushing total realism and think the devs will listen.

(...)

Noone is pushing for a total realism. It's pretty much impossible to achieve anyway. Though even if it would - it doesn't matter. Noone wants it.

You are building a topic out of an assumption that someone thinks something. So far I haven't seen anyone postulating for a total realism. If you did - please, talk to that person directly instead of addressing some generic, unspecified group of people that might or might not exist.

Thank you.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Sky_walker

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

All I want is re-entry heat, better Aero Dynamics, ability to buy and repair launchpad - VAB, SPH, etc, and basic life support, that fits well inside the Tech Tree. IE - You can't go to the Mun in the third node.

If all of that was added next update, I would think the game was complete

[Linear]

If folks could avoid statements like "That is wrong" and calling things "stupid," you'd be a lot more likely to influence the people who disagree with you. Nobody likes being insulted.

Such as the idea that a lot of us don't want strict realism?

Larger solar systems/planets, for example. What possible benefit is that? It's just more empty space, and all it means is more time spent fast-forwarding through the dead time in warp. Nobody sits through that in real time anyway, so why even stuff it into the game in the first place?

"I accept others opinions, please accept mine - you don't have to agree". Also, not one post (apart from OP) even vaguely has "that is wrong" or "stupid" in it.

Increase time warp speeds, get rid of the impossible planet density. There you go, easy.

Also, planet scaling is just the tip of the iceberg of things that could be changed that wont affect game play too much but make things a lot better. Of course there's the bigger things like actual aerodynamics.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Linear

[ferram4]

You're playing a game involving -fictional- aliens who dont exist on a fictional -alien- world in a fictional alien solar system learning how to get into space with their -own- ideas. Yes the devs are making it slightly mirror our own space program, but even still, not only would total-realism turn a lot of gamers off and make it even more niche than it already is, there's no justifiable basis for it to be totally realistic, and again.....aliens. You cant scream out "Warp drive shouldnt be incliuded, its too fanciful!" when you're playing an alien and not look a bit silly. If you go by your own rulebook of "current knowledge",...well there's more evidence of warp drive than there is of alien existence...and yet you're quite happy to play one.

Lemme turn this around:

You're playing a game involving (rather) realistic gravity and physics that are used in quick approximations of realistic physical systems in our models of our real life universe using the same principles to explore the solar system that we use in real life. Yes, the devs are including fictional aliens as the main characters and including lots of fanciful planets, but even still, not only would going total-fantasy turn a lot of gamers off and make it into nothing more than another stereotypical science fantasy game; there's no justifiable basis for throwing realism out, and again... physics like our universe. You can scream out, "N-body shouldn't be included, it's too realistic!" when you're building rockets that follow realistic physics and not look a bit silly.

[regex]

I'm gathering this was primarily directed at me, given my recent post in the 0.25 Update thread and the fact that I'm pretty vocal about how unrealistic KSP actually is?

KSP is vaunted as a physics teaching tool but it fails at that because there are some pretty glaring problems with the simulation, most especially with the aerodynamics. That needs to be fixed. If we go the FAR route we need to deal with the fact that a (mostly) proper atmospheric simulation actually makes it easier to get to space from Kerbin with a properly-built rocket because the current simulation adds a level of "soup" to make it harder. It's also completely unintuitive at the most basic level because a "gravity turn" in KSP isn't a gravity turn. In fact, you can't do a gravity turn in stock KSP. That, IMNSHO, is really bad because the player has no real world experience they can draw from to figure out how to properly launch a rocket. As far as planes are concerned the big problem is things with the aerodynamic properties of a brick wall (literally) flying quite well. It's #lolphysics and it makes KSP look really bad.

Engines in KSP aren't very good either. Rocket engine isp affects fuel flow, not thrust, which is completely backwards from how rocket engines work in the real world. It doesn't work properly with the rocket equation (with launch vehicles, anyway) which means that players can't rely on proven math to get them to orbit. Jet engines use intake air as reaction mass (IIRC ferram4's diatribes about them) which results in them being 16x more effective than they actually should be (also, spaceplanes are really hard IRL). And nuclear engines should really only use Liquid Fuel.

As far as orbital mechanics, I personally feel the patched conics/on-rails approximation that KSP uses is perfectly fine and does the job. It could be more accurate but, as I understand it, that's more of a failing with Unity/PhysX and floats rather than KSP.

Now, planet size is a big issue. The densities of planets in KSP are completely out of whack with pretty much anything we have experience with, made of some sort of unobtanium. That can be glossed over to make the game more "fun" (this is a really subjective term) and while I think stock should have realistic planets, I also realize it's not going to happen. However, you have to deal with the issues arising from changing the aerodynamics simulation and parts balancing somehow. Rather than retain some artificial "soup" that makes the game look bad, increasing the planetary radii by a small amount while retaining the current surface gravities will address the problem handily. You only need to increase the size of Kerbin by half again to keep the current delta-V-to-orbit that Kerbin has while using FAR. In turn, I also argue that every other planet and their orbital SMA be increased by a similar amount for consistency. This will make KSP slightly harder when dealing with the rest of the solar system, but not by much. In fact, it will make getting other places much more satisfying IMO and actually make things like the SLS parts fit in better.

Then there's reentry heating, which everyone expects but KSP doesn't model. Life support is another touchy topic but would serve as a progression device early in the tech tree while also providing a penalty for too much time-warping (which some people seem to have a problem with) as well as providing an excellent illustration of how difficult space travel actually is (something KSP doesn't even bother with).

That's just a short list of the issues in KSP, but I feel it touches the major, glaring problems. Anything else can be glossed over fairly easily as "it's a game" and even people like me would be quite satisfied with the stock experience, and have much less to nitpick about.

Edited August 27, 2014 by regex

[cantab]

You can do a real gravity turn in stock KSP. Few players bother because it's not needed and takes extra design effort to make work.

[Franklin]

Life support is another touchy topic but would serve as a progression device early in the tech tree ... as well as providing an excellent illustration of how difficult space travel actually is (something KSP doesn't even bother with).

Not to gloss over regex's post, since it's all really important, but this has always been an elephant in the room, and one of the major reasons why people who actually have experience with and/or work in fields associated with space exploration laugh at KSP when it's used as an example of what a layman can play to start understanding the challenges of space exploration. It doesn't even come close (yet), and what it does touch down on (really, just gravity) it fakes.

We all understand KSP is more game than sim, but it's marketed as a learning tool in many respects, so it needs to ride that line carefully to avoid being called out on educational disservice, and the recent vitriol (that has been present for ages, it's just now becoming a roar over a rumble) is the culmination of the frustration over this slow shift from "space exploration learning game" to "budget-busy gravity toy".

But it's not like Squad has really said much on any of this. Squad's even changed its mind on a number of topics, so this may all change and we may see an actual attempt at making the game more educational, but hopefully the frustration a number of us have been showing more lately is at least addressed, even if making the game more "realistic" isn't on the marketing roadmap.

[Franklin]

And to the service of regex, ferram, etc. I used to be staunchly in the "it's a game, not a sim" camp until I stood back and realized while the game's fun, it could be more, and if it's being marketed as more than a game, as a learning tool, it has to come to terms with actually being that, and not just making things up because they're easier to code and hoping nobody notices or minds nothing in the game really adheres to actual physics and the challenges of space exploration.

[regex]

You can do a real gravity turn in stock KSP. Few players bother because it's not needed and takes extra design effort to make work.

Color me surprised. Why would you ever bother trying with the soup, though?

And to the service of regex, ferram, etc. I used to be staunchly in the "it's a game, not a sim" camp until I stood back and realized while the game's fun, it could be more, and if it's being marketed as more than a game, as a learning tool, it has to come to terms with actually being that, and not just making things up because they're easier to code and hoping nobody notices or minds nothing in the game really adheres to actual physics and the challenges of space exploration.

I was basically the same way but I kept reading all these little tidbits from people who actually knew, and all that stuff just sort of built up in my head, and then Realism Overhaul and Real Fuels hit the scene and I was hooked. KSP doesn't necessarily need that sort of realism, but it needs to be better.

[Vanamonde]

Also, not one post (apart from OP) even vaguely has "that is wrong" or "stupid" in it.

And we're asking you to keep it that way. We moderators have been noticing a marked increase in aggressive and insulting behavior on the forum lately, which is why we are posting gentle reminders about civility here, in the continuation of what has been a rather contentious sub-discussion of the 0.25 thread, so that it doesn't come up again.

Increase time warp speeds... There you go, easy.

Or, just don't insert more empty space to monotonously timewarp through in the first place. Even easier.

[Wallygator]

To me KSP represents a fantasy game sculpted upon a very strong "Armature of Realism". The realism is there and it functions (closer to real in some ways more then others). Extending the realism too far may have a negative effect on the fantasy and game experience to a substantial number of players. I feel the devs have struck a reasonable balance which they should continue to maintain thru to scope complete. If there is a strong market demand for higher realism following on from scope complete, then I would feel very happy with purchasing an additional expansion pack.

That said - Stock drag fix? at the very least... :-)

[Sky_walker]

Or, just don't insert more empty space to monotonously timewarp through in the first place. Even easier.

Easy ≠ Good.

Besides - as said: planet size affects by far more aspects of the game than just how long it takes to ascend/descend.

Extending the realism too far may have a negative effect on the fantasy and game experience to a substantial number of players.

So far current lack of realism got a negative effect on fantasy and game experience to a substantial number of players.

I can't imagine how making nose cones actually beneficial to the rocket instead of just a dead weight, along with implementing expected effects on orbital reentry, additional launch pads in different latitudes, fixing unreasonably overpowered air-breathing engines, or adding information about delta-V would have a negative impact on gameplay experience for anyone but people intentionally exploiting flaws in the game.... well, let's face it - they'd do it anyway even with the most realistic physics devs can implement - just in a different way. Cause you see - humans are truly wonderful creatures - they adapt. And just like we had to spend days adapting to the oddities of KSP away from logic and reason - they'd have to adapt to do their weird whackjobs in more realistic environment.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Wallygator]

So far current lack of realism got a negative effect on fantasy and game experience to a substantial number of players.

I can't imagine how making nose cones actually beneficial to the rocket instead of just a dead weight, along with implementing expected effects on orbital reentry, additional launch pads in different latitudes, fixing unreasonably overpowered air-breathing engines, or adding information about delta-V would have a negative impact on gameplay experience for anyone but people intentionally exploiting flaws in the game.... well, let's face it - they'd do it anyway even with the most realistic physics devs can implement - just in a different way. Cause you see - humans are truly wonderful creatures - they adapt. And just like we had to spend days adapting to the oddities of KSP away from logic and reason - they'd have to adapt to do their weird whackjobs in more realistic environment.

Agreed. Well said Sir. These represent some of those areas where KSP is farther from reality. Improving that would help. I still fully support addressing it immediately after scope complete. I also fully accept I may be the only player with this opinion.

[tater]

Or, just don't insert more empty space to monotonously timewarp through in the first place. Even easier.

You are time warping anyway. If you spend 2 minutes of real time time warping, it makes zero difference at all if you travel 100,000km in that time or 10,00,000km.There is no reason to not be in favor of arbitrarily large values for time warp, other than computational limitations.

[tntristan12]

There isn't much I can say that hasn't already been touched on, so I'm just going to throw my hat in and say that I agree 100% with regex and ferram. These guys certainly know what they're talking about and I sincerely hope the devs are appreciating their input.

[Renegrade]

You are time warping anyway. If you spend 2 minutes of real time time warping, it makes zero difference at all if you travel 100,000km in that time or 10,00,000km.There is no reason to not be in favor of arbitrarily large values for time warp, other than computational limitations.

Physics warp is limited to 4x for good reasons. Well, 'good' isn't the right word, let's just say, critical reasons.

(that being said, I am not opposed to FAR/NEAR-like aero, thrust correctors, better progression, and so forth. If you crossed out 'realistic planet size' on Regex's list, you could replace his name with mine and it would be my wish list then).

Also.. Squad, bad Squad! Thrust corrector is like three lines. #thrustcorrectorin0.25dammit

:C

Actually screw that.. #thrustcorrectoremergenystockpatch0.24.3dammit

[Jovus]

So, as an attempt to turn this thread to constructive ends on the topic of realism overhaul:

I'm for realism where it would make the game more fun or interesting. It so happens that I think redoing the aeronautics model, life support, reentry, and such-like are areas where that is true.

However, I'm on the fence about increasing the size of planets and the spaces between them. On the one hand, I agree that would lead to more challenging and therefore more satisfying (at least to me) gameplay. I also agree that in most situations the drawbacks (most prevalently, more time investment from the player for any given outcome) can be overcome.

(Incidentally, I also agree that I don't always want to play like that. My dream KSP would have difficulty sliders for 'realism' at the beginning of a new game. At one end would be 'casual' or 'classic' or whatever non-insulting term you like, which would behave much like KSP does now. On the other would be something like the Realism Overhaul vision of KSP with FAR and DRE and TAC-LS etc etc. In the middle would be something like the Kerbol 6.4x. But this is a bit of a digression.)

However, the one thing that gets me about resizing KSP is those cases where you can't simply use time-warp, like when flying a plane in atmo or driving a rover. Does anyone have any good suggestions for overcoming those difficulties? (The suggestion might simply be "it's a bad idea to fly a spaceplane 1/4th of the way around the planet," but maybe I'm bad at aiming!)

If this particular point has already been discussed somewhere, just point me there and I'll read it.