Realism in KSP

[treejoe4]

this game is easy enough as it is, to the point where patience is the best skill after a few months

Edited August 27, 2014 by Specialist290
Nothing to see here...

[BlackAdder128]

I agree with others that, having spent some time cutting my teeth on KSP, I'd like the option to have more realism. So far, that particular demand has been met by mods, although one could imagine increased realism over what even mods support.

I think the main question is what additional realism, among existing mods, should be applied to stock Kerbal. Ideally, the answer might be "All of them, all completely configurable" such that everyone gets the experience they want. That doesn't seem -ahem- realistic.

If the devs wanted to add FAR, then deadly re-entry, then life support, that would be awesome. If they further added large planets, realistic commication, etc. - that would be pretty cool too. And I hope SQUAD continues pushing configurable realism for 1.0. But to be perfectly honest, if the devs just walked away today and called victory, I'd still feel I've gotten my $25 worth and more. So I'm not inclined to complain.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

this game is easy enough as it is, to the point where patience is the best skill after a few months

Well, aerodynamics wouldn't be. Nor would realistic planet sizes. Why? It's waste of space to keep those inside the game

Edited August 27, 2014 by Specialist290
Nothing to see here...

[tater]

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

I'm aware of that, I was not discussing physics warp, but on rails time warp. I was replying to this statement (which I quoted in my reply, BTW):

"just don't insert more empty space to monotonously timewarp through in the first place"

It was in reference to the space between worlds possibly increasing, and had exactly nothing to do with physics warp (close to planetary objects).

[tater]

I should add that I'm all for realism options. Heck, from a "stock" POV, the simple expedient for more realistic sized worlds (Kerbin would only be a slightly larger as suggested) and distances could be a "harder" start game option, with the extant version as the "normal" default.

A primary reason for wanting some of these realism ideas as "stock" is that even if they can be disabled in difficulty settings, they are a better benchmark for players who want minimal modding, or simply so mods can work on non-stock things without interfering (I was an active modder in a submarine sim (SH4), and mods quickly get to the point where you must assume or include other mods, and additional mods added to an install can easily break everything).

[treejoe4]

Well, aerodynamics wouldn't be. Nor would realistic planet sizes. Why? It's waste of space to keep those inside the game

The aerodynamics sucks anyway, and there is no reason why it wouldn't have different settings.

I doubt they would ever change the planet sizes

[Renegrade]

I'm aware of that, I was not discussing physics warp, but on rails time warp. I was replying to this statement (which I quoted in my reply, BTW):

"just don't insert more empty space to monotonously timewarp through in the first place"

It was in reference to the space between worlds possibly increasing, and had exactly nothing to do with physics warp (close to planetary objects).

Yeah, and the big open spaces aren't a problem even without RSS's enhanced on-rails warp.

It's the launch and re-entry (especially re-entry since you're just.. waiting) that's the issue.

I get really good mileage on my "Day 351: Still descending. Snacks ran out six months ago. Watched all of knetflix three times." jokes even on 6.4x scale streams.

So... "just don't insert more empty atmospheric space to monotonously and dangerously (hi kraken!) p-warp through in the first place".

[r4pt0r]

the physics rules in the kerbal universe are not the same as the rules in our universe. so all this talk about super dense planets and such is absurd. earth has a surface gravity of 1 earth g, and kerbin has a surface gravity of 1 kerbin g. the fact that both are 9.8 m/s is also completely normal, because we are talking about kerbal meters, not earth meters.

[tater]

Well, he explicitly said "empty space" which doesn't imply atmosphere at all (which is neither space, nor empty ).

Shuttle reentry took something like 70 minutes from full commitment to touchdown. That's 17.5 minutes at 4X, so kinda tedious, I agree. But that's a full-size earth.

[Franklin]

because we are talking about kerbal meters, not earth meters.

oh god

[Hattivat]

More importantly, it should have enough realism to match players' expectations, which are based on their experience in the physical world. (...) These are things that confuse new players, because they contradict what they expect based on their experience in the real world.

This, so much this. This should be the guiding principle of game realism rebalancing if Squad decides to take this step (which I personally hope they eventually will). If something is so unrealistic that it confuses even complete laymen, then it needs to be fixed. People who play this game for the first time expect nose cones to improve their rocket's performance. When they see reentry "flames", they think it's a sign of danger. When first told that square rockets fly better than streamlined ones and that reentry flames are completely harmless, they find it weird and confusing. These are both no-brainers, I bet even grade schoolers react like that. Hence stock aerodynamics need to change, and there needs to be some non-zero risk of burning up on reentry in the stock game, even if it is kept low to avoid rising the difficulty too much.

I'm personally a fan of RSS and all the realism-enhancing mods. In fact, it's been a while since I've last played the stock-sized game. Nevertheless, I understand people might not want some of these things to be stock, and I don't think making the stock solar system real-sized is a good idea sales-wise. And sales do need to be taken into account, Squad are not in this for charity. Keep in mind that the silent majority of players probably finds conducting a manned mission to the Mun challenging (in all likelihood, the median level of achievement among the wider playerbase is well below the median level among the people active on the forums), so making it harder is likely not the best idea.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

oh god

He is correct. KSP meters are different than real meters. How can I prove this? Well, in ARMA 2, 2.5km away is really far. In KSP, thats basically right beside you.

[Red Iron Crown]

Sure, the kerbal universe just happens to use units with exactly the same names as Earth units, with exactly the same relationships to each other, and fit into exactly the same physical formulas in exactly the same ways. Total coincidence.

[Renegrade]

Well, he explicitly said "empty space" which doesn't imply atmosphere at all (which is neither space, nor empty ).

Fair enough

Shuttle reentry took something like 70 minutes from full commitment to touchdown. That's 17.5 minutes at 4X, so kinda tedious, I agree. But that's a full-size earth.

Yeah.. I'm mostly opposed to scales in the 6.4x+ range. Regex mentioned something like a 1.5x which wouldn't have a 17.5 minute re-entry that wouldn't bother me quite so much.

Also I should clarify '6.4x or larger in stock'. I actually play 6.4x and 10x RSS from time to time (just much less frequently than stock scale because of the above), and it would sadden me if the mods went away. It's just that it would sadden me also to have 6.4x+ as stock. Unless it was an option, I'm never opposed to optionals (and mods of course).

Or if p-warp was upgraded to handle much higher speeds without shredding ships.

Anyhow, I think 'atmosphere' is key here. I'd put 'aero' at the top of the realism priority list, right under thrust correction.

[r4pt0r]

before the french revolution, French inches were longer than British inches(leading to the English misconception that Napoleon was short)

Im just saying that judging the Kerbals by our human metrics might not work as well as some people think.

[tater]

Agree, 100%. Atmosphere/reentry as primary issues, IMHO. Followed by life support.

[Red Iron Crown]

before the french revolution, French inches were longer than British inches(leading to the English misconception that Napoleon was short)

Im just saying that judging the Kerbals by our human metrics might not work as well as some people think.

That just doesn't jibe with KSP being educational.

"Good morning class, the meters in this simulation are not the meters you're used to, nor are the kilograms, kilonewtons or seconds. I expect you to not be confused by this at all."

[Franklin]

That just doesn't jibe with KSP being educational.

"Good morning class, the meters in this simulation are not the meters you're used to, nor are the kilograms, kilonewtons or seconds. I expect you to not be confused by this at all."

"I see you're all trying to build really tall, long rockets and they're not working. May I suggest a plate-shaped one?"

[cantab]

Tall streamlined rockets work just fine. If they wobble, well you reinforce them with struts, that's not hard to explain or understand.

[r4pt0r]

"I see you're all trying to build really tall, long rockets and they're not working. May I suggest a plate-shaped one?"

I imagined that windows paperclip helper thing saying that lol (this one: http://iss.leeds.ac.uk/images/beg3923.jpg )

[regex]

"Good morning class, the meters in this simulation are not the meters you're used to, nor are the kilograms, kilonewtons or seconds. I expect you to not be confused by this at all."

Not to mention that Kerbin is actually sized in terms of Earth meters and kilograms, and that sizing it up appropriately results in an Earth-equivalent... >_>

[cantab]

I imagined that windows paperclip helper thing saying that lol (this one: http://iss.leeds.ac.uk/images/beg3923.jpg )

I wondered why you needed to post the link, but then it hit me that there are people on this forum who are too young to remember Clippy. #feelingold /tangent

[juanml82]

I'm personally a fan of RSS and all the realism-enhancing mods. In fact, it's been a while since I've last played the stock-sized game. Nevertheless, I understand people might not want some of these things to be stock, and I don't think making the stock solar system real-sized is a good idea sales-wise. And sales do need to be taken into account, Squad are not in this for charity. Keep in mind that the silent majority of players probably finds conducting a manned mission to the Mun challenging (in all likelihood, the median level of achievement among the wider playerbase is well below the median level among the people active on the forums), so making it harder is likely not the best idea.

This. I'd bet many of the most active members here have been playing for over a year and have mastered most of the challenges the game throws at the players. And now they approach the game thinking on new challenges. In the meantime, there are often threads in the gameplay forum about people who can't land in the Mun, or are running out of money - as well as a lot of people who don't want to do maths to play a videogame.

The answer to this is simple: difficulty sliders. And KSP can provide real difficulty sliders instead of "play against an AI who cheats more or less depending on the difficulty".

Also, while I don't have a background in rocket engineering or space sciences in general, it seems that some of the demands of "realism" are rather "gameplay I like":

Life support: LS isn't just a few new parts with snacks and other new resources which deplete over time - a clockdown timer, if you will. LS for a manned mission to Jool or Eeloo requires living space, serious radiation shielding and artificial gravity. The latter which is accomplished by spinning the ship against a counterweight such as an expended stage. And realism would also require tackling the radiation issue. The idea of a trip to Mars which would expose the crew to more than a year of radiation has been discarded by NASA because it would expose the astronauts to an unacceptable cancer risk. "Total" realism would have to deal with it. Does a Duna manned mission end with Jeb undergoing cancer treatment?

SSTOs: They would have to be impossible without Rapiers. Forget all the discussion about how jets are represented in the game. An aircraft that carries the weight of jet engines and fuel plus liquid fuel rockets and their fuel and achieves orbit without dropping anything is unrealistic. A spaceplane carried to the upper atmosphere by a carrier aircraft and refueled before injecting itself into orbit is, OTOH, more realistic, but also requires changes in the game as we can't currently fly a detachable spaceship while also returning the carrier aircraft to the airfield. Now, question, are players who like SSTOs and realism willing to forget all about non Rapier powered spaceplanes?

Communications: Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that NASA manages their interstellar probes from ground based communication facilities. Remotech might be fun, but my understanding is that it's not required for realism at all.

Timescale: expending more than an hour of realtime in landing a spaceplane isn't fun. Heck, current 10 minutes long burns aren't fun and, specially regarding ions, they aren't realistic at all. Me thinks part of this should be handled by a "Ion burn warp" or something that works in the background (as ion engines are supposed to burn for months) and some sort of pre-run of physics before a physics timewarp: basically, if your ship is sound and wouldn't break apart during a 10 minute burn, the game should calculate that before hand and let you do a 10x physics warp without tearing the ship apart.

Orbital construction: part of what makes KSP fun for some people are the bizarre contraptions that can be put in orbit. A decent aerodynamic system, which is needed, will require fairings and cargo bays. Now, here's the catch: some things (rovers, bases, space stations) won't fit well inside fairings or cargo bays. That's why the ISS was assembled in orbit, why some habitats might be inflatable and why stuff like larger rovers could be shipped in parts and assembled in the ground. However, that requires a better docking system which doesn't wobble and some KAS/Infernal Robotics analog which allows in situ assembly and disassembly. On top, we have multiple launches. Some players might find launching a lot of standardized rockets which work perfectly over and over as something fun. Some other players do not. As Sid Meyer said "a good videogame is a succession of interesting choices". Putting standardized rockets with standardized payloads in orbit isn't a succession of interesting choices. Maybe a "skip to orbit" ala hyperedit would have to be added if the same kind of rocket was already put in orbit?

KER, MJ and docking aids: landing, docking and construction aren't done by eyeballing. Realism also require additional information, docking cameras and navball aids, landing and aerobreakes calculators, delta-v information and probably other aids I'm forgetting right now. This actually makes the game easier and less daunting. New players would know from the beginning if the rocket they are making can make it to orbit or not without having to check the wiki and downloading mods.

Payload ratios: KSP rockets, despite using heavier fuel tanks than real rockets and weaker engines, allow for a greater payload. Realism would need to cut the possible payload. Which means less stuff in orbit, which means less fun. IMHO, that would have to remain unrealistic.

Edited August 28, 2014 by juanml82

[Pecan]

So, what's everyone been doing for their holidays?

I played with this game called KSP that I bought, considered the uncertainty software developers face when they set out on a continuing mission to go where no Kerbal has gone before and came to the conclusion that I was better-off in the pub. (Don't ask where I got off the bus on Saturday night after the stag do, I just remember the long walk to taxi, then big bill home). Back to work for Tuesday though and wooo! was it manic after the bank holiday. Mind you; mostly because I did most of the routine work on my own because the boss had made a huge balls-up and was stuck in all the paperwork trying to sort it out (She loses, I win - profit!). Today was more sort of 'blah' but I had my first, in 18 months, perfect accounting period where everything was spot on. Best news is that my daughter passed both the exams she took a year early, including a top grade grade in Spanish ... only slightly devalued by the fact that her mother's Spanish and she's spent several weeks per year living in Spain with the Spanish relatives - ah well, a win's a win.

Oops, I thought someone mentioned realism, sorry about that.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Pecan

[GoSlash27]

My √0.02...

KSP isn't entirely realistic and it isn't entirely fanciful either, but it *is* pretty fun.

I saw a thread the other day where a bunch of kids were discussing Hohmann transfers, delta-v budgets, and Oberth effect. This video game seems to be creating a new generation of aerospace engineers, and I think that's neat as hell.

I'd personally prefer upping the realism, but not at the expense of game play. The important thing seems to be that people play and learn something about rocket science in the process.

Best,

-Slashy