Realism in KSP

[juanml82]

I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to rescale. IMO it wouldn't be the end of the world if they just implemented better aero and reduced the dV requirement to LKO. Most of the interesting stuff happens after you get to orbit anyway.

Right, but it makes easier - ie, less challenging - to reach orbit.

Of course, we could say 0.23.5 already moved in that direction anyways

[regex]

Of course, we could say 0.23.5 already moved in that direction anyways

Well, if you consider rockets that act more like soggy baguettes than rockets and needing to add more parts on a craft than is really necessary (and thus overloading the physics engine and slowing down framerates) to be "difficulty", then sure.

Edited August 29, 2014 by regex

[cantab]

The issue I see with reducing delta-V to reach orbit isn't difficulty as such, but importance of staging. At the moment SSTO or near-SSTO rockets are possible, and indeed the current career mechanics make them economical (which could be resolved by improving the ability to recover spent stages dropped earlier), but they give inferior payload fractions to staged rockets. If the delta-V needed to reach LKO is so low that staging is pointless then I think there'd be a problem.

[regex]

The issue I see with reducing delta-V to reach orbit isn't difficulty as such, but importance of staging. At the moment SSTO or near-SSTO rockets are possible, and indeed the current career mechanics make them economical (which could be resolved by improving the ability to recover spent stages dropped earlier), but they give inferior payload fractions to staged rockets. If the delta-V needed to reach LKO is so low that staging is pointless then I think there'd be a problem.

Hence the desire to get an aero update while retaining the requirement for staging through comparable delta-V to orbit.. Exploring how to do that with a minimum of fuss for the developers is the main reason behind simply upping the system a little bit.

[Talavar]

Come on guys... It's a game.. and IMO, its a really FUN game. I love orbiter.. but orbiter is orbiter. KSP is KSP. If you are looking for realism, then you should be playing orbiter. If you're looking to launch 3 green men into a green ball of Earth-sized gas just to see what happens, then you should be playing KSP. The gravitational physics of KSP may be a cheated rough estimate, skewed by a lack of floating point numbers, but they are scaled well (((FOR KSP))). I have no complaints on the work done by squad. They have been very understanding and very lenient towards the players of the game. However there is a limit.. a time when you say "enough is enough", and honestly, reworking the gravitational fields and the algorythms that are already set in stone is just silly.. I understand the (Want) for better aerodynamics, but as far as the gravity simulation goes, I see it as a clean, perfectly made, perfectly scaled rendition of what physics should be for a game of this nature. IS it useful as a tool for learning? Of-course it is. you learn how orbital mechanics work, you learn what apoapsis and periapsis is, you learn how to adjust each of these and you learn how to do plane changes, planetary transfers, lunar transfers, return transfers.. I mean.. you cannot deny the teaching element of KSP.. there is alot you pick up if you've never touched a space simulator before. You need to keep in mind, this game is geared towards EVERYONE.. even children.. Children do not do complex physics calculations like some of us do, therefore the game needs to be toned down to an understandable level for even the "laymen" among us, to have a fighting chance of being a popular piece of software.. Many people would just as soon by a brainless shooter than a complex science oriented game. I love this game, and I plan on following it where-ever it ends up. because honestly.. when it's finished... all mods will be finialized and youll be able to play whatever experience you want to have and never have to worry about updating your mods again... SO just chillax, enjoy the ride, and see where we end up.

[regex]

Sometimes I feel like people don't bother reading a thread before posting, to figure out exactly what the conversation is about and what place we're at in that conversation. Sometimes I feel like people blow things out of proportion based on the thread title or the OP, who has similarly blown things out of proportion. Other times, I feel like people are just trolling.

It would be really nice if we could continue to have a sane, rational discussion. Is that possible?

[Talavar]

Sometimes I feel like people don't bother reading a thread before posting, to figure out exactly what the conversation is about and what place we're at in that conversation. Sometimes I feel like people blow things out of proportion based on the thread title or the OP, who has similarly blown things out of proportion. Other times, I feel like people are just trolling.

It would be really nice if we could continue to have a sane, rational discussion. Is that possible?

If you're referring to my comment, then your missing the fact that i read the WHOLE thread, then summed it up in one post. I believe I touched on most aspects of the whole thread.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Talavar

[regex]

If you're referring to my comment, then your missing the fact that i read the WHOLE thread, then summed it up in one post. I believe I touched on most aspects of the whole thread.

I don't think you did. You missed a lot of nuance and discussion, and dismissed a lot of nuance and discussion. No one ever asked for "reworking the gravitational fields and the algorythms", they are trying to find a simple way to correct some inaccuracies while dealing with the issue of an improved aerodynamics model in a manner that doesn't make the game even easier (for rocket launches, at least). Not to mention some other feature requests to help the simulation that could easily be considered "difficulty options" and that should be implemented as such. No one is asking for Orbiter 2 (in a manner that they expect to be taken seriously, at least).

Then, of all things, you told those of us who would like to see SQUAD make some changes to:

just chillax, enjoy the ride, and see where we end up.

No. I, for one, am NOT going to just "see where we end up". I'm going to address my concerns over the inaccuracies of KSP to SQUAD and let them know that there is a desire to see such things corrected. I'm not just going to sit by and not state an opinion about a product I bought. I may not actually expect anything to be done about my concerns, but I am well within my rights as a purchaser of early access software to express my concern over what I consider to be bugs, technical inaccuracies, or missing features.

[Vanamonde]

Please discuss the subject of the thread rather than each other.

[Lheim]

The issue I see with reducing delta-V to reach orbit isn't difficulty as such, but importance of staging. At the moment SSTO or near-SSTO rockets are possible, and indeed the current career mechanics make them economical (which could be resolved by improving the ability to recover spent stages dropped earlier), but they give inferior payload fractions to staged rockets. If the delta-V needed to reach LKO is so low that staging is pointless then I think there'd be a problem.

I'd agree with Vanamonde that it seems a bit like busy work, and lots more pointlessly empty space, to rescale the entire solar system. Surely the easier solution - if they want to maintain a certain threshold of difficulty for getting to orbit - would be to tweak rocket performance. That's even assuming the dev-redone aerodynamic model would have a massive effect on DV anyway.

[Sky_walker]

I'm willing to bet if Squad were to release a 0.35 "Getting Our Math Right" update with proper scaling and aero, everyone would get used to it almost immediately, realize things make more sense in real-world application, and we'd roll on past all of this bickering like nothing happened.

It boils down to change = bad, because current = understood, and we enjoy what we understand.

That's pretty much a perfect summary.

We had a similar thing with contracts - panic all over the forums on how it'll ruin the experience for players, make the game less fun - in the end forcing devs into implementation of the Science mode - however after the release it came out that contracts are non-issue and they beautifully fit into the game. Actually - instead of making it more difficult - contracts made the game easier than ever.

[MisterDoubleSevens]

On a random note, calling KSP's air "soup" is wrong.

Soup would be a better model of air than what we currently have, because hydrodynamics still base drag on cross-section and speed, just like aerodynamics do. Yeah, you heard right. Soup > Stock Aerodynamics.

Just thought I'd say that, because "the air is soup" is the single most-common complaint about KSP being unrealistic.

Edited August 30, 2014 by MisterDoubleSevens
It ate my linebreak.

[Dizzle]

Franklin is probably right, and that's why I urge everyone opposed to greater realism to at least try out mods like Deadly Re-entry, FAR, Real Solar System, and TAC. I played .23.5 with 3 of the 4, and it wasn't nearly as tough as I was expecting.

[Renegrade]

Here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q7oymtisfub5q24/RealSolarSystem.cfg?dl=0

You'll need FAR (or NEAR, never tried it but should work) and Real Solar System (obviously ) for this to work as intended.

Nice, and thanks, regex!

I'm going to give that a shot tonight. And don't worry, I almost always use FAR (85% or so of all my installs) as the mass=cross sectional area thing that stock does is quite annoying.

[SorryDave]

I like the idea of adding some realistic mods for KSP, here are my ideas:

Public dis-interest mod, tax payer concern mod, budget over-run mod, polarized congress mod

These should add realistic challenges.

[r_rolo1]

On a random note, calling KSP's air "soup" is wrong.

Soup would be a better model of air than what we currently have, because hydrodynamics still base drag on cross-section and speed, just like aerodynamics do. Yeah, you heard right. Soup > Stock Aerodynamics.

Just thought I'd say that, because "the air is soup" is the single most-common complaint about KSP being unrealistic.

Yeah, KSP atmosphere behaves like a wierd non-Newtonian fluid of some kind ...

I like the idea of adding some realistic mods for KSP, here are my ideas:

Public dis-interest mod, tax payer concern mod, budget over-run mod, polarized congress mod

These should add realistic challenges.

Abstracted under Reputation And TBH it would not be realistical, since KSP is not a NASA simulator, is a Space program simulator. Other agencies have suffered of other issues: Roscosmos of the whole 90's mess in Russia, ESA of receiving funding from a bureaucratic hydra where the heads keep bickering at eachother ... ( and P.S: sarcasm noted )

[tntristan12]

SorryDave: I think I see the point you're trying to make, but setting aside your very obvious tongue-in-cheek, none of those mods would add anything to the game in terms of what it's trying to accomplish. For what is quite possibly the fiftieth time on this thread alone it must be stressed that absolutely nobody is advocating the "total realism" suggested by the title.

The principal difference between what has been suggested thus far and your "ideas" are that (to pick out the most cited and controversial example) realistic aerodynamics bring the game closer in line with what players expect. Scaling up the solar system (Vanamonde) is just a way of retaining comparable delta-v for rockets so that the engines don't appear to be more underpowered than they already are (and they already are... Vastly underpowered to say the least).

However by putting gameplay in line with players' expectations of what happens in the physical world, you immerse them even farther into the game universe and create a greater sense of investment. Nobody wants to rage quit because "it shouldn't be *doing* that!" Note that none of these physics changes being seriously discussed would make the game less fun. Perhaps they might not make the game more fun - I honestly think the game will be as fun as it was - but at least the game is being true to its promise: to deliver a physics simulation disguised as a space program tycoon game with *elements* of fantasy / science fiction rather than being driven by them.

[Lheim]

Fun fact regarding 'soupy' lower atmosphere: For earth, 90% of the atmosphere by mass is below 16 km

[regex]

I'd agree with Vanamonde that it seems a bit like busy work, and lots more pointlessly empty space, to rescale the entire solar system. Surely the easier solution - if they want to maintain a certain threshold of difficulty for getting to orbit - would be to tweak rocket performance.

The problem with tweaking atmospheric isp, especially if you correct isp to affect thrust, is that, on Kerbin's tiny scale, the transition from atmospheric isp to space isp happens so quickly that the rocket experiences an immense jump in TWR in a very short period of time, which can be very hard to control and is also "unrealistic". It is also probably comparable in difficulty (speaking as a modder, it's much easier and quicker to write an RSS config and it affects the least amount of other modders) to balance a bunch of engines' atmospheric performance versus changing a few planetary values by a set percentage.

[cantab]

KSP atmospheres aren't fluids at all. They're more like forcefields, cousins of gravity where the acceleration on an object depends only on its speed and height. Except for the few things that are more or less affected by it.

[TimePeriod]

Total realism?

Then the spaceshuttle Challenger happened and the whole agenda of space exploration was frozen with fear for 12 years.

No thanks.

[Sky_walker]

Total realism?

Then the spaceshuttle Challenger happened and the whole agenda of space exploration was frozen with fear for 12 years.

No thanks.

For 50th time: Noone ever asked for a total realism. Noone.

Original poster imagined something that never occurred.

If you'd bother to read through the first page - it'd be clear enough.

KSP atmospheres aren't fluids at all. They're more like forcefields, cousins of gravity where the acceleration on an object depends only on its speed and height. Except for the few things that are more or less affected by it.

We just found the most accurate description of Kerbin atmosphere ever.

[ferram4]

For 50th time: Noone ever asked for a total realism. Noone.

Original poster imagined something that never occurred.

If you'd bother to read through the first page - it'd be clear enough.

No, but they did accomplish their goal. By naming the title that and making the first post entirely about stuff that has largely not been advocated for (at least not as a, "the entire game should be this way" thing), OP has successfully framed the argument so that anyone arguing for any slight increase in realism is associated with unfun things. Very good manipulation of others, I must admit, but it would probably be best for the mods to look into changing the title and making a note at the beginning of the OP about that, because it's actually hindering the discussion quite badly.

On a random note, calling KSP's air "soup" is wrong.

Soup would be a better model of air than what we currently have, because hydrodynamics still base drag on cross-section and speed, just like aerodynamics do. Yeah, you heard right. Soup > Stock Aerodynamics.

Just thought I'd say that, because "the air is soup" is the single most-common complaint about KSP being unrealistic.

I would argue that that would be worse. With a decent aerodynamic model (one with drag / lift distributed over the vehicle and with drag / lift forces based on shape and orientation), much higher density ends up making any stability issues much more severe; if a rocket is unstable with air-like densities, you'll have no hope of controlling it with water-like densities, and if a rocket is too stable and just a lawndart at air-like densities, you have no hope of getting it to turn with water-like densities. Besides that, even without specific aerodynamic failure features that will be able to tear rockets and planes apart in flight quite easily.

Don't believe me? Both FAR and NEAR have configs that include a line called "areaFactor" that scales up aerodynamic forces. Since aerodynamic forces scale linearly with both area and desnsity, doubling the areaFactor is equivalent to doubling the density of the atmosphere. Now, I doubt you would want actual hydrodynamics, since that would require an area factor of ~815 to convert air into water, and that would actually make the atmospheric drag worse than in stock by a hell of a lot (you'll be looking at terminal velocities of ~10 m/s, which makes sense if you've ever seen something sink). Setting areaFactor to something like 10 is closer to stock-like forces, so go and try that. See how much progress you make with that.

[tntristan12]

Ferram: That's impressive, but I think he was getting at how the blatant disregard for physical reality would at least not be a concern if we could believe that the Kerbin atmosphere behaved like an actual soup rather than a weird altitude-and-velocity-based gravitational force. Not saying either model is preferable. Eventually got so fed up with the stock model that now I don't play without FAR even though it meant scrapping all of my favorite rockets...

...And I'd do it all again! I for once would welcome a realistic aero model in the stock game and don't think it would be any less fun once people got used to the change. I really don't see what the issue is or why we're still arguing about it.

[NWDogg]

...And I'd do it all again! I for once would welcome a realistic aero model in the stock game and don't think it would be any less fun once people got used to the change. I really don't see what the issue is or why we're still arguing about it.

I agree completely, a more realistic aero is definitely the way to go. I think the reason it's being argued is because, in gameplay terms, the whole balance of the game would be thrown off. The engines would be more powerful than they are now, getting to orbit would require much much less, and so the career mode would be all messed up. To fix that, they would either need to nerf every single engine and fuel tank (probably) which would take quite a bit of tweaking and testing to get right, or, they would need to scale the planet size up to match the power-to-orbit that we have now, or change almost everything in career mode to compensate.

I think planet scaling is the right way to go with that, but, I honestly don't think we'll ever see a new aero model because of the balance changes. I think it might be better for everyone if KSP 'forked' into the current stock game, and a more realistic version that drops the career mode. Dropping the career mode in a forked version would be to make realistic changes without needing to balance against career gameplay. The fork could even be used as the educational version. Ultimately though, my preference is for more realism AND balanced career mode, but there seems to be a huge push against that.