Realism in KSP

[regex]

Ultimately though, my preference is for more realism AND balanced career mode, but there seems to be a huge push against that.

I would argue that there is just as large, if not larger, of a push for more realism. These gripes about inaccuracies have been around for quite some time, it's just that, as the game matures, the problems become more glaring. Now that we're getting new and updated plane parts I'll bet the clamor for better aerodynamics gets even louder.

[Darkstar616]

I think KSP has gone through too much development for complete changes, sure the aerodynamics aren't realistic but I don't play for the purpose of spending an hour flying around a barren planet. What's important to me is that they got gravity right because it factors into everything that you can do in the game. One of the things that bothers me however is the stunted tech progression but I guess nobody knows what the future holds and Squad doesn't feel like guessing.

[Linear]

I think KSP has gone through too much development for complete changes, sure the aerodynamics aren't realistic but I don't play for the purpose of spending an hour flying around a barren planet. What's important to me is that they got gravity right because it factors into everything that you can do in the game. One of the things that bothers me however is the stunted tech progression but I guess nobody knows what the future holds and Squad doesn't feel like guessing.

You do realize aerodynamics don't just affect planes?

[Darkstar616]

You do realize aerodynamics don't just affect planes?

It also affects crap I don't care about, I know.

[Torham234]

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.

Yes, but my god look at the lift!!

[Ippo]

By the way, what's wrong with reducing the deltaV to orbit? I mean, if you are fine with the game right now because it's very accessible, reducing it would make it even easier.

Isn't "it would make the game harder" one of the major complaints against a bigger system? So why are you even worried about reducing the delta v to lko?

[Renegrade]

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.

I've actually tried that - It's kinda fun to float around in the thick air, but I've run into a number of weird twitchiness effects that happen even with fixed tailfins and no guidance... :/

[Motokid600]

It also affects crap I don't care about, I know.

You don't.. care about rockets? Because FAR affects them just as much as planes.. to an extent.

By the way, what's wrong with reducing the deltaV to orbit? I mean, if you are fine with the game right now because it's very accessible, reducing it would make it even easier.

Isn't "it would make the game harder" one of the major complaints against a bigger system? So why are you even worried about reducing the delta v to lko?

Because it makes the game too easy... You shouldn't be able to make orbit with a tiny, single stage rocket. Other then that I'm not so sure I fully understand the statement..

[regex]

It also affects crap I don't care about, I know.

Oh, well, good to know there's no objection to fixing it, then.

[Darkstar616]

Oh, well, good to know there's no objection to fixing it, then.

If it needs fixing then sure, Squad have a lot to do and as long as they aren't focusing on that terrible kerbal customisation app I don't care. I just want content.

[tntristan12]

You don't.. care about rockets? Because FAR affects them just as much as planes.. to an extent.

Because it makes the game too easy... You shouldn't be able to make orbit with a tiny, single stage rocket. Other then that I'm not so sure I fully understand the statement..

The problem isn't that it makes the game too easy, but that it further reduces the advantages of staged rockets over SSTO craft and de-incentivises the use of most of the part catalog.

[Heagar]

For me KSP is a kind of mix between an action game and an simulation for all people, who want to "go play in space".

Action game:

• All planets/moons
  
  • are reduced in size reducing the time for an orbit. Nice for an intercept for an docking target, isn't it?
    
  • days are shorter. You can easiely wait for a "new day" if you want to land in daylight.
    
  • have an shorter "year". Good, if you are waiting for an optimal lauch window.
    

  [*]most of the planets/moons are in the orbital plane of there gravital source witch they are orbiting in a perfect circle. You can easyly reach them without midcourse correction burns.

Simulation:

• the orbital mechanics are functioning:
  
  • gravitational fields are present, witch alter your direction of travel
    
  • in order to dock with an given target you have to be at the same time at the same spot, not easy for an beginner.
    
  • if you want to reach an other planet/moon - well, you have to do the correct burn, otherwise you are "stranded" in space.
    

  [*]an atmosphere is simulated - ok, very crude - but with a amount of drag you have to overcome.

Given the fact, that KSP seems to be build as an building game - lego kind - witch let's you fly your own craft in a mission in an semi-simulation eviroment easily, it's an good game.

I personally doubt that most of the players are calculating their launch-windows/dv and so on and are not willing to do so. Because they:

• haven't that much spare time
  
• want to have a fun evening on witch they are able to complete a mission
  
• are not that mutch interested in space sience that they want to deal with complex mathematics regarding this
  

Because of that there are several aspects of a "real" simulation missing in KSP, but it is an highly moddeble game. And for the people, who want more realism there are therfore mods availible, witch they can use (e.g. FAR, deadly reentry, TAC life support). And that is in fact a real strength of KSP. You can even try out mission profiles of witch is thought today, but aren't proofed possible (e.g. go to an other planet and refuel there for the return trip (Kethane mod)).

For those, for whom mods aren't enough and wanting a "real" simulation in witch the preperation for a lauch takes an hour, if done correctly:

There is the "game" orbiter for free. But be warned:

• there is the real solar system simulated
  
  • six orbits until docking? Damm, 10 minutes waiting at time-warp
    
  • you want to land on the moon, you spent an hour
    
  • forces witch may altering your course:
    
    • gavitational fields are overlapping (three body problem), witch are gradually increasing/decreasing
      
    • solar winds
      

  [*]spacecrafts are much more realistic

  • you used up your RCS-fuel? You can't manouver anymore.
    
  • you have to familiarize youself with every craft, since they can be different in their systems and cockpit layout:
    
    • fire up your spacetug (Dragonfly) takes about 10 minutes
      
    • in a possible failure senario (Project Mercury) you don't find the right switches:
      
      • Oops - you drop your retro rockets - stranded in space.
        
      • The droge chute doesn't open - witch switch was for the main chute? - oops - chrash
        

    [*]on reentry the angle is too deep (Delta glider IV):

    • burnup of the craft
      
    • possible blackout/death of your passengers due physical stress
      

  [*]mods are possible but not so easy to implement as in KSP and not so gamechangeing

The most important thing at last:

Let's not forget that KSP is still in an early alpha. There will be so much contend added an problems fixed. Next time the 0.25 version comes out, far away from an 1.0 release...

[r_rolo1]

Because it makes the game too easy... You shouldn't be able to make orbit with a tiny, single stage rocket.

But you already can do that in stock :/ Just strap a OCTO2, a FL-T200, a 48-7S and assorted massless bateries and solar panels ...

[juanml82]

But you already can do that in stock :/ Just strap a OCTO2, a FL-T200, a 48-7S and assorted massless bateries and solar panels ...

Ok. Add a sensible/useful payload to that.

[Renegrade]

Ok. Add a sensible/useful payload to that.

OCTO2, an FL-T200, a 48-7S and thermometer and Communitron 16 and assorted batteries and panels (they wouldn't even have to be massless as the low end models are only 5kg anyways) = Science from Kerbin Orbit mission forever.

Shaving off 1200-1300dv from orbit with FAR/NEAR doesn't fundamentally change the game. Staged rockets are still the best for heavy payloads. You have a broader payload spectrum where you can squeeze into orbit with an SSTO rocket, but it's not THAT much broader.

It's like landing operations on Tylo, only air is trying to give you a Kerbal moment, basically..

[Ippo]

Because it makes the game too easy... You shouldn't be able to make orbit with a tiny, single stage rocket. Other then that I'm not so sure I fully understand the statement..

I was pointing out the fact that, right now, the game IS easy, and you can already make orbit with a tiny, single stage rocket (at least compared to what is actually needed to go to orbit).

Anyway: right now there is a slight difficulty in making orbit (4.5 km/s) that is artificially created by the unnatural atmosphere.

A realistic aerodynamic model would make it too easy to go to orbit? Well, that's because the planet is too small.

tl;dr: realistic aero doesn't make the game easy, unnatural aero is making it artificially difficult.

[DaMichel]

Because it makes the game too easy... You shouldn't be able to make orbit with a tiny, single stage rocket. Other then that I'm not so sure I fully understand the statement..

I haven't read the last pages here but it seems to be the old debate, to FAR or not to FAR. So, i don't think that this is a good point because if squad were to implement it, they could change other things to compensate:

* Decrease atmospheric ISP for instance. Ferram4 actually happens to have a mod which does this. It is called ISP difficulty scaler i believe. Anyone who is kept from enjoying FAR/NEAR because of the low DV to get into orbit should presumably give it a go.

* Another possibility would be scaling up Kerbin, RSS style - just not as much. Just enough to regain the 4.5 km/s DV.

Just my two cent.

Edit: IMO there are much better arguments against more realistic aerodynamics, like for instance:

* Ordinary people (non-pilots, non-aerospace engineers) won't notice anyway or won't care, so a very significant portion of development effort is wasted.

* Too difficult. You get aerodynamic instabilities which can make your rocket flip for apparently no reason.

Edited September 1, 2014 by DaMichel
edit2: less aggressive

[Ippo]

(But 4.5 km/s is WRONG anyway: you are used to it because the soup has taught you wrong stuff)

[DaMichel]

You've got to put it this way: The number is just the result of the physics model. But the model is wrong (unrealistic)

[Ippo]

Exactly. You can't have an aerodynamic cake and eat it too

[Motokid600]

.

IMO there are much better arguments against more realistic aerodynamics, like for instance:

Well, I don't about that...

* Ordinary people (non-pilots, non-aerospace engineers) won't notice anyway or won't care, so a very significant portion of development effort is wasted.

I am neither. And after a few months of playing the game the first time I realized how out-of-wack it is for rockets to be going straight up to 10km. Not being able to perform a proper gravity turn ( which factors into the extra Dv needed in stock ) is a very significant fundemental ksp is missing out on. Have you tried FAR?

* Too difficult. You get aerodynamic instabilities which can make your rocket flip for apparently no reason.

There is always a reason. FAR inspires proper rocket building AND a proper flight profile. If your rockets are disintegrating then it's a design flaw or pilot error. It's not hard... Just like with anything you get used to it.

KIDS is nice... But sometimes the isp/thrust curve can be a little tough to deal with. It introduces alot more variables. All in all... I'm for the planet size increase. That seems like the simplest solution.

[Liowen]

I have a concept that might make the conversation good on both sides, and for some reason I feel no one will like it. We already have the physics model in place and some are happy with that for the way they play, and we have a mod (FAR, NEAR, or whatever else is out there) for people who want a more realistic flight model. What if there were both in the stock game and the player was able to pick what one they wanted to use? Remember they people on the forums represent a small minority of the player base, and those that want a proper aerodynamic model make up an even smaller percent of an already small percent of the player base. Making a game that only pleases 1% of its player base is a very bad model to follow, but likewise pleasing the majority is never a good idea either. However if you give players the option to how they want to play it makes it more enjoyable for all the players, and gives those who want to learn a platform to get their basics before throwing more things for them to worry about.

Much like the way career mode is right now where you can pick to just do science or you can have rep, funds, contracts, and science to make your career more in depth, the same could be done with "realism" tweaks as well. No matter what is added into the game people complain about it either way. I noticed this when people asked for an engine that could switch modes to make space planes with and the same people complained that the RAPIER was too powerful, yet it was what thy were asking for to being with. Also the same goes for the asteroid pack and wanting bigger parts, and I am sure there have been complaints about the contract system as well. I like the choice to play the game I want to play and add in mods to give me more of a challenge as I feel the need for it to happen, and if SQUAD adds realism to the game I hope it is done so players can choose how they want to play the game they purchased.

[Tery215]

the(y) people on the forums represent a small minority of the player base, and those that want a proper aerodynamic model make up an even smaller percent of an already small percent of the player base. Making a game that only pleases 1% of its player base is a very bad model to follow, but likewise pleasing the majority is never a good idea either.

that's really not how quantities work, what if people that aren't on the forums want different aerodynamic models too?

otherwise, i agree that the change between "4.5" km/s and fewer kilometer seconds is very gameplay changing, but i believe that it's not really a bad thing

Edited September 1, 2014 by Tery215

[Linear]

...

You think 1% of the playerbase wants better aerodynamics? I suggest you have a look at the downloads for NEAR or FAR

Edited September 2, 2014 by sjwt

[DaMichel]

@Motokid600: I play only with FAR. It is great. It is just that i found the fighting about some DV odd because there are ways to adjust this relatively easily. The last part of my post was just playing devils advocate