Realism in KSP

[Sandworm]

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

It's not about FAR or even the player base. Squad works to make sales. Sales come from media coverage. For indi games, that means Youtube and the youtubers.

Take a look at the youtube vids recently. They aren't about realistic rockets simulating realworld space travel. They are about ridiculous spinning contraptions or massive craft doing impossible things. None of that would be possible with any sort of realistic aerodynamic model. Squad must keep allowing low-information gamers to launch massive objects quickly, without worry, without planning ... without math. That keeps the youtubers happy. That brings the sales.

[juanml82]

It's not about FAR or even the player base. Squad works to make sales. Sales come from media coverage. For indi games, that means Youtube and the youtubers.

Take a look at the youtube vids recently. They aren't about realistic rockets simulating realworld space travel. They are about ridiculous spinning contraptions or massive craft doing impossible things. None of that would be possible with any sort of realistic aerodynamic model. Squad must keep allowing low-information gamers to launch massive objects quickly, without worry, without planning ... without math. That keeps the youtubers happy. That brings the sales.

An aerodynamically realistic KSP needs... transparent fairings!

But seriously, yes, you have a very good point.

[Sky_walker]

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

Download count is no indicator to the demand.

I'm very sure that a vast majority of people-who-want-nosecones-to-be-useful doesn't even know about the existence of FAR or NEAR.

Even judging by this topic alone it seems that well over 90% of people never even tried any of these mods. And we're talking here about people posting on a forum - which is a minority of player base. Minority that's much more aware of modding repository than a random players are.

None of that would be possible with any sort of realistic aerodynamic model.

Ekhm... Nope.

1) What the wise man said in a post below this one.

2) SQUAD if would want to can implement realistic atmosphere as a difficulty setting that you can turn off - though it'd most likely end up like with the contracts that lead to implementation of current science mode - first huge panic on a forum, and then, after the release, everyone find out that what they were afraid of was in fact an awesome idea.

3) You grossly underestimate capability of people to find holes in the games / design awesome stuff despite of any odds. They would still do the same things they do now. Only in a slightly different way (eg. instead of sending it in one launch - they'd do it in 2 or 3 with cargo properly encapsulated in a fairing, or perhaps - their rocket would just be bigger to punch through the atmosphere (russia-style) ). And believe me or not - satisfaction from making a whackjob work would be by far greater if said whackjobs would be made to work in more realistic environment (from what I reckon a large portion of fun with these things is demolishing them, testing, demolishing again and testing again - so: realism = clearly more fun with whackjobs. ).

Edited September 1, 2014 by Sky_walker

[ferram4]

They aren't about realistic rockets simulating realworld space travel. They are about ridiculous spinning contraptions or massive craft doing impossible things. None of that would be possible with any sort of realistic aerodynamic model.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure, this massive thing could never be launched with a realistic aerodynamic model. Hell, I didn't even bother trying to smooth out the tops of the boosters and everything was fine and dandy. Biggest problem wasn't aerodynamics-related either, because all the booster separation issues I had were at the edge of the atmosphere, where aerodynamics really doesn't matter as much as the dry mass of those stacks.

Seriously, this kind of argument just betrays a gross misunderstanding of how aerodynamics affect the game. Yes, you can't just ignore aerodynamics, but it doesn't lock you into a single playstyle at all. You can still do plenty of utterly insane things, it just ends up being a little harder to deal with than doing anything with the sleeker, more aerodynamic vehicles.

Edit: Addendum:

This is from my performance experiments with the NASA parts. It is kind of a cow, but it flies just fine. Good aerodynamic models do not preclude insane designs. They just require more thought to be put into them.

Edited September 1, 2014 by ferram4

[lincourtl]

Take a look at the youtube vids recently. They aren't about realistic rockets simulating realworld space travel. They are about ridiculous spinning contraptions or massive craft doing impossible things. None of that would be possible with any sort of realistic aerodynamic model. Squad must keep allowing low-information gamers to launch massive objects quickly, without worry, without planning ... without math. That keeps the youtubers happy. That brings the sales.

Based on what I see via the KSP Facebook page, that is in fact how Squad is promoting the game. It's quite rare to see the educational or realistic sim aspects emphasized. It's frustrating to me because I see what KSP is, and how it could be so much more, but I can understand that as a business decision. Realistic sims are a tiny fraction of the games market. So it goes. KSP is still a hell of a game though, but I'm thankful for what modders like ferram, NathanKell, and stupidchris are doing.

[Sandworm]

That's assuming that anyone has ever played KSP with a realistic aero model. FAR is certainly more realistic than stock, but it is far from a simulator. You can still brute force most things into orbit, at least on a stock-sized kerbin. All of KSPs non-realistic 'features' dovetail into each other. Aero is tied to kerbin's size as a full-sized atmo and 8000m/s orbital speeds would make aero much more relevant to the overall game. Aero is also tied to KSPs magic SAS systems as slight errors in aero design are today overcome with a little magic torque. SAS is in turn tied to the lack of reentry damage as no kid wants to end their mission with a capsule burning up because they couldn't point it correctly.

And all of this ties into my point regarding the youtubers. KSP needs new players to achieve orbit with relative ease, at least in the first hour of playing the game. All of KSP's non-realistic features are at least partially a means to that end. Tell JackSepticEye that he needs to spend a couple hours learning how to build a stable rocket before having any hope of getting to space and he won't do many KSP vids. Tell him that after those hours a slight error in a 5+ minute assent profile means his Kerbal is doomed and he probably won't bother with even a second.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Sandworm

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm hopeful that KSP can avoid that sort of lowest-common-denominator design. So far it's been pretty good about not "dumbing down" the game mechanics, I hope that continues.

[lincourtl]

That's assuming that anyone has ever played KSP with a realistic aero model. FAR is certainly more realistic than stock, but it is far from a simulator.

Yep, but in my mind FAR is closer to the ideal balance of sim v. game than stock. If a FAR-like system were stock I highly doubt new players would be stymied. But you're also talking to a guy who wants to see n-body astrodynamics, axial tilt, magnetic fields, radiation belts, and really wouldn't mind being able to turn on non-spherical gravity, gravity-gradient torque, and radiation pressure ala Orbiter. Actual planetary science instead of MysteryGoo would be nice as well. I figure Squad has gone to all this trouble of creating a universe, why stop half way?

Tell JackSepticEye that he needs to spend a couple hours learning how to build a stable rocket before having any hope of getting to space and he won't do many KSP vids. Tell him that after those hours a slight error in a 5+ minute assent profile means his Kerbal is doomed and he probably won't bother with even a second.

Hah! I cringe whenever I see those videos. Again, I know it's a marketing reality for Squad. They really do need the JackSepticEyes and the PewdiePies. I'd just like to see more TanukiChaus and Scott Manleys (in his professor mode) doing and explaining actual physics and math using KSP.

[Sky_walker]

That's assuming that anyone has ever played KSP with a realistic aero model. FAR is certainly more realistic than stock, but it is far from a simulator.

Which is fine, cause noone is asking for a total realism.

If a FAR-like system were stock I highly doubt new players would be stymied.

IMHO the game would be easier for them as they'd be able to use logic in their spacecraft design.

For me, as a new player, the biggest challenge wasn't in spaceflight itself, or stuff like that, but in learning all of the weird quirks that KSP got, like for example that nose cones are not only useless, but rather: crippling (dead weight). That hoping for a gravity turn is a stupid thing to do - you just need to force your turn in ~10 km. That descending a lone capsule from an orbit is a waste of time, weight, resources, and now: funds, as there is no reentry heat, even though you'd expect it from any game that got anything to deal with semi-realistic spaceflight. That you need to guesstimate the amount of fuel and engines needed, cause game doesn't provide any information about Delta V or... well... almost any numbers at all. And so on, and so on.

Stuff like that is nowhere to be explained in the game itself, while for example - orbital dynamics are relatively easy to learn with maneuver nodes.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Sky_walker

[ferram4]

All of KSPs non-realistic 'features' dovetail into each other. Aero is tied to kerbin's size as a full-sized atmo and 8000m/s orbital speeds would make aero much more relevant to the overall game.

And pretty much no one expects that the stock game would ever have planets large enough for those velocities.

Aero is also tied to KSPs magic SAS systems as slight errors in aero design are today overcome with a little magic torque.

You don't even need the magic torque with stock "aerodynamics." There really isn't anything to cause an instability in rockets with stock aerodynamics.

SAS is in turn tied to the lack of reentry damage as no kid wants to end their mission with a capsule burning up because they couldn't point it correctly.

And no one wants their mun landing to end with a crash because they didn't bring enough fuel, and that's why we have infinite fuel enabled by default.

Oh, and proper aerodynamics makes command pods stable and ensures that they'll show the correct side towards the airflow during reentry; you'd have to try really hard to get it stuck facing the other way.

And all of this ties into my point regarding the youtubers. KSP needs new players to achieve orbit with relative ease, at least in the first hour of playing the game. All of KSP's non-realistic features are at least partially a means to that end.

The high-drag souposphere was the cause of nearly every single one of my failures when starting out. It ate all of my dV, it prevented me from being able to use designs inspired by real-life craft to make orbit, and generally just made launches unfun. Frankly, the stock atmosphere brought me pretty close to quitting because it made the game frustrating in the most boring way possible. It didn't make things easier for me; it made them more confusing, and made the game less fun to boot.

Tell JackSepticEye that he needs to spend a couple hours learning how to build a stable rocket before having any hope of getting to space and he won't do many KSP vids.

How would he make an unstable rocket though? Either his design looks pretty much like a real life rocket (as I expect most newbie rockets would), and it'll be stable, or it's a LOLPARTSEVERYWHERE rocket, and there shouldn't be any expectation of it getting into space.

Building a stable rocket is really not that hard. Given the parts you have to start with, it's nearly impossible to build an unstable rocket unless you immediately start with a booster pancake.

Tell him that after those hours a slight error in a 5+ minute assent profile means his Kerbal is doomed and he probably won't bother with even a second.

I've never seen an ascent with FAR take more than 3 minutes. Most of them take less time than with the souposphere (as tends to happen when you're not losing tons of dV the whole way), and FAR ascents tend to be much more forgiving wrt starting your turn too early / late, assuming that you don't try something stupid like going sideways at Mach 1. Are you going to argue now that someone shouldn't be expected to consider that rockets should generally face the direction they're flying in the atmosphere?

You're also overstating the amount of control needed for launches. I've flown rockets where I'm holding 10 degrees AoA the whole way and it's fine; having your angle of attack deviate from prograde by up to 10 degrees and you can still recover is a lot of margin to work with, and "slight errors" aren't going to throw you out of that unless you're not paying attention.

[Torham234]

Tell him that after those hours a slight error in a 5+ minute assent profile means his Kerbal is doomed and he probably won't bother with even a second.

Horses for courses. If someone is discouraged after a single failure, than KSP is probably not the game for him. Just like you will never see me playing a first person shooter, but I am quite happy playing a game looking like an excel sheet. People have different tastes. Games do not need to appeal to absolutely everyone, or else...

[Sandworm]

Like I said, dovetailed issues. Pick them all apart and individually they seem acceptable. But as a whole they make for something nowhere near 'simulation'. 8000+m/s orbital speeds would be for a more realistic-sized kerbin ... which means much more time accelerating through atmo ... which means more demand for predictable/realistic aero models. On assent to such an orbit, any small error in something like inclination or launch timing can result in an unrecoverable situation. Plane changes are massively harder at realistic orbital speeds. Fixing any single deficiency wouldn't make much difference.

Furthermore, Squad has outright stated that they will never ever address the root problem (imho Kerbin's tiny size) which itself has links to deficiencies in Squad's memory management, or lack thereof, which limits how kerbin is rendered (no ability to selectively load/unload textures as they pass under a craft in low orbit). Without that ability, any larger Kerbin will look horrible from low orbit --> back to the youtuber problem. Tied into that memory issue are other features (ie parts icons in the VAB). Everywhere one looks at KSP one sees layer upon layer of grandfathered compromise, each depending on the other. By this point it's all locked down. Scream if you want, but Squad isn't in the position to change much of anything. All they can do it add more layers (tech tree, reputation etc) or double down on previous decisions (more parts).

Edited September 1, 2014 by Sandworm

[Sky_walker]

Sandworm - you should install some mods before making comments like that.

People have done changes you mention, and none of the issues you speak of ever occurred.

None of them.

Also - note that many people don't ask for Kerbin in a size of earth. Just large enough to balance atmosphere and planet density to some roughly reasonable values. KSP does work fine with Kerbin in a size Earth, but a lot of people would be happy with Kerbin being 50% bigger, or something around that.

[Renegrade]

I've never seen an ascent with FAR take more than 3 minutes. Most of them take less time than with the souposphere (as tends to happen when you're not losing tons of dV the whole way), and FAR ascents tend to be much more forgiving wrt starting your turn too early / late, assuming that you don't try something stupid like going sideways at Mach 1.

I'd like to back this up. FAR tremendously reduces the time to orbit. The souposphere forces you to basically idle your way up past the first 10km or so, adding significantly to the time to orbit.

Also I'd also like to back up the assertion that you can launch impractical things with FAR:

Took about 4600 dv to get it up to a nice station-height 200x200km orbit. A second launch only took about 4100 to 100x100. That's a re-creation of a stock station I once sent up with FAR a long time ago.

Also, stock aero does actually trip users up with aero effects, only they're less consistent in stock.

[Sandworm]

I have mods, many of them. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/1411-My-Day-with-Reality.

[juanml82]

That's assuming that anyone has ever played KSP with a realistic aero model. FAR is certainly more realistic than stock, but it is far from a simulator. You can still brute force most things into orbit, at least on a stock-sized kerbin. All of KSPs non-realistic 'features' dovetail into each other. Aero is tied to kerbin's size as a full-sized atmo and 8000m/s orbital speeds would make aero much more relevant to the overall game. Aero is also tied to KSPs magic SAS systems as slight errors in aero design are today overcome with a little magic torque. SAS is in turn tied to the lack of reentry damage as no kid wants to end their mission with a capsule burning up because they couldn't point it correctly.

And all of this ties into my point regarding the youtubers. KSP needs new players to achieve orbit with relative ease, at least in the first hour of playing the game. All of KSP's non-realistic features are at least partially a means to that end. Tell JackSepticEye that he needs to spend a couple hours learning how to build a stable rocket before having any hope of getting to space and he won't do many KSP vids. Tell him that after those hours a slight error in a 5+ minute assent profile means his Kerbal is doomed and he probably won't bother with even a second.

There is an issue with emphasizing the aerodynamic model. KSP isn't a flight simulator. It's a space simulator/building/manager. While players can (and some do) play at lot of time with airplanes of some sort, most of the gameplay is meant to happen in a vacuum. The atmosphere, be it better or worse, is supposed to be in the path to the sandbox, not the sandbox itself.

As for "kids not wanting to end their mission with a capsule burning up", I'm not sure. Failures are one of the fun things of this game.

Yep, but in my mind FAR is closer to the ideal balance of sim v. game than stock. If a FAR-like system were stock I highly doubt new players would be stymied. But you're also talking to a guy who wants to see n-body astrodynamics, axial tilt, magnetic fields, radiation belts, and really wouldn't mind being able to turn on non-spherical gravity, gravity-gradient torque, and radiation pressure ala Orbiter. Actual planetary science instead of MysteryGoo would be nice as well. I figure Squad has gone to all this trouble of creating a universe, why stop half way?

Hah! I cringe whenever I see those videos. Again, I know it's a marketing reality for Squad. They really do need the JackSepticEyes and the PewdiePies. I'd just like to see more TanukiChaus and Scott Manleys (in his professor mode) doing and explaining actual physics and math using KSP.

There is a game for that. It's called Orbiter.

MysteryGoo ties in with the cartoonish spirit of the game. Yes, it could be a more serious experiment. A hamster container, for instance. And the messages would be about how the hamsters react under different gravity and lethal radiation. Maybe you reach Dres and the experiment involves doing an autopsy to a hamster. The idea behind messages like how tasty Minmus looks, how the material samples seem to be judging you, etc, is to have a bit of humor.

You don't have to like it. You can ask the modding community to change the text to provide a more serious flavor and maybe someone will do it (or you can do it yourself if you know how).

Or you can play Orbiter, which is serious.

How would he make an unstable rocket though? Either his design looks pretty much like a real life rocket (as I expect most newbie rockets would), and it'll be stable, or it's a LOLPARTSEVERYWHERE rocket, and there shouldn't be any expectation of it getting into space.

Hey, this was fun!

FAR makes it easier to make it to orbit with a reasonably made rocket. It works best if you hide all the crazy contraptions until you leave the atmosphere. I'm not entirely sure about the realism of aerodynamic failures, though. At least, they way they are designed. No aircraft will have its wings tore apart because the pilot pitched a bit too fast after leaving the runway.

Edited September 1, 2014 by juanml82

[Sky_walker]

While players can (and some do) play at lot of time with airplanes of some sort, most of the gameplay is meant to happen in a vacuum. The atmosphere, be it better or worse, is supposed to be in the path to the sandbox, not the sandbox itself.

SAY WHAT?!

(yes, I do use time compression for most of my gameplay time in space, and I'm pretty sure I spent good 80-90% of my time in the atmosphere, most of it just testing (and crashing) rockets. I'm not a spaceplane/airplane guy, I build rockets, but saying that "sandbox isn't in the atmosphere" is... very far from reality)

[Ippo]

KSP needs new players to achieve orbit with relative ease, at least in the first hour of playing the game. All of KSP's non-realistic features are at least partially a means to that end. Tell JackSepticEye that he needs to spend a couple hours learning how to build a stable rocket before having any hope of getting to space and he won't do many KSP vids. Tell him that after those hours a slight error in a 5+ minute assent profile means his Kerbal is doomed and he probably won't bother with even a second.

1) If you take a look around the forum, you will realize that A LOT of new players have problems reaching orbit. So who knows, maybe cutting down the dv requirement by a third might help them?

2) I challenge you to build a rocket that is both reasonable looking AND unstable in FAR. No, seriously: I am truly challenging you. If you can provide me with a sensible design (that is, something that is not obviously built to be unstable) AND is unstable and can't make it to orbit, I'll never argue for realism again.

I have been playing with FAR for months, and I've NEVER run into instability problems with rockets (unless you push your AoA so much that you are asking for it).

[Red Iron Crown]

If you can provide me with a sensible design (that is, something that is not obviously built to be unstable) AND is unstable and can't make it to orbit, I'll never argue for realism again.

Careful, the "can't make it to orbit" bit is easily satisfied through lack of dV. All of my early rockets would have been stable in FAR (cylindrical, sequentially staged, conical pod at the top) but didn't have enough throw to get to orbit.

[juanml82]

SAY WHAT?!

(yes, I do use time compression for most of my gameplay time in space, and I'm pretty sure I spent good 80-90% of my time in the atmosphere, most of it just testing (and crashing) rockets. I'm not a spaceplane/airplane guy, I build rockets, but saying that "sandbox isn't in the atmosphere" is... very far from reality)

I can not possibly argue the way you play the game, as that's the way you play the game. I'm just pointing out that:

Landing on the Mun and returning

Docking with interplanetary transfer stages

Assembling space stations

Creating bases off Kerbin's surface

Launching multiship missions to other planets

Making a grand tour

Planting flags across the Kerbol system

Piloting rovers across other planets

Taking selfies

Are all things done mostly outside Kerbin's atmosphere. And if you standardize your boosters, then testing rockets is mostly building and testing upper stages. And, actually, the good thing about the introduction of part contracts is that they make the player move away from standardized boosters and into crazy contraptions.

Of course, since this is a sandbox game, people will play it differently. But it's certainly not MS Flight Simulator.

[lincourtl]

There is a game for that. It's called Orbiter.

MysteryGoo ties in with the cartoonish spirit of the game. Yes, it could be a more serious experiment. A hamster container, for instance. And the messages would be about how the hamsters react under different gravity and lethal radiation. Maybe you reach Dres and the experiment involves doing an autopsy to a hamster. The idea behind messages like how tasty Minmus looks, how the material samples seem to be judging you, etc, is to have a bit of humor.

You don't have to like it. You can ask the modding community to change the text to provide a more serious flavor and maybe someone will do it (or you can do it yourself if you know how).

Or you can play Orbiter, which is serious.

You seem to be ascribing an argument to me that I did not make. My whole point was that while I'd like KSP to be like that, I understand why it isn't. Let me reiterate what I've said 10,000 times -- KSP is phenomenal. It has given me hundreds and hundreds of hours of pure enjoyment, in countless stock and modded configurations. Whether through necessity, ignorance, or an attempt to emphasize gameplay (and I know from the presentations that Felipe and Chad have given that it's all three), what Felipe and the rest of the gang have created is truly special. I have personally used it to introduce both children and adults to the basic physics and astrodynamics the stock game allows, and everybody loves it.

At the same time I'm frustrated because KSP could be so much more. In particular, a FAR-like system for aerodynamics would be vastly superior to what was intended as placeholder code. And I don't need total realism, I just want KSP to not violate basic physics. Again, I just wish some things were a little better. Keep the cartoonish aspects, which I adore, but let's treat fundamental concepts like ISP and drag a little more realistically. That's all.

But I'm not going to lose any sleep if none of my desires ever materialize, nor am I going to stop playing the game. Plus I actually approve of how Squad has implemented science, and funds, and contracts. I think they make the game 10X more fun than it ever was, and this is coming from someone who thought he'd never enjoy anything other than sandbox. In the meantime I'm extremely grateful to modders like ferram, stupidchris, or NathanKell* who do allow me to experience the game a little bit more like my ideal.

You are wrong about one thing -- Orbiter is in no way a substitute for KSP. I love Orbiter too, but KSP is so much more than Orbiter because KSP allows for Lego-like construction. It encourages experimentation. That's why I think KSP is the superior teaching tool. Like I said above though, I just wish it wasn't teaching a false understanding of physics in some respects. And I still think, despite what I'd do differently, that KSP is a remarkable achievement. Felipe's childhood play has taken him far.

*I don't mean to leave anyone out. Those three just come immediately to mind. KSP's modding community is fantastic, and they all do wonderful work.

[regex]

But it's certainly not MS Flight Simulator.

And it doesn't have to be. But it should be better. ferram4's NEAR mod is probably a good middle ground for stock to aim for; airplanes and rockets act properly but you don't have to worry about the engineering side too much. FAR will always be there for those of us who want to step up.

[Liowen]

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

While I will not stoop to playground attempts at humor I will answer your statement. Those downloads do not take into account those that have to reinstall the mod, try it but do not like, or have to update due to a new release version of the game (or mod itself), and no it is not 1% it is 1% of the 1% of the forum users of the 1% of total players who have used the game. And to the point I did try and did not like, but what I like less are other players telling me how I should enjoy the game that I purchased. Considering how rude certain sides get when you offer a counterbalance question makes me glad that I am not using it as well, no offense to the creator of the mod creator, but if using it turns you into a game snob I will gladly not use.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Liowen

[ferram4]

[...]and no it is not 1% it is 1% of the 1% of the forum users of the 1% of total players who have used the game.

Wait, you actually have access to that amount of data? I'd actually like to see that, because then that helps me with development and prioritizing features / fixing compatibility / handling bugs.

And to the point I did try and did not like, but what I like less are other players telling me how I should enjoy the game that I purchased.

You should enjoy it the way you want. You should now dislike me for telling you how to enjoy the game.

Considering how rude certain sides get when you offer a counterbalance question makes me glad that I am not using it as well, no offense to the creator of the mod creator, but if using it turns you into a game snob I will gladly not use.

That's... kind of a terrible reason to be honest; if you're going with that reasoning, you're letting people you detest control how you play. And I also don't see any rudeness in here; lots of passion, but very little rudeness or snobbery; could you point to some examples?

[tater]

Once again, one side wants the stuff "under the hood" to be more realistic, the other side conflates that with insert_negative_attribute_here. What's under the hood is entirely unrelated to "fun." The game elements sit on top, and there are numerous ways to control difficulty if for some reason there is a problem.

Assume for the sake of argument most or all of the suggested realism fixes in this thread (even the much debated secondary suggestion about a slight rescale of Kerbin).

How to control apparent "difficulty" or even "fun" within such a framework?

1. Difficulty options. They have said they are working on this, and they could selectively disable things (deadly reentry on/off, life support, etc, etc). In addition to a la carte removal/enabling of certain features, a few simple choices of modes can have these preset such that Easy or Normal is not dissimilar from the current iteration (again, are the people against realism under the hood against ANY changes from 0.24.2? Do they desire a version invariant from the current game in perpetuity?).

2. Alternate launch facilities/timelines. You might have the option to start a space program a little farther on. This "advanced" program would could a munar base and munar VAB you could switch to. No pesky atmosphere, build even crazier stuff.

3. Improved career in general, with options that relate to difficulty/style of play.