Realism in KSP

[Guest]

The And by that I mean rescaling Kerbin itself, not the rest of the system.

Open up a stock copy of KSP, go to the tracking station, center on Kerbin, look down from the top. If you zoom out a bit you should be able to see the Mun, right? Imagine how much closer the Mun will be if you only scale up Kerbin. That map view would positively ridiculous.

[Red Iron Crown]

Open up a stock copy of KSP, go to the tracking station, center on Kerbin, look down from the top. If you zoom out a bit you should be able to see the Mun, right? Imagine how much closer the Mun will be if you only scale up Kerbin. That map view would positively ridiculous.

I wasn't thinking of scaling to Earth-size, just large enough to keep the dV requirement to LKO the same with better aero and the same surface gravity. I must admit that I haven't done the math to calculate how large that would be, you could be completely right that Kerbin would dominate its system in an undesirable way.

[Guest]

I wasn't thinking of scaling to Earth-size, just large enough to keep the dV requirement to LKO the same with better aero and the same surface gravity. I must admit that I haven't done the math to calculate how large that would be, you could be completely right that Kerbin would dominate its system in an undesirable way.

You need greater than 1.5x (I would hazard a guess that twice as big will do it) scale to retain delta-V to orbit requirements using FAR, although 1.5x is actually pretty good, needing around 3.8km/s.

[Red Iron Crown]

So, assuming the 2x scale figure works, that's a 1,200km radius compared to a 12,000km orbital radius for the Mun. So Kerbin's radius would go from 1/20th of Mun's orbit to 1/10th. I'm not sure that'd be a huge difference appearance wise, or at least any more absurd than the tiny Kerbol planetary system is to begin with. (I actually like the small system.)

[Guest]

You do realize that synchronous orbit for Kerbin is 2868km for a 600km radius body, and that scaling up Kerbin to 1200km (while reducing density to retain gravity) will result in a much larger synchronous orbit, possibly close enough to Mun's orbit to get SOI interference? I should also note that my 3.8km/s figure for a 1.5x Kerbin is using a twelve hour day (because Kerbin spins at a fantastic rate) and that you'd likely have to slow down rotation by a similar amount to get a 4.5km/s launch delta-V from a 2x Kerbin, which makes synchronous orbit even larger.

[cantab]

The Kerbol system's not meant to be an exact scaling of the solar system anyway, merely broadly inspired by it. Just look at Duna and Ike.

[Red Iron Crown]

I hadn't thought of synchronous orbits at all. Or, for that matter, that the orbital parameters for the Mun and Minmus would have to change, too. Clearly scaling up Kerbin only is not as simple as I'd imagined.

[Guest]

The Kerbol system's not meant to be an exact scaling of the solar system anyway, merely broadly inspired by it. Just look at Duna and Ike.

There's making a planet orange and there's making the density impossible, the atmosphere nowhere near realistic and several times smaller.

[tater]

What's the mun's SoI, too? You'd need to do a little scaling up across the board. Again, this has about zero impact on gameplay, as you'd be in compression anyway. The only time impact (player time) would really be those times when you are forced to be in physics time compression (4X your atmospheric travel time).

[juanml82]

And you are ok with that? Seriously: why should we just surrender to mediocrity? "Other people are wrong: let's be wrong too!".

There is a difference between "simplified game mechanic for the sake of fun" and "contradicts everything we know about the universe", especially in a game about space exploration.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think actual physics should be learned from a text book. Games, documentaries and other audiovisual media have a role in education, but they can't replace books. If you want to train an engineer or a physicist, that person will have to read. And will have to get the actual figures and physics laws from books.

I think the strength of games like KSP in education isn't in becoming a ludic replacement of text books, but in enticing children and teenagers in developing an interest in hard sciences. Kind of how you aren't going to properly learn history by playing the Age of Empires campaigns or Assasin's Creed, but you may get interested enough in history to study it in depth.

Realistic densities, planetary sizes and reentry means 70 minutes long reentry procedures. So, if we go the route of "actual physics whenever possible so children learn the right way" we end up with "kids don't want to spend 70 minutes reentring Kerbin, and have quited playing". That way, you don't teach them anything, and they don't get interested in the field.

[Guest]

Again, this has about zero impact on gameplay, as you'd be in compression anyway.

Actually it has a pretty big impact on gameplay. A larger solar system means more delta-V to get places, which means larger transfer vehicles, which means larger launchers. Even a 2x Kerbin system wouldn't be drastic, though; you'd probably need another 1km/s to get to Eeloo or Moho.

[Franklin]

I would think Squad would have to also scale engine TWRs/ISPs to compensate for the increased system scale to avoid players complaining it takes forever to push a lot anywhere. Which may open up a host of new "engines aren't realistic" arguments, but I know there's compromise that's already been talked to death.

A Venus-sized Eve makes me wince at what it would take to get back into orbit.

[Guest]

Eh... KSP lifters already boast such an insane payload fraction that you wouldn't have to do much of anything in terms of balancing for even a 2x Kerbin system. One easy balancing pass would be to harmonize the fuel fraction, and reduce the dry mass, of fuel tanks. That would solve any issues handily, IMO, because tank dry mass is ridiculous.

[LaydeeDem]

Reality is unrealistic.

[Renegrade]

You need greater than 1.5x (I would hazard a guess that twice as big will do it) scale to retain delta-V to orbit requirements using FAR, although 1.5x is actually pretty good, needing around 3.8km/s.

I tried out your 1.5x initial version; those numbers seem about right.

That being said I was often budgeting over 4k to get some less aerodynamic rockets in orbit, so that may actually make an interesting gameplay change over stock: You can get any old brick into space with ~4500 dv (as it is now), but if you design intelligently, you can shave some of that requirement away.

The increased orbital costs to the Mun and Minmus didn't seem too bad, and physics warp wasn't too painful. The increased orbital speed at Kerbin gave more of the 'you need to go sideways' feeling too.

The only downside is that the planets looked a bit smoother; I've always been a fan of the lumpy Minmus look I'm sure that could be fixed easily with some judicious height scaling though.

[Guest]

Reality is unrealistic.

In relation to what? I feel like you thought this was a poignant reminder to everyone but it ended up just being a cryptic link. Unless what you wanted was a cryptic link in which case: gg Nutt007, gg.

The only downside is that the planets looked a bit smoother; I've always been a fan of the lumpy Minmus look I'm spure that could be fixed easily with some judicious height scaling though.

I didn't put much effort into making that a proper config since it was really just a proof of concept, but I'm really happy to see that my numbers are confirmed given my recent math failures.

[tater]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think actual physics should be learned from a text book. Games, documentaries and other audiovisual media have a role in education, but they can't replace books. If you want to train an engineer or a physicist, that person will have to read. And will have to get the actual figures and physics laws from books.

I think the strength of games like KSP in education isn't in becoming a ludic replacement of text books, but in enticing children and teenagers in developing an interest in hard sciences. Kind of how you aren't going to properly learn history by playing the Age of Empires campaigns or Assasin's Creed, but you may get interested enough in history to study it in depth.

Realistic densities, planetary sizes and reentry means 70 minutes long reentry procedures. So, if we go the route of "actual physics whenever possible so children learn the right way" we end up with "kids don't want to spend 70 minutes reentring Kerbin, and have quited playing". That way, you don't teach them anything, and they don't get interested in the field.

I disagree entirely. There are certain things that you can learn better from experience, which is why entry level physics and astronomy classes have demonstrations, and/or labs. The non-intuitive nature of orbital rendezvous, for example is great to see for yourself (even if in a game). You might not learn history from the games you mention, but if they were done properly, you might actually learn something about why they used the tactics they used (Empire: Total War, for example could have done this, or virtually any age of sail game (all of which fail to model sailing outcomes accurately). Another example is ww2 flight sims. I was always a ww2 aircraft buff, but I honestly "didn't get it" intuitively until I had played good ww2 flight sims, particularly vs other people. Now when I read first hand accounts, I see them as I read, and actually understand (in an internalized way) exactly what they are talking about.

So I think a game like this is a fun tool. I'd have used this with kids at the campus observatory back in the day in a heartbeat (as long as I didn't have to unteach them things that the game got wrong).

[tater]

Actually it has a pretty big impact on gameplay. A larger solar system means more delta-V to get places, which means larger transfer vehicles, which means larger launchers. Even a 2x Kerbin system wouldn't be drastic, though; you'd probably need another 1km/s to get to Eeloo or Moho.

I understand that, I meant in the grand scheme. A little extra delta v is no big deal, and not a gameplay changer, it just means you design slightly different rockets. I meant the way you play, and the overall feel, as well as the amount of player time it takes to play. You'd design slightly different rockets anyway, since an atmosphere and reentry will change ideal designs rather a lot. So you tack on a bigger booster. That's not a gameplay change, IMO (certainly no more than the default of removing the placeholder atmosphere will be).

[Guest]

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think actual physics should be learned from a text book. Games, documentaries and other audiovisual media have a role in education, but they can't replace books. If you want to train an engineer or a physicist, that person will have to read. And will have to get the actual figures and physics laws from books.

I think the strength of games like KSP in education isn't in becoming a ludic replacement of text books, but in enticing children and teenagers in developing an interest in hard sciences. Kind of how you aren't going to properly learn history by playing the Age of Empires campaigns or Assasin's Creed, but you may get interested enough in history to study it in depth.

Realistic densities, planetary sizes and reentry means 70 minutes long reentry procedures. So, if we go the route of "actual physics whenever possible so children learn the right way" we end up with "kids don't want to spend 70 minutes reentring Kerbin, and have quited playing". That way, you don't teach them anything, and they don't get interested in the field.

Trust me, learning is simple without books.

It won't take anywhere near 70mins to re-enter. Use some mods and find out.

[Guest]

I understand that, I meant in the grand scheme. A little extra delta v is no big deal, and not a gameplay changer, it just means you design slightly different rockets. I meant the way you play, and the overall feel, as well as the amount of player time it takes to play. You'd design slightly different rockets anyway, since an atmosphere and reentry will change ideal designs rather a lot. So you tack on a bigger booster. That's not a gameplay change, IMO (certainly no more than the default of removing the placeholder atmosphere will be).

That's very true. Even a full-blown RSS/RO install doesn't change how you play, really, it just means learning, memorizing, and taking new things into account.

Edited September 5, 2014 by regex
really? really?

[Levelord]

I've abstained from posting in this thread so far, but this video may be relevant.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Levelord

[ferram4]

How so? Most of the suggestions are based around how realism aspects would make standard intuition more useful in the game, which should make it more accessible to new players. A lot of the current unrealistic stuff just makes the game more confusing (do you remember when you learned nose cones were useless? Does that seem logical? Did it make you more confused about how the game worked?), not accessible.

[Guest]

I've abstained from posting in this thread, but this video may be relevant.

It's not. None of the things that have been discussed increase the level of complexity of play within KSP (save adding an Engineer-style information panel maybe, which a lot of people want). They do, however, fix behind-the-scenes inaccuracies. Even FAR can be used without the data analysis tools (I do it all the time); look at NEAR, for instance, which is basically just a rewritten, more forgiving FAR without the "confusing" tools. NEAR is a good example of what a stock aero overhaul could look like. It's accessible and not intimidating in the slightest.

E: ferram4 puts it even better than I did. Confusing the player's possible pre-existing knowledge is just ... backwards.

[Sky_walker]

I've abstained from posting in this thread, but this video may be relevant.

We already had a discussion on the topic of complexity. Regex managed to ninja me, and I fully agree with what he said just above me, but here's one of my responses to that, probably the most relevant one:

For those people claiming that the game is too difficult for a new players: Keep in mind that majority of learning curve comes from some illogical choices made by the developers and lack of proper information given to the player.

For me learning the game was a breeze once I found a wiki that explains oddities this game has. Like massless parts, lack of n-body physics, nose cones that are nothing more than a crippling parts, lack of any in-game comparison of the components (especially important for engines), lack of in-game Delta V screen or any other basic information (eg. GUI never tells you what's the aerodynamic pressure (so you know if you ascend too fast or too slow) and G-force gauge is so tiny and badly scaled that you can't get anything useful out of it).

New players really struggle to get anywhere because of all the oddities that KSP has (eg. that counting on a gravity turn is an idiotic thing to do - instead you should ascend till ~10km and then make 45 degree turn - game NEVER bothers to tell you that). In comparison getting a basic understanding of how orbital mechanic work with current navigation nodes is a breeze! (I did try KSP over a year ago - got discouraged by random guesswork after getting into the orbit - when I played it with the nav nodes - I instantly decided to purchase the game for myself - again an example that explaining stuff to the player makes an enormous difference)

Same with docking - docking wouldn't be even nearly as much of a problem as it is now if we'd have a proper docking camera with proper data displays (eg. velocity on XYZ axis in comparison to the target) - for me it's still MORE difficult to dock when I use "set target as" option on a docking port than doing it manually by observing the craft and moving the camera around - I automatically switch my focus the the gui which gives you some info, but there's just so many gaps between what I can seen and the info I need for successful docking that I usually end up either crashing or spinning off course.

KSP does relatively little to explain anything - hoping that players will "figure it out" (which ends with: read the forum / wiki / watch youtube or in most of the cases: RAGE QUIT) - and at the same time it does A LOT to add crapton of it's own oddities that are NOWHERE to be explained in the game itself.

[m4v]

A lot of the current unrealistic stuff just makes the game more confusing (do you remember when you learned nose cones were useless? Does that seem logical? Did it make you more confused about how the game worked?), not accessible.

You're hardly going to notice the 0.2% of dV you lose due to nose cones, their role is just aesthetics. What isn't intuitive is a plane breaking into pieces before you clear the runway because you just pitched up a bit.

Edited September 5, 2014 by m4v