Realism in KSP

[r_rolo1]

Yeah, I also still have the resources thing stuck in the throat :/ TBH it still makes no sense to me that decision, since it would push players to make things bases in other bodies, instead of the touch and go thing we still have now ( well, atleast there is already a reason to drop sats ... it is not a partcularly good one, but still, better than nothing ). ANd about the dV readouts, HarvesteR actuaclly said later ( somewhere ) that he wasn't oposed to having dV readouts or similar stuff , but he was against it being given to the player since 0 hour... maybe he wants dV readouts being a unlockable feature ? :/

[Guest]

Now it's actually interesting to wait for a next patch, not frustrating.

I actually agree with that and I'm quite happy they're getting back to actually putting some information into dev notes, but the glaring lack of any long-term roadmap just tells me they have no plan whatsoever aside from the current arcadey features.

Anyway, I made some bug reports:

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/2963

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/2965

[juanml82]

Yeah, I also still have the resources thing stuck in the throat :/ TBH it still makes no sense to me that decision, since it would push players to make things bases in other bodies, instead of the touch and go thing we still have now ( well, atleast there is already a reason to drop sats ... it is not a partcularly good one, but still, better than nothing ). ANd about the dV readouts, HarvesteR actuaclly said later ( somewhere ) that he wasn't oposed to having dV readouts or similar stuff , but he was against it being given to the player since 0 hour... maybe he wants dV readouts being a unlockable feature ? :/

Well, it would have to be very early in the tech tree. You can pile rockets and fuel tanks and expect it to make it to orbit after trial and error, but if you truly want to plan a Mun landing, you should have delta-v readouts

[Guest]

Well, it would have to be very early in the tech tree. You can pile rockets and fuel tanks and expect it to make it to orbit after trial and error, but if you truly want to plan a Mun landing, you should have delta-v readouts

The problem is that KSP doesn't even give you the tools to calculate delta-V yourself. In order to correctly calculate delta-V you need to know to total mass of the parts on your ship, which is tough to do if you don't know which parts are massless. It would be really nice if SQUAD could give us a readout of at least the wet and dry mass of each stage as calculated in flight. That way, the player could decide whether to use it or not.

[Red Iron Crown]

Restricting delta-V/TWR readouts via the tech tree is silly IMO, that just makes players who understand dV calculate it manually, with a mod, or with an external tool again. Make it available right from Day 1, that gives players the best opportunity to learn about and utilize the information.

[m4v]

What'll actually happen is SQUAD will drop the ball (so to speak) by claiming the feature(s) "aren't fun". Then they'll use a "it really doesn't matter to the average player" excuse for the little corrections proposed here, and then claim that a mod does it better in the case of aerodynamics. Basically we're going to continue getting a mediocre arcade game instead of what could have been a great scaled-down simulator (and it really wouldn't take much to get there, IMO).

SQUAD has a history of disappointment with me, and I presume others, and I don't have any reason to expect that to change.

I like a lot this mediocre arcade game though.

[Sky_walker]

I like a lot this mediocre arcade game though.

Try it with mods that add bits of realism. They make it much better.

[juanml82]

The problem is that KSP doesn't even give you the tools to calculate delta-V yourself. In order to correctly calculate delta-V you need to know to total mass of the parts on your ship, which is tough to do if you don't know which parts are massless. It would be really nice if SQUAD could give us a readout of at least the wet and dry mass of each stage as calculated in flight. That way, the player could decide whether to use it or not.

KER and MJ do that job fairly well as things stand now. It might not be fully accurate, but it's perfectly acceptable as a way to calculate if the ship you're building is good enough for the intended task

Restricting delta-V/TWR readouts via the tech tree is silly IMO, that just makes players who understand dV calculate it manually, with a mod, or with an external tool again. Make it available right from Day 1, that gives players the best opportunity to learn about and utilize the information.

Well, it can work with the idea of attaching a lot of legos together and seeing what happens. But it's impossible to plan anything beyond "see if you can make it to orbit" without delta-v information.

And it diminishes the gameplay experience: a new player finally makes to orbit. He plans a maneuver node to make it to the Mun. He doesn't know if he has enough fuel to complete the burn. He tries anyway and he does. He gets captured by the Mun. Now he doesn't know if he has enough fuel to land. He tries anyway. He doesn't know when or how much he's supposed to burn to slow down. He crashes over and over until he finally makes it. Now he can't return from the Mun because the rocket he built wasn't able to do so from the mere beginning, and he didn't now it.

[r_rolo1]

Restricting delta-V/TWR readouts via the tech tree is silly IMO, that just makes players who understand dV calculate it manually, with a mod, or with an external tool again. Make it available right from Day 1, that gives players the best opportunity to learn about and utilize the information.

Maybe the idea is to put that not directly under the VAB, but on the Admin ? Put enough Kerbrains and cash in the planning and you get dV readouts ...

[m4v]

Try it with mods that add bits of realism. They make it much better.

You assume.

[Red Iron Crown]

Well, it can work with the idea of attaching a lot of legos together and seeing what happens. But it's impossible to plan anything beyond "see if you can make it to orbit" without delta-v information.

My first Mun landing was done without calculating delta-V, and I know that there are many players who don't calculate it at all, even for interplanetary flights. I like the information, but the game is not impossible without it, just more difficult.

And it diminishes the gameplay experience: a new player finally makes to orbit. He plans a maneuver node to make it to the Mun. He doesn't know if he has enough fuel to complete the burn. He tries anyway and he does. He gets captured by the Mun. Now he doesn't know if he has enough fuel to land. He tries anyway. He doesn't know when or how much he's supposed to burn to slow down. He crashes over and over until he finally makes it. Now he can't return from the Mun because the rocket he built wasn't able to do so from the mere beginning, and he didn't now it.

While I agree with this, some players like that uncertainty and feel it adds to the gameplay experience. Maybe the dV meter should be disableable, like quicksaves and revert.

[Red Iron Crown]

Maybe the idea is to put that not directly under the VAB, but on the Admin ? Put enough Kerbrains and cash in the planning and you get dV readouts ...

Again, that just makes players who know about delta-V calculate it through other means. Not really a fan, though if it's the price we pay to get a stock dV meter count me in.

[Sky_walker]

You assume.

I know. From experience.

While I agree with this, some players like that uncertainty and feel it adds to the gameplay experience. Maybe the dV meter should be disableable, like quicksaves and revert.

Is "disableable" a new universal answer to every concern?

That should fall into "there's absolutely no reason not to fix that" category. Just like dead-weight nose cones are.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Renegrade]

The problem is that KSP doesn't even give you the tools to calculate delta-V yourself. In order to correctly calculate delta-V you need to know to total mass of the parts on your ship, which is tough to do if you don't know which parts are massless. It would be really nice if SQUAD could give us a readout of at least the wet and dry mass of each stage as calculated in flight. That way, the player could decide whether to use it or not.

There is a mass readout under the Info button in the map screen; I believe it's an actual mass (as in massless objects count as 0 there). That's how I used to do my 'by hand' calculations. Launch a stage or set of stages -> scribble down mass -> revert to VAB.

Having a real mass indicator inside the VAB would be enormously more convenient, of course. Displaying the mass of non-massed objects as '0' or '-' or 'n/a' in their info sheets would be very nice too. Making the stock CoM understand them as well would be good, if we're fixing up mass problems..

[Guest]

You assume.

Assumption is not based around experience.

[Red Iron Crown]

s "disableable" a new universal answer to every concern?

That should fall into "there's absolutely no reason not to fix that" category. Just like dead-weight nose cones are.

There's different schools of thought on this. I personally thought that making quicksave/revert disableable was silly, because you can just not quicksave or revert. However, judging by the feedback about it, the feature is used and enjoyed a lot. So if some players don't want a dV meter and want to be able to disable it, why not?

[m4v]

I know. From experience.

Realism doesn't make a game better, that's why we have powerful ion engines, radiationless nervas and lack features that can limit the rockets you can make such as better aerodynamics or re-entry damage. And the realistic live support mods I tried only increased the amount of micromanagement I have to do.

[Guest]

Realism doesn't make a game better, that's why we have powerful ion engines, radiationless nervas and lack features that can limit the rockets you can make such as better aerodynamics or re-entry damage. And the realistic live support mods I tried only increased the amount of micromanagement I have to do.

..Which is why we want things to change.

[r_rolo1]

Well, in the save/revert issue, I just can't see how we can have a game suposedely based in trial and error and without saves/revert, unless you want to go Nintendo Hard , especially when Jeb or whoever is first in line in the avaliable pilots jumps into every capsule it can ( and jumps out of every hitchhiker and lab ... ).

[TimePeriod]

Toggle.

That's the best option for every possible addition to KSP.

Don't like it? Turn it off.

Want more it? Turn in on.

[Guest]

There is a mass readout under the Info button in the map screen; I believe it's an actual mass (as in massless objects count as 0 there). That's how I used to do my 'by hand' calculations. Launch a stage or set of stages -> scribble down mass -> revert to VAB.

Yeah, that's terribly inconvenient and not very useful for staging. It's downright bad that the information isn't available in the VAB.

Having a real mass indicator inside the VAB would be enormously more convenient, of course. Displaying the mass of non-massed objects as '0' or '-' or 'n/a' in their info sheets would be very nice too. Making the stock CoM understand them as well would be good, if we're fixing up mass problems..

Exactly.

[DaMichel]

Mediocre, arcady game you call KSP? Now you're trolling

When you show KSP to the average gamer, he/she will be like "What??! this is way too nerdy! I rather play *insert shooter type game, MMO or whatever*". I certainly got these sort of reactions from friends and colleagues.

The game could be better though

[cantab]

And it diminishes the gameplay experience: a new player finally makes to orbit. He plans a maneuver node to make it to the Mun. He doesn't know if he has enough fuel to complete the burn. He tries anyway and he does.

For a given ship design, once you've done one burn and noticed the fuel consumption, it's not hard to roughly estimate how much further your fuel will go. Indeed you'll tend to be conservative because your fuel goes further as you burn some off.

[juanml82]

For a given ship design, once you've done one burn and noticed the fuel consumption, it's not hard to roughly estimate how much further your fuel will go. Indeed you'll tend to be conservative because your fuel goes further as you burn some off.

And then you put those roughly estimates in an excel spreadsheet because, unless you only fly on mission at once, you'll have several type of ships and you'll have to write down that information.

Then you'll also attempt a Mun landing and write down the fuel consumption in the excel spreadsheet. Then, if your ship fell short, you'll use the excel spreadsheet to manually calculate delta-v while building a better design in the VAB.

[NathanKell]

m4v: I affirm your lived experience, though it differs from my own.

(And a moderator note: You know how it's super annoying when someone talks about how MJ is cheating, and You Should Only Play One Way? Don't do that here. We can and should talk about what more realism here and there adds to the game, or how it fixes things without diminishing gameplay experience, but telling people they're wrong about what they find fun? Not cool. Goes both ways of course, and that also means the "realism is unfun, objectively" stuff is out of bounds too, but...you get the point.)