Realism in KSP

[Harry Rhodan]

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.

When I first played KSP people told me that I'm insane to play a game that doesn't tell you as much information as Orbiter and I got to Mun without knowing how much delta v I would have needed to get back. And people who play shooters know at least how much damage a weapon inflicts while we still have to guess how far we can get with our fuel without mods.

[O-Doc]

Aye, and with FAR, aspect ratio and chord and sweep angle all do matter; they have for a very long time. So your complaint is...?

Wow, that's awesome ferram4! I had assumed that because you can't modify parts that they won't be coded for FAR. My respect for your skills have just gone to a new level.

Now I'm going to have a browse through FAR source code...

[Renegrade]

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

Well, you can break apart the rocket and 'weigh' the stages in series, but then that adds the very not cool risk of accidentally saving a ship after it's beautiful, painstakingly balanced and optimized launch stage was temporarily removed.

That's why I switched to mods in the end. I'd say I'd lost about three brand new launchers, and I thought 'enough is enough, I grok this math already'. Now I use KER in the VAB, and VOID in space.

Having a nice staged mass indicator in the VAB would make stock enormously more convenient.

[cantab]

I think if we do get a delta-V readout in stock, it's more likely to simply be for the current lowest stage in the VAB, and currently firing engines in launch. If you build your rockets top-down that suffices for most cases, and the more complicated cases even KER can't handle.

[m4v]

I think if we do get a delta-V readout in stock, it's more likely to simply be for the current lowest stage in the VAB, and currently firing engines in launch. If you build your rockets top-down that suffices for most cases, and the more complicated cases even KER can't handle.

You can have engines that run out of fuel at different times in the same stage (like having SRBs without decouplers), calculating dV is a PITA.

[NathanKell]

Which is why it's a good idea to have code to do it for you.

(Although what would be really interesting, which AFAIK nothing's really attempted yet, would be a payload calculator--because delta v expended to orbit varies with TWR)

[juanml82]

Which is why it's a good idea to have code to do it for you.

(Although what would be really interesting, which AFAIK nothing's really attempted yet, would be a payload calculator--because delta v expended to orbit varies with TWR)

That would be cool. It can be done by putting a decoupler on top and stacking jumbo tanks to get an idea, but an actual payload calculator would be neater

[NathanKell]

Eh?

I mean the fact that "delta V = nomimal dv to orbit" is at best an approximation of how much the launcher can lift. This calculator is an example of what I mean.

[tater]

I modded up while my wife was trapped at work for almost 24 hours… Added FAR/DRE/Snacks/procedural fairings (so I could make verbal-like stuff, and actually get it in orbit).

Aside from a couple nasty mishaps working out where the envelope was, no problems at all. Definitely need to be a little more careful (which I like), but not really a big deal. I won't be doing any insertions from the Mun that directly pancake on Kerbin, but aside from thinking a little, not much changed for me.

[juanml82]

Eh?

I mean the fact that "delta V = nomimal dv to orbit" is at best an approximation of how much the launcher can lift. This calculator is an example of what I mean.

I thought you meant "how much can this booster lift to LKO"

[Guest]

I modded up while my wife was trapped at work for almost 24 hours… Added FAR/DRE/Snacks/procedural fairings (so I could make verbal-like stuff, and actually get it in orbit).

Aside from a couple nasty mishaps working out where the envelope was, no problems at all. Definitely need to be a little more careful (which I like), but not really a big deal. I won't be doing any insertions from the Mun that directly pancake on Kerbin, but aside from thinking a little, not much changed for me.

Once you get the hang of things it's not any more difficult than stock, there's just more to think about. In fact, even with life support I don't find myself "micro-managing". I have a feeling you'd do just fine with a full Realism Overhaul install, as would most players who have experience with FAR (not trying to push anyone that way, just making a point).

I made a spaceplane under FAR/DRE in the stock solar system this weekend because it's something I've never done before (I'll step up at some point, but the 9.5km/s to orbit in a plane is daunting). Actually, I made two different planes. The first broke up under aerodynamic stress while trying to find a landing spot well after reentry, the second I landed successfully in the desert after a pretty harrowing reentry. I don't have a flight stick so errors are more pronounced but it's not especially difficult per se, you just have to be attentive. The flight sequence to orbit is a lot different than what I'd do under stock; much more shallow climb and you ignite the rockets much earlier.

Anyway, it's nice to see someone else take that step and find that it's not that much different, you just have to relearn some things.

[tater]

Yeah, I'll try RSS at some point I'm sure.

What I'd really want with an RSS type mod would be to have a suite of mods together, including a better career. I prefer "career" to sandbox, just because I'd tend to do the same things over and over in sandbox, and I like to be randomly driven a certain way sometimes to liven things up.

But yeah, I was sort of surprised what a non-issue FAR/DRE/Snacks have been. So far, of those 3---even with snacks being highly abstracted as life support goes---snacks is by far the more "difficult" since you really do need to think about not abandoning poor Jeb on the Mun. FAR and DRE have obvious changes in rocket design, but other than that only really punish profoundly dumb behavior.

Fun.

[m4v]

Which is why it's a good idea to have code to do it for you.

I was referring that writing code that calculates dV is a big PITA.

[Guest]

So this happened:

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/2965#change-11783

Since when do forum mods like Geschosskopf determine the direction of the game? Is this for real?

[Dunbaratu]

So this happened:

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/2965#change-11783

Since when do forum mods like Geschosskopf determine the direction of the game? Is this for real?

The issue you linked to is flagged as "not a bug", meaning they won't actually make the change you seem to be afraid they'll make.

[Guest]

The issue you linked to is flagged as "not a bug", meaning they won't actually make the change you seem to be afraid they'll make.

The issue was flagged as "not a bug" by user Geschosskopf, who I am assuming is the same person as the moderator on these forums, with a note that reads:

A known simplification of the game. Not a bug, all working as intended. KSP isn't a simulator so takes certain liberties.

Since when do forum moderators determine the direction of this game?

[Red Iron Crown]

So this happened:

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/2965#change-11783

Since when do forum mods like Geschosskopf determine the direction of the game? Is this for real?

AFAIK Geschosskopf is not a forum mod. Not familiar enough with the bugtracker to say who can change the status of a reported bug, it may not even require special privileges.

I don't really see constant thrust as a simplification, though. Either thrust or fuel flow is going to vary, I don't see changing fuel flow as any simpler.

[Guest]

AFAIK Geschosskopf is not a forum mod. Not familiar enough with the bugtracker to say who can change the status of a reported bug, it may not even require special privileges.

He has manager privileges on the bugtracker. Is he a SQUAD employee? I'll freely admit, getting "gatekeepered" by someone who is vehemently against any sort of improvement in the realism in this game is pretty infuriating, especially when that is an obvious bug.

[Camacha]

I would not know why you would be against that, even if you are not up for realism. I mean, a new aerodynamics model will mess up people's crafts pretty good, but this should make very little impact for the casual player, while people who look for realism can use more real world based calculations.

[Red Iron Crown]

He has manager privileges on the bugtracker. Is he a SQUAD employee? I'll freely admit, getting "gatekeepered" by someone who is vehemently against any sort of improvement in the realism in this game is pretty infuriating, especially when that is an obvious bug.

I don't think he's a Squad employee (most of the managers are not Squad employees, many are modders). It is interesting that your bug report is the only one he's ever managed that way, at least according to the activity log on his profile there.

[Guest]

I don't think he's a Squad employee (most of the managers are not Squad employees, many are modders). It is interesting that your bug report is the only one he's ever managed that way, at least according to the activity log on his profile there.

Ted moved it to "Feature Request"...

[Rowsdower]

TED sums this one up well. There's no gatekeeping happening here and no personal agendas being driven.

[tater]

While I agree it is not technically a "bug," neither would a spelling error (or poor word choice or grammar) in a text description be a bug. Nothing to do with programming (particularly use of english vs a typo), not a bug. Where would one report such a thing, as proper grammar is not a "feature request?" In this case they repeatedly use "Isp" in descriptions, and Isp is a real thing, with a real definition. How would one report an expression that should use acceleration using velocity, instead, for example?

Edited September 8, 2014 by tater

[Guest]

While I agree it is not technically a "bug," neither would a spelling error (or poor word choice or grammar) in a text description be a bug. Nothing to do with programming (particularly use of english vs a typo), not a bug. Where would one report such a thing, as proper grammar is not a "feature request?" In this case they repeatedly use "Isp" in descriptions, and Isp is a real thing, with a real definition. How would one report an expression that should use acceleration using velocity, instead, for example?

They should just call it "fnorp" or something, because this is a game, not a simulator, amirite?

We'll just have to be satisfied with an obvious inaccuracy in the math being a "feature request". At least it's not closed anymore.

[Ted]

I will reiterate on this topic of "gatekeepers" that they are in no way dictating the direction of the game. They are however providing a volunteer service of performing triage on the many, many issue reports that we receive on the tracker. Their personal opinion on the game does not in any way come into their duty, they provide an objective service and adhere to guidelines and documentation provided by myself. Every one of the Managers on the public tracker project is either an Experimental Team or a QA Team member and I know each and every one of them well.

If you honestly feel that there is a bias being enacted on the tracker triage, that you are being unfairly targeted due to your personal opinions on the development of KSP and that your issue reports are being supressed to ensure they don't get read, please don't hesitate to contact me and I will deal with the matter with complete and utter sincerity.