Realism in KSP

[regex]

Orbital construction: part of what makes KSP fun for some people are the bizarre contraptions that can be put in orbit. A decent aerodynamic system, which is needed, will require fairings and cargo bays. Now, here's the catch: some things (rovers, bases, space stations) won't fit well inside fairings or cargo bays.

Payload ratios: KSP rockets, despite using heavier fuel tanks than real rockets and weaker engines, allow for a greater payload. Realism would need to cut the possible payload. Which means less stuff in orbit, which means less fun. IMHO, that would have to remain unrealistic.

I have an ultra-heavy lifter for RSS with a 15 meter fairing that can put 575 tons into orbit. I've put more tonnage into orbit under RSS/FAR in one launch than I ever have under stock (I think 119 tons was my record). Needing to put a station core into orbit, I tore off the upper stage, added some boosters, and made a 60-ton lifter with a 15m fairing. And mine isn't even the biggest lifter in RSS history; ferram4 has a rocket that'll put some 5,000 tons into orbit.

The point being that realism doesn't preclude "fun" stuff in the least. And I'm not even arguing for the "total realism" (lol) that I have in my RSS install here.

[Specialist290]

Friendly moderator reminder to the thread as a whole: We've noticed a distinct increasing trend towards passive-aggressive sniping and disparagement in some of the more recent posts. Let's try to keep that to a minimum, shall we?

[juanml82]

I have an ultra-heavy lifter for RSS with a 15 meter fairing that can put 575 tons into orbit. I've put more tonnage into orbit under RSS/FAR in one launch than I ever have under stock (I think 119 tons was my record). Needing to put a station core into orbit, I tore off the upper stage, added some boosters, and made a 60-ton lifter with a 15m fairing. And mine isn't even the biggest lifter in RSS history; ferram4 has a rocket that'll put some 5,000 tons into orbit.

http://i.imgur.com/JyiZIb0.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/CejpgvU.jpg

The point being that realism doesn't preclude "fun" stuff in the least. And I'm not even arguing for the "total realism" (lol) that I have in my RSS install here.

Well, FAR requires 3.5 km/s to make it to orbit. And you have a limit there - in width. Your station core is relatively narrow. Check this

[regex]

Well, FAR requires 3.5 km/s to make it to orbit.

Under RSS it takes more than 9km/s to get to orbit.

E: just realized I missed a joke there...

And you have a limit there - in width. Your station core is relatively narrow. Check this

That station core is 15 meters wide. I've put a bush plane with a 17 meter wingspan into orbit inside a fairing. While there is certainly an upper limit to fairing width, I also maintain that KSP stock probably has its own practical limit to payload width just based on the physics implementation. For that matter, you can launch stuff under FAR without fairings, you just need to be more careful.

Edited August 28, 2014 by regex

[Vanamonde]

You are time warping anyway. If you spend 2 minutes of real time time warping, it makes zero difference at all if you travel 100,000km in that time or 10,00,000km.There is no reason to not be in favor of arbitrarily large values for time warp, other than computational limitations.

You want higher warp factors, so that you can cross larger empty spaces, in the same amount of real time? Why not just not bother to scale up either in the first place if it's going to end up with the same experience from the player's end? This seems to me like an awful lot of effort just to end up back where you started out. To paraphrase, "If you spend 2 minutes of real time time warping, it makes zero difference at all if you travel 10,000,000km in that time or 100,000km."

[NathanKell]

Vanamonde: difference being that that is being used as an argument against increasing scale, an argument against the *advantages* of increasing scale. So if it does make zero difference, why not go with the approach that doesn't make kids think "lol the moon is so close i can build a plane to get there"--at least for the edu release, which is notionally about teaching kids about real spaceflight.

[ferram4]

@juanml82: Width of payloads is not an issue. I have a rocket that will put 5000 tonnes in orbit in RSS, and it's got a 36m payload fairing; I can stuff a Saturn V and a few other rockets in there and you'd still have room to spare. It's not like there are really many limits with this guy.

@Vanamonde: So then let's try going the other way then; why not scale down the universe even further? After all, if increasing the size of the universe will simply end up with the same experience for the player, why not make it smaller and we can then dispense with the problems of timewarp entirely?

There are gameplay differences in the flight profiles of rockets when you change the scales of the planets. Those are the things we want; the timewarp change is simply an adjustment to deal with the fact that space is huge, just like it is in the stock game. It's not like timewarp exists for its own sake.

[tater]

This. I'd bet many of the most active members here have been playing for over a year and have mastered most of the challenges the game throws at the players. And now they approach the game thinking on new challenges. In the meantime, there are often threads in the gameplay forum about people who can't land in the Mun, or are running out of money - as well as a lot of people who don't want to do maths to play a videogame.

I've been playing a week? Maybe 2. My first post here was either made the first day I DLed, or I think the next day. I played a couple of the tutorials, messed with 2 scenarios (one was the station, and I switched to the spaceplane not realizing I had to egress the station to board it This resulted in a not terribly effective EVA (now you know where those "rescue a Kerbal" missions come from). I then started a science career, and in the space of a couple slowly consumed beers, landed on the Mun a couple times within that career.

My only caveat is that I'm not entirely unfamiliar with orbital mechanics.

The answer to this is simple: difficulty sliders. And KSP can provide real difficulty sliders instead of "play against an AI who cheats more or less depending on the difficulty".

I'd image all the "aim for realism" people would entirely agree with sliders.

Also, while I don't have a background in rocket engineering or space sciences in general, it seems that some of the demands of "realism" are rather "gameplay I like":

Life support: LS isn't just a few new parts with snacks and other new resources which deplete over time - a clockdown timer, if you will. LS for a manned mission to Jool or Eeloo requires living space, serious radiation shielding and artificial gravity. The latter which is accomplished by spinning the ship against a counterweight such as an expended stage. And realism would also require tackling the radiation issue. The idea of a trip to Mars which would expose the crew to more than a year of radiation has been discarded by NASA because it would expose the astronauts to an unacceptable cancer risk. "Total" realism would have to deal with it. Does a Duna manned mission end with Jeb undergoing cancer treatment?

This is a common trope by anti-realism people in all games "if you don't model going to the bathroom, or stirring your coffee it's not 'total realism'!" The timer aspect can be in there, and the other expendables can be abstracted. ANy abstraction is better than not thinking about it at all. Minimal shielding can be assumed in small capsules, and any habitation module can be assumed to have either enough shielding for nominal radiation, or possibly a "storm shelter" for solar flares. It need not be all or nothing, and not one person here has asked for "total realism, anyway that I have seen. Nothing even close.

SSTOs: They would have to be impossible without Rapiers. Forget all the discussion about how jets are represented in the game. An aircraft that carries the weight of jet engines and fuel plus liquid fuel rockets and their fuel and achieves orbit without dropping anything is unrealistic. A spaceplane carried to the upper atmosphere by a carrier aircraft and refueled before injecting itself into orbit is, OTOH, more realistic, but also requires changes in the game as we can't currently fly a detachable spaceship while also returning the carrier aircraft to the airfield. Now, question, are players who like SSTOs and realism willing to forget all about non Rapier powered spaceplanes?

I am (willing to forget unrealistic spaceplanes, entirely). So far I've stayed away from any spaceplanes because I think they are too magical. A simple solution might be some sort of autopilot capability, the carrier craft might circle at some altitude until the player can get into orbit, then come back and take the plane over. Honestly, in a single player game there is no reason not to simply have the carrier "pause" and wait, with the clock reset for the landing phase (you'd watch a reply of your spacecraft fly off into space as you landed the carrier).

Communications: Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that NASA manages their interstellar probes from ground based communication facilities. Remotech might be fun, but my understanding is that it's not required for realism at all.

If you assume ground stations at the planet surface in enough places, commo can be assumed. It seems like that needs some work anyway, else there is little reason not to use the base antenna, anyway (certainly a high-gain for farther travelling craft).

Timescale: expending more than an hour of realtime in landing a spaceplane isn't fun. Heck, current 10 minutes long burns aren't fun and, specially regarding ions, they aren't realistic at all. Me thinks part of this should be handled by a "Ion burn warp" or something that works in the background (as ion engines are supposed to burn for months) and some sort of pre-run of physics before a physics timewarp: basically, if your ship is sound and wouldn't break apart during a 10 minute burn, the game should calculate that before hand and let you do a 10x physics warp without tearing the ship apart.

Good ideas.

Orbital construction: part of what makes KSP fun for some people are the bizarre contraptions that can be put in orbit. A decent aerodynamic system, which is needed, will require fairings and cargo bays. Now, here's the catch: some things (rovers, bases, space stations) won't fit well inside fairings or cargo bays. That's why the ISS was assembled in orbit, why some habitats might be inflatable and why stuff like larger rovers could be shipped in parts and assembled in the ground. However, that requires a better docking system which doesn't wobble and some KAS/Infernal Robotics analog which allows in situ assembly and disassembly. On top, we have multiple launches. Some players might find launching a lot of standardized rockets which work perfectly over and over as something fun. Some other players do not. As Sid Meyer said "a good videogame is a succession of interesting choices". Putting standardized rockets with standardized payloads in orbit isn't a succession of interesting choices. Maybe a "skip to orbit" ala hyperedit would have to be added if the same kind of rocket was already put in orbit?

Yeah, I think this is a good idea as well. Some sort of automation would help for larger scale space programs. The player is "R&D," and some routine launches are merely scheduled. The credit system really should look into the ability to set standard designs which can be "in the shed" and ready to launch with some sort of price reduction. Such standard craft, and cargos could be auto-launched into a marshaling area.

KER, MJ and docking aids: landing, docking and construction aren't done by eyeballing. Realism also require additional information, docking cameras and navball aids, landing and aerobreakes calculators, delta-v information and probably other aids I'm forgetting right now. This actually makes the game easier and less daunting. New players would know from the beginning if the rocket they are making can make it to orbit or not without having to check the wiki and downloading mods.

True enough. In my 2 weeks playing, the hardest thing so far was getting decent at matching orbits and docking. (all my play has been vanilla, BTW).

Payload ratios: KSP rockets, despite using heavier fuel tanks than real rockets and weaker engines, allow for a greater payload. Realism would need to cut the possible payload. Which means less stuff in orbit, which means less fun. IMHO, that would have to remain unrealistic.

I disagree here. I've now built a couple stations (1 in my first, science career, another in my newer "real" career), and I did it entirely for fun as they are completely unnecessary in the game as far as I can tell. If there was a REASON to build them, so much the better. For example, if you put a station up with a certain "SAB" (Spacecraft Assembly Bay) module, and can demonstrate a rocket that can lift cargo of a certain mass to it, the automated system you suggest for repeat launches places those upper stages within physics distance of the station. There might be a new part that is a standard cargo pod. Perhaps the same "proof of delivery" run could allow those pods to appear docked with the station at the SAB for future use.

Edited August 28, 2014 by tater

[Tortoise]

No-ones pushing for total realism. And squad knows what they're doing anyways.

I only want realistic aerodynamics in atmospheres and hydrodynamics.

[NathanKell]

I am (willing to forget unrealistic spaceplanes, entirely). So far I've stayed away from any spaceplanes because I think they are too magical. A simple solution might be some sort of autopilot capability, the carrier craft might circle at some altitude until the player can get into orbit, then come back and take the plane over. Honestly, in a single player game there is no reason not to simply have the carrier "pause" and wait, with the clock reset for the landing phase (you'd watch a reply of your spacecraft fly off into space as you landed the carrier).

There's a mod for that.

[tater]

There's a mod for that.

There are a lot of mods. Sorry, I'm a noob (though I try and read ahead to make sure I'm not posting crap already dismissed, etc).

Glad to see it's a good idea

[NathanKell]

Oh, I totally wasn't criticizing; just saving you some googling.

[Vanamonde]

So if it does make zero difference, why not go with the approach that doesn't make kids think "lol the moon is so close i can build a plane to get there"--at least for the edu release, which is notionally about teaching kids about real spaceflight.

I wouldn't have a problem with rescaling the educational version. I don't feel it's necessary, but I can see the value of increased realism there. But why shoehorn that change into the normal game, where it serves no purpose?

@Vanamonde: So then let's try going the other way then; why not scale down the universe even further? After all, if increasing the size of the universe will simply end up with the same experience for the player, why not make it smaller and we can then dispense with the problems of timewarp entirely?

Smaller with lower warp values? I would have no problem with that. Except that, like the scaling-up, both would require the developers to spend time re-working something that already works just fine, instead of adding new features to the game. That is the major basis of my objection. Make the game universe bigger/smaller and introduce larger/smaller warp values, and the devs have wasted umpteen staff hours just to arrive back where they started, with the game we're already playing except for the number of zeroes in the distance measurements.

[JDCollie]

There are a lot of mods. Sorry, I'm a noob (though I try and read ahead to make sure I'm not posting crap already dismissed, etc).

Glad to see it's a good idea

No worries bro. Think of it like the KSP version of Rule 34. If you think of it, someone will make a mod of it. No exceptions.

[ferram4]

Smaller with lower warp values? I would have no problem with that. Except that, like the scaling-up, both would require the developers to spend time re-working something that already works just fine, instead of adding new features to the game. That is the major basis of my objection. Make the game universe bigger/smaller and introduce larger/smaller warp values, and the devs have wasted umpteen staff hours just to arrive back where they started, with the game we're already playing except for the number of zeroes in the distance measurements.

Ok, so the argument is wasted time. Then consider this:

What if they implemented an aerodynamic model that caused the dV to orbit to change drastically? We know that'll happen, regardless of if they go for a realistic (low drag loss) model or if they go for a lol-stock model, because either one will end up considering how to make the rockets pilot-able, and in the process the drag forces will be set to something different than what they are currently. Once that happens, suddenly the balance of the system is out of whack, because all of the engines and tanks are balanced around 4.5 km/s dV to orbit. At that point, wouldn't it be easier and faster to simply scale up the planets to place the dV-to-orbit at the same point as it was prior to an aerodynamics overhaul?

The only other options are to nerf Isp or dry mass to reduce the dV for a given rocket size (which then has the negative effect of encouraging more staging in an atmosphere, and with a more realistic drag model staging can seriously upset the stability of a rocket, meaning it would be much harder for new players).

So, if the game gets an aerodynamic overhaul, and that overhaul will almost certainly change the dV to orbit, then it will be faster to rescale planets, which can be done with a single item to change rather than changing a bunch of parts.

[tntristan12]

Massive Snip

You've clearly put some serious thought into this.

[tygoo7]

I don't really have a problem with up-scaled planets. I just don't want them to be 1:1. I would rather have them in between like regrex said.

[tater]

Oh, I totally wasn't criticizing; just saving you some googling.

I didn't think you were, I was just pointing out my lack of long-term forum knowledge for reference.

[Vanamonde]

Once that happens, suddenly the balance of the system is out of whack, because all of the engines and tanks are balanced around 4.5 km/s dV to orbit.

I'm not following your argument here. Why do you say the engines and tanks are "balanced" to deliver certain dVs? One can combine several sizes of engines with varying numbers and sizes of tanks to achieve larger or smaller total dVs, which means there is no single balance to any engine or tank by itself. Why wouldn't players simply choose different models and numbers of parts while constructing their ships, requiring no rescaling of the celestial bodies? A major change might require the tweaking of engine statistics, but that's already been done a few times, without resorting to an alteration to the entire game universe.

Also, you're assuming that there's going to be a reason for rescaling, and then using it as a justitication for rescaling. If they change the aerodynamics and if this change should it turn out that it actually does call for a rescaling of the planets, I would no longer consider this a pointless exercise. But that's only one hypothetical response to a situation that doesn't exist yet and might not ever, and until such time as this hypothetical situation should come to pass, rescaling the planets is a solution looking for a problem.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Vanamonde

[ferram4]

I mean, in the sense that if engines and tanks had anything near realistic Isps, masses, and thrusts that most of the rockets people build for getting to a 100 km parking orbit on Kerbin would be more than capable of getting to a 150 km parking orbit around Eve. The fact is that engines have 1/2 - 1/3 the TWR of their real-life counterparts while fuel tanks have nearly 10 times the dry mass of their real life counterparts. This works out to seriously increase the amount of mass needed for a given dV. This is necessary, or else you would have people complaining that something slightly larger than the Soyuz 3rd stage can put a Soyuz in orbit around Kerbin (considering that stage alone has ~3 km/s but much lower Isp than KSP engines, that's not hard to see happening). Our rockets are artificially larger in order to fit expectations.

Oh, it's also good to see someone else who doesn't see an aerodynamic overhaul as a given. I thought I was the only one who expected it to be dropped.

[Frozen_Heart]

For people claiming the game is too easy: Keep in mind that you are experienced players. New players to KSP really struggle to even get into orbit and understanding the game takes quite a while. I've tried to get many of my friends into KSP and all of them quickly give up due to it either taking too long to do anything or just being way too difficult.

I'm not suggesting making it easier but I also thing that making it more difficult would drive a lot of players away.

Realism wise I do agree that the aerodynamics need to be more like NEAR and moderate re-entry heat should be added. I'm not a fan of life support as having to micromanage every ship I put up just wouldn't be fun.

[Sky_walker]

For people claiming the game is too easy: Keep in mind that you are experienced players.

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.

I'm not a fan of life support as having to micromanage every ship I put up just wouldn't be fun.

You don't micro-manage anything. You just load food like you load fuel - enough to accomplish the mission (again: GUI - game needs to explain stuff to the player, stop forcing that stupid guesswork!). Noone is asking for a "feed Jeb" option.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Navy2k]

I don't think Squad should make it as real as possible, they should make it as fun and entertaining as possible.

And when KSP 1.0 is out we will have all the mods we need and they don't change as much as now in the development for us Realism Junkies so the Mod Devs can sink in to fine tune every part.

Greetings

Ben

[SofusRud]

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 ~100km and then make 45 degree turn - game NEVER bothers to tell you that).

While I agree that a lot of the challenge can be mitigated with a better gui and removal of the "oddities" as you put it, I must ask you, and I'm sorry if I'm getting off-topic, but where in world did you get the idea that ascending till 100km and then making a 45 degree turn is in any way a good idea? Or did you just mean 10km? (even so it can be done better), if so I take your point as being about the soupy atmosphere.

[Jovus]

SofusRud, I think that was simply a typo. It seems a fairly easy one to make - it's just one more zero.