Realism in KSP

[tntristan12]

Sal: thank you for putting the right words into this discussion. Indeed, accuracy is an important feature in many respects. When the game is not accurate it confuses players because they are expecting something different (re-entry heat for example).

While I disagree that life support isn't a vital stock feature (ftr I think a limited implementation is vital), there are some features that should be present, but left with room to expand.

I think the best example of this is remotetech. In the stock game you have instantaneous control over all unmanned assets anywhere in the solar system, but to transmit data back you still need an antenna. This can be headcanon'd any number of ways that don't require too much suspension of disbelief. With the stock framework, the mod's addition of line of sight and light lagged communication enhances the game in a way that more experienced players can appreciate, but are not vital to the experience of the game.

Perhaps with the introduction of difficulty options, we will see more varied implementation of these controversial features. A simple on-off switch to toggle light lagging in the above example, for instance.

[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.

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.

Hey, you're the one with a signature talking about people putting flat space stations in orbit. And you do realize that putting 575 tons in orbit isn't realistic, right?

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.

I don't think radiation will (or should) be modeled at all. Frankly, a videogame in which your characters die of cancer is going to earn some bad publicity. And it would make certain parts of the Kerbol system unreachable by manned aircraft.

However, my point is along the lines of "what do we talk about when we're talking about realism". Because it seems to me that "realism" is centered around making DRE/FAR/TAC-LS stock. And regarding life support, consumable supplies are only one part of the issues regarding long manned spaceflight. Even more, if we assume the kerbals developed highly efficient waste and air recycling technologies (maybe aided by their alien physiology), then more than TAC-LS we're talking about Snacks.

Plus the thing is, supplies is the less complicated issue manned spaceflight has to tackle - it's a matter of additional weight. Manned spaceflight also faces hardships much more difficult to solve which aren't usually discussed when we discuss "realism", specially so regarding the educational variant of the game: long term exposure to microgravity, radiation, stress and other mental issues. For all we know, long Hoffman transfers (like those used in KSP) to other planets with manned ships will never be implemented and, instead, manned missions to Mars will be done using Vasimir engines to reach Mars in 40 days instead of months.

Now, as I said, I don't think radiation should be modeled. Cancer is a touchy topic and it provides little gameplay anyway. Yes, a solar flare may kill your manned missions on route. That's realistic. But what can the player do about it? IMHO random failures the player can't successfully work out hamper the gameplay experience.

Microgravity requires different ship building, probably using Infernal Robotics and/or KAS to deploy a counterweight. So far, no mod that I know works in that direction and it doesn't look like Squad is considering it anyway.

Psychological problems can be dealt with "house rules": Don't send any interplanetary mission with less than three kerbals, at least one hitchhiker module and maybe even a cupola for the view. I think this sort of things can be added, by Squad or by mods, once reputation and the kerbonauts stats become meaningful: send a single kerbonaut in an MK1 lander can in a mission to Eeloo and you take a huge hit on reputation. Plus, the kerbonaut stats become meaningfully bad, to the point that you have to discharge him once he returns. Maybe the game can simulate dementia: reach Eeloo, land, and the kerbonaut will go on EVA on his own, do cartwheels, fail to operate a rover (if any) and do any other crazy stuff (without destroying your ship or refusing to carry out a critical maneuver). Send, however, three kerbonauts in a ship with ample space and their stats improve, your reputation grows and they are fully reliable once they finally reach their destination.

There should also be a sort of "time off" for kerbonauts returning from a mission, as they recover physically and psychologically for the ordeal. Once kerbonauts stop being generic, that may impact gameplay (and reputation)

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).

I was referring to the Remote Tech mod. Which may be fun, but the comm satellite network isn't required for realism.

I'm just going to list the biggest gripes I have about realism, because I see that some of these haven't actually been mentioned.

1. Nuclear engines are underpowered and use LFO instead of LiqFuel + fissile fuel (for the fission reaction).

2. Reaction wheels are overpowered.

3. Ion engines are overpowered.

4. The air is more akin to water than air.

5. Planets are too small, too high density, and too close together.

6. Kerbals don't immediately die upon EVA on Eve or Moho.

7. Random failures don't happen.

8. Career mode gives out funds like candy.

9. Asparagus Staging is a thing.

10. Fuselages have fuel in them and wings don't.

11. Jets are overpowered.

12. There is no re-entry heating.

13. Kerbals are somehow immune to G-forces.

14. No life support.

15. Asteroids have no gravity whatsoever.

And now, I'm going to say this:

I want Realism Mode to be an option when starting a new game, that way people who don't like realism aren't forced to deal with it, but it'll be there and fully supported (unlike mods, which tend to break every major update).

3) True, but the game mechanics have to change if realistic ions are to be useful. Right now, it's designed around maneuver nodes, which work for engines that burn for minutes at most. But true ion engines don't work that way.

5) True, but it's a matter of game balance. If the developers rescale the entire Kerbol system and make sure, after rescaling, that the delta-v requirements and the balance remains, then they've used valuable time to achieve little in game terms.

6) Right but, again, gameplay. Nothing prevents any player from refusing to send manned missions to those destinations anyway.

7) Gameplay. Random failures that forces you to abort (or abandon) a well executed mission hinder gameplay if there is nothing you can do about it.

9) Asparagus Staging is theoretically sound. It's just that fuel transfers in real life are a lot more complicated that attaching fuel pipes. This is sort of matched by the rather poor specs of the chemical rockets and fuel tanks, though. Before the introduction of the new SLS-like parts, it was very hard to put some payloads in orbit (in stock) without asparagus staging or a cpu-melting part count

11) While, on the other hand, they can not possible put any SSTO in orbit. Right now, turbojets are more like ramjets that work a low speeds, or a sort of combination of turbojet and ramjet.

15) What kind of gravity even a class E asteroid would have in the real world? It may be something that can be ignored due insignificance - specially so for the smaller asteroids.

Yeah, the in-situ resources dropout is really baffling, because it would make much more for the game play time than any of the things they added after, and would give you real reasons to stay on the planets ( I mean, besides flag spam, another fun feature )... besides being more realistic ( I know, I know ... ): I assume that most of the people that plays KSP already heard that NASA; ESA, Roscosmos, JAXA and all the other space agencies spend a lot of their quite limited budget looking for resources out there ( like water in the Moon ). That must because of something, right ?

In-situ resources are planned to be added, IIRC. It's just that they are not a priority yet.

My first lander was my orbiter with legs on it. Mk1 with chute, a stage separator (at the time I assumed the capsule needed to land alone at Kerbin), one of the double-sized tanks (or 2 of the 200s, can't remember), and the LV-909 engine I think. And 3 legs stuck on. I launched the lander alone first t decide how far the legs needed to be placed to just clear the nozzle. I realized I needed a wider lander later. Of course I also hated having the rocket look wrong at first, and most KSP rockets need a fairing to be even remotely plausible looking...

I had no ladder, and didn't realize how high I could jump/fly on EVA, so I didn't do an EVA (I was so tilted on the 1st one that I honestly think had I hit EVA the weight of Jeb hanging off would have tipped it over easily).

One of these cases when game punishes you for playing it in a realistic way.

We should keep in mind the lego nature of the game. A reentry vehicle includes retrorockets, rcs, fuel for them, batteries and communication devices. The Orion capsule will also include a docking port and the scientific instruments.

So in ksp, even with realistic parachutes, the return vehicle isn't just a lander can.

[Geschosskopf]

This would keep the game being fun, as "real-world" physics can be just as enjoyable as "near-enough" physics if not more so, and would be far more valuable as a teaching tool, as a stepping stone to teaching more complex things about space travel and exploration.

Adding life support, radar, speed-of-light communication and occlusion (examples), while cool, should take a back seat to making what KSP does do as "right" as possible without losing that fun factor.

While it may not sound like it, I'm being totally serious here......

Our universe has just 1 of an infinite number of combinations of possible values for the laws of physics. And to make physics work they way they do in this universe, there have to be other universes with different physical laws. Nothing said our universe had to have the laws it does, nothing says other universes have to have the same laws as us, and nothing makes any arbitrary set of physical laws (and they are all arbitrary) any better (or worse) and another set.

Given this, KSP physics are NOT wrong. KSP is, after all, in another universe where the laws of physics are demonstrably different from ours on a fundamental level. But so what? It's laws still form a coherent whole and are understood well enough to permit space travel. That's the most you can say about any (arbitrary) set of physical laws. KSP's laws make sense in the KSP universe, just as ours make sense in our universe. If it bothers you that the KSP universe has different physical laws, then you don't understand our own physics well enough to be allowed to play with rockets, much less dictate how physics should be in another universe.

Seriously, imposing humanocentric (and that's exactly what it is) laws of physics on the KSP universe would be a fundamental mistake. It would be an even bigger error than imposing humanocentric life support needs on the totally alien Kerbals, who are demonstrably made of some exotic form of matter only approximated in this universe in the remains of dead stars. The whole Kerbol system can't exist under our laws of physics, so if you change one you have to change the other, otherwise you introduce a major inconsistency, which is more "wrong" than the current situation.

So bottom line, everybody here has the same 4 options:

1. Accept KSP for what it is and play stock.

2. Play KSP with whatever mods make you happy.

3. Play Orbiter instead of KSP.

4. Do something else for a hobby.

That about covers it. There is absolutely no requirement for Squad to make any fundamental changes to the game, and there is no incentive for them to do so---why mess with success? If you personally don't like KSP the way it is, you can do something about that yourself, FOR FREE. You've got mods, you've got Orbiter, neither of which cost money. But don't try to impose your own agenda on either Squad or the rest of the community.

[regex]

So bottom line, everybody here has the same 4 options:

1. Accept KSP for what it is and play stock.

2. Play KSP with whatever mods make you happy.

3. Play Orbiter instead of KSP.

4. Do something else for a hobby.

You forgot one:

5. Lobby the devs to hold KSP to a higher standard, to make KSP better.

[Sky_walker]

Hey, you're the one with a signature talking about people putting flat space stations in orbit. And you do realize that putting 575 tons in orbit isn't realistic, right?

You see - this discussion about realism will teach you something If KSP would be more realistic - you'd know this from the game itself. What he build is a Big Dumb Booster-type launch vehicle.

Plus the thing is, supplies is the less complicated issue manned spaceflight has to tackle - it's a matter of additional weight. Manned spaceflight also faces hardships much more difficult to solve which aren't usually discussed when we discuss "realism", specially so regarding the educational variant of the game: long term exposure to microgravity, radiation, stress and other mental issues. For all we know, long Hoffman transfers (like those used in KSP) to other planets with manned ships will never be implemented and, instead, manned missions to Mars will be done using Vasimir engines to reach Mars in 40 days instead of months.

Now, as I said, I don't think radiation should be modeled. Cancer is a touchy topic and it provides little gameplay anyway. Yes, a solar flare may kill your manned missions on route.

May or may not - depends on shielding and Kerbals resistance to radiation

Nukes are a problem in their current state because it leads people to tons of ridiculous misconceptions about the nuclear engines. What can be done - I'll leave it to the devs, but really dozens of ideas were posted in Suggestions forum, so they got more than enough options to pick from.

Psychological problems can be dealt with "house rules"

Psychological problems are less of a problem in 21st century for humans than they were in 20th. I don't think that there is any problem with that at all that KSP would have to simulate. Just assume that Kerbals got a computer games on their machines and they love playing them - bang, no problem.

IMHO random failures the player can't successfully work out hamper the gameplay experience.

Noone in this entire topic asked for a random failures.

Noone on this forum asked for a total realism - I thought I pointed that out clear enough on a first page of this lengthy topic.

3) True, but the game mechanics have to change if realistic ions are to be useful. Right now, it's designed around maneuver nodes, which work for engines that burn for minutes at most. But true ion engines don't work that way.

5) True, but it's a matter of game balance. If the developers rescale the entire Kerbol system and make sure, after rescaling, that the delta-v requirements and the balance remains, then they've used valuable time to achieve little in game terms.

6) Right but, again, gameplay. Nothing prevents any player from refusing to send manned missions to those destinations anyway.

7) Gameplay. Random failures that forces you to abort (or abandon) a well executed mission hinder gameplay if there is nothing you can do about it.

9) Asparagus Staging is theoretically sound. It's just that fuel transfers in real life are a lot more complicated that attaching fuel pipes. This is sort of matched by the rather poor specs of the chemical rockets and fuel tanks, though. Before the introduction of the new SLS-like parts, it was very hard to put some payloads in orbit (in stock) without asparagus staging or a cpu-melting part count

11) While, on the other hand, they can not possible put any SSTO in orbit. Right now, turbojets are more like ramjets that work a low speeds, or a sort of combination of turbojet and ramjet.

15) What kind of gravity even a class E asteroid would have in the real world? It may be something that can be ignored due insignificance - specially so for the smaller asteroids.

5) The delta-V requirements and balance IS NOT THE SAME as it would be in realistic sizes of planets. That's why we want it to be changed.

6) Plenty of suggestions how to actually make it happen and at the same time: ADD gameplay fun value to the game. Just look up suggestions forum. Another one of them popped just few days ago.

7) Agreed, though I wouldn't mind it as an option

9) Falcon Heavy is suppose to use something "sort-of" asparagus staging.

11) They can push plane to the sub-orbital flight going around nearly an entire Kerbin. Which is bad enough on it's own, but to make it worse - one of the best SSTO launch vehicles are these combining turbojets with rockets or nikes - which is IMHO ridiculous. Something needs to be done with Turbojets. And that said - I'm not against adding ramjets or scramjets if only they behave nicely and proper aerodynamics model is implemented to limit their usability.

15) It is negligible. SoI of E-class asteroid would be tiny, but more importantly - some of the heavier spaceships would affect an orbit of such asteroid in a visible way if you'd really want to model it realistically.

In-situ resources are planned to be added, IIRC. It's just that they are not a priority yet.

AFAIK they're not.

At least - on last QA on reddit few weeks ago they told that they are not. Or did I misread something?

We should keep in mind the lego nature of the game.

Everyone do.

So in ksp, even with realistic parachutes, the return vehicle isn't just a lander can.

In KSP return vehicle is what you design it to be.

But there's absolutely no reason not to return just a simple lander can with a chute.

See: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Science#Recovering_the_results_while_leaving_the_equipment:_Taking_and_Storing_Data

I know, I know - it's not obvious that you can recover data this way and the game doesn't do anything to explain it - which is something I explained/complained about here in this thread.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Sky_walker

[metaphor]

Some thoughts on this thread:

- I think a new aerodynamics system should be one of the first "realism" fixes that are added. I agree with Hattivat that something where the "simplified" version is more confusing than the "realistic" version needs to be changed. Something similar to NEAR would work well. Fairings would be a nice addition but they aren't really needed, since a rocket of any shape can get into space with FAR/NEAR if you go slow enough (maybe even as slow as in the stock game...).

- Deadly reentry: same as aerodynamics, but should probably be more scaled back than the mod. Something physical (other than solar panels breaking off) should happen when the ship is engulfed in flames. Although this might only be included on a difficulty higher than vanilla.

- A sliding scale of difficulty would be awesome. The difficulty slider they're adding in 0.25 is a good first step in that direction.

- I don't think the planets should be scaled up much (unless maybe on the harder difficulties). On scaled-up systems, delta-v takes on a much more important role than in the stock game. This forces the player to use more efficient ships, learn optimal launch windows, use gravity assists, etc almost from the start. This also means that the payload is a much smaller fraction of the rocket, which would be mostly fuel. The stock game is a lot more forgiving in that respect. For example, in the stock game a rocket that can land a payload on the Mun is only twice as big as a rocket that only gets that same payload into low Kerbin orbit. In a real-scale system, that rocket ratio would be about 5 or 10 to 1. This makes the other celestial bodies seem much further away, not in terms of distance but in terms of delta-v, and how hard it is to get to each one. From a gameplay perspective, this means that a much smaller fraction of the playerbase would be able to visit other celestial bodies (and would need CPU-breaking monster rockets to do so). The much smaller available payloads would also make rockets seem much less efficient than in the stock game, and would rule out many of the crazy designs people come up with to put into orbit or on other bodies. And there's also the much longer burn times required.

I think a scale-up of 1.5 to 2 times the current game would work pretty well (and would balance out the delta-v gain due to smoother aerodynamics). But anything bigger would make the game less fun overall (at least for non-advanced players).

- n-body gravity: totally unneeded. It has almost no advantages from a gameplay perspective over conic-patch, and many disadvantages. And it's only marginally more educationally instructive. Unless there are equal-sized closely orbiting bodies put into the game, it makes about as much sense to include as relativistic effects. It wouldn't hurt as a mod though.

[cantab]

Dementia and psychological disorders are just as grim a topic for the game as cancer and radiation poisoning tbh.

[r_rolo1]

In-situ resources are planned to be added, IIRC. It's just that they are not a priority yet.

The point of not being a priority was exactly what I was talking about Atleast compared with what the devs chose as priority since their first real talks about the issue: don't get me wrong, science, contracts and all of that are ok, I simply consider that adding in situ resources would make more for the game than the last 3 updates to the game combined in terms of extending play time of the game and on giving space exploration some propose. The devs think otherwise, apparently ...

[regex]

And you do realize that putting 575 tons in orbit isn't realistic, right?

How is it not realistic, because it's never been done? That's silly.

[Sky_walker]

- I don't think the planets should be scaled up much (unless maybe on the harder difficulties).

Scaling planets up implies also adding a realistic atmosphere - so you won't have to push your way through this soup that we have now. Hence I don't think that the scale of planets got anything to deal with difficulty settings.

[juanml82]

You see - this discussion about realism will teach you something If KSP would be more realistic - you'd know this from the game itself. What he build is a Big Dumb Booster-type launch vehicle.

I'm not sure what your point is. The SLS Block II and the Long March are planned to put some 130 tons in LEO, and they are the most powerful orbital launch systems ever planned. No rocket has, as of yet, lifted more than 118 tons.

Psychological problems are less of a problem in 21st century for humans than they were in 20th. I don't think that there is any problem with that at all that KSP would have to simulate. Just assume that Kerbals got a computer games on their machines and they love playing them - bang, no problem.

The human mind is the same in the 21st century than in the 20th. Now, of course Kerbals' mind can work differently. But, for the same reason, we could imagine they go into hibernation and no life support is needed.

Noone in this entire topic asked for a random failures.

I did read it at some point.

Noone on this forum asked for a total realism - I thought I pointed that out clear enough on a first page of this lengthy topic.

As I said, "what do we talk about when we're talking about realism"

5) The delta-V requirements and balance IS NOT THE SAME as it would be in realistic sizes of planets. That's why we want it to be changed.

What metaphor said

Dementia and psychological disorders are just as grim a topic for the game as cancer and radiation poisoning tbh.

Maybe. But think of The Sims and how some people have fun with dysfunctional houses.

- n-body gravity: totally unneeded. It has almost no advantages from a gameplay perspective over conic-patch, and many disadvantages. And it's only marginally more educationally instructive. Unless there are equal-sized closely orbiting bodies put into the game, it makes about as much sense to include as relativistic effects. It wouldn't hurt as a mod though.

I really don't know. It allows Lagrange points and probably the Interplanetary Transport Network. But maybe that can be faked while keeping conic-patch?

[DasValdez]

This thread makes me sad. Everyone going into excruciating detail on how it could be more real or meet their own expectations more perfectly seems to forget they are not the only audience for KSP.

My kid is always asking how the Kerbals are doing. She wants to put together rockets, launch rockets, and crash rockets. We're still working on the whole orbiting and landing concept. Her favorite thing to do is drive a rover around whatever planet it's been delivered to... and she cares not for the wacky rover wheel physics or control. It helps her get interested and excited about science and space, and it gives me more opportunities for relevant discussions on more detailed topics like basic physics concepts, gravity, and brainstorming what you would need to live in space. I fully support anything that creates interest in science.

Sure, there's a few improvements missing from stock I needed to add to teach a few specific lessons (female kerbals and reentry heating would be my prime examples) but on the whole, you can teach a lot using the game... even though in some cases it only provides a rough approximation of real world concepts. When you teach, you generally start with rough approximations, anyways, and the game is almost perfect for getting the conversation started.

If changes must be made, there should be a *casual* mode and *realistic* mode. Of course, we already have that courtesy of the awesome, intelligent, detail oriented modding community.

Making the game *too* realistic, with no casual alternative, would make it less accessible to the general audience. I'd rather the game spark genuine interest in an 8-year-old kid than pass an in-depth review by an world renowned astrophysicist.

[Rowsdower]

Kerbal Space Program is not intended to be a 100% realistic sim. The game is meant to be a close, but not completely realistic depiction of space flight. While the game is grounded in many ways, there are certainly cartoonish elements in place by design.

As it seems, most of you in here aren’t looking for “total realism†per se, but improvements on *some* functions of realism. We will make progress there. Many of the suggestions made in this thread, the 0.25 thread and others will be revisited after scope completion. There’s no guarantee any of those suggestions will ever make it into the game. However, we want to confirm these topics are also being discussed internally and are important to us as well.

Now, feel free to continue the discussion, but please keep this all in mind. Also, thanks for keeping things predominantly civil in here.

[Sky_walker]

I'm not sure what your point is. The SLS Block II and the Long March are planned to put some 130 tons in LEO, and they are the most powerful orbital launch systems ever planned. No rocket has, as of yet, lifted more than 118 tons.

You don't bother to read :/

Sea Dragon was to be able to carry 550 tonnes to the orbit. Obviously never was build and even if it'd be build - it'd most likely happen in a very modified form (eg. using multiple smaller engines instead of a single large one) but this type of a rocket he designed has some solid grounds in a real studies..

The human mind is the same in the 21st century than in the 20th.

Besides the point. Go, watch some videos with astronauts and stuff. Plenty have changed since 20 century.

I did read it at some point.

Well then, I suppose you're free to address it directly to the author.

[regex]

I'm not sure what your point is. The SLS Block II and the Long March are planned to put some 130 tons in LEO, and they are the most powerful orbital launch systems ever planned. No rocket has, as of yet, lifted more than 118 tons.

Incorrect. There were many, many more studies done regarding larger launch vehicles with much higher payloads than SLS or Long March. http://www.astronautix.com/fam/heaylift.htm

Making the game *too* realistic, with no casual alternative, would make it less accessible to the general audience. I'd rather the game spark genuine interest in an 8-year-old kid than pass an in-depth review by an world renowned astrophysicist.

May I ask that people stop talking up these extremes? No one in this thread has asked that KSP be "completely realistic" and even if they think KSP should be Orbiter 2 (like me) they realize that KSP isn't going to be that. What I think we tend to want is some corrections to stock to fix the inherent, niggling problems that plague the game. For the record, I'd much rather introduce my daughter to a game where she could use real-life expectations of how things work, in a casual manner, to spark interest than some broken caricature of a simulation. KSP has the potential to do that, but not right now.

[Sky_walker]

Kerbal Space Program is not intended to be a 100% realistic sim. The game is meant to be a close, but not completely realistic depiction of space flight. While the game is grounded in many ways, there are certainly cartoonish elements in place by design.

Let me post it again: Noone asked for KSP to become 100% realistic sim.

As it seems, most of you in here aren’t looking for “total realism†per se, but improvements on *some* functions of realism. We will make progress there. Many of the suggestions made in this thread, the 0.25 thread and others will be revisited after scope completion.

Why we're having this discussion is because we'd like priorities to be changed in order to improve the game.

Below you can read a quote of one of the best summaries on "how to improve the game":

Isn't that what's on everyone's list of "How to improve the game"? Anyway, you asked, so here is how I would try to have things in KSP within about a year, skipping anything that the devs have confirmed they are working on:

• Stop making cinematics and put those artists to work on more concrete things in the game, such as fairings and cargo bays, and other awesome parts.
  
• Said artists are also freed up to do things like pretty up the game, like Environmental Visual Enhancements does.
  
• Said artists could also be creating other Kerbin-side assets, like more airstrips and launch sites.
  
• Said artists could also polish up the stock planets and finish the biome maps.
  
• Said artists could add a bunch more objects/planets to the solar system in order to make it really come alive.
  
• This game is crap as a teaching tool even though it is vaunted as such. We need more realism. Therefore:
  
  • Fix the aerodynamics immediately. The stock implementation is completely unintuitive and offers the new player no experience whatsoever they can draw upon. This would also solve the problem of people calling a launch in KSP a "gravity turn" when it is clearly not.
    
  • Fix rocket engines such that isp affects thrust, not fuel consumption. It's backwards and teaches players the wrong thing.
    
  • Fix jet engines so that they work in a realistic manner. ferram4 has gone on at length about this in other places.
    
  • Fix the solar system so it has a realistic size (Note: Keep the Kerbin system, it fits the Kerbals just fine, and I like Kerbals!) One way to make it friendlier to newer players is to have Kerbin as a realistic planet with a gravity of 0.75 G. Using realistic engines and part masses would make launches from such a Kerbin a breeze, and pretty quick, while retaining a fairly decent payload fraction.
    
  • Add proper reentry heating and effects that really mean something.
    
  • Add life support. It perfectly illustrates the difficulties involved in space flight, just like reentry heating.
    
  • Add axial tilt to planets. Give Kerbin a mild tilt, enough to make launches from other latitudes than the equator mean something.
    
  • Utilize the asteroid generation routine to its full potential and add more objects in: KBOs, Jool trojans, comets, an asteroid belt, etc...
    
  • Realistic fuels and such would be awesome, but they're not really needed (besides, gives us something to mod). OTOH, the nuclear engine really only needs to use Liquid Fuel.
    

  [*] Add Kerbal Engineer to the game as stock; it is indispensable.

  [*] Fix the maneuver node functionality. I have a suggestion in that addresses some additions I think would be excellent.

  [*] Add the ability to use multiple launch sites at different latitudes.

  [*] The tech tree in career mode needs some serious progression work and more nodes. I prefer launching manned from the start as I think that's the Kerbal Way, but otherwise the tech tree is crap. Others have written volumes on how bad it is, I'm not going to go into detail.

  [*] Wrap up all these game modes into a selector of sorts that allows you to choose features you want in your save. Add difficulty selectors for certain features (reentry heat, life support, etc...)

  [*] While not really on my personal list of "Things That Should Be In The Game", polish up and release the resources feature that was already built. People obviously want it. WHOAH, this is on the What Not To Suggest list, so I'm not going to suggest it. But it really should be done.

  [*] Stop work on multiplayer now. Release it as a DLC once the game is completed.

Given SQUAD's current development speed, that should keep them busy for a year or so. Undoubtedly some of this is probably on the list of things they're going to do at some point, but given that there is no public roadmap for this game I'm going to list the items anyway. I'm not invested in Career mode myself, so I won't touch on it. Suffice it to say I enjoy it as-is but can see some potential for it to be better. There are tons of great suggestions already in on how to make the feature better and I think it should be made better, for those who enjoy it.

Also, I'm not going to debate this list because anyone who disagrees with me is clearly wrong. <- This apparently will denote that I am being "flippantly sarcastic" rather than "acidly sarcastic", or something.

ps. May I suggest one of the moderators to either re-name this topic into "discoussion about realism" or split it after the first page and leave first page talking about the "total realism" and everyone else talking about balanced realism?

Because we keep on coming back and again to the matter of "total realism" when there is none - and each time we have to explain over and over again that this topic is NOT about 100% realism even though the title says so.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Sky_walker
ps

[regex]

Below you can read a quote of one of the best summaries on "how to improve the game":

I want to stress, that is my personal wish list and I don't particularly expect a realistic solar system in stock. However, to accommodate the issue that a more realistic aerodynamic simulation will make getting to orbit easier, I often suggest increasing the size of the solar system by 150%. That's it. It would take Kerbin from 9% of Earth's radius to 14% of Earth's radius, hardly a very large jump at all. That is, however, the only point of the suggestion I'd change regarding how I would expect to see the game by 1.0.

[technicalfool]

Not to gloss over regex's post, since it's all really important, but this has always been an elephant in the room, and one of the major reasons why people who actually have experience with and/or work in fields associated with space exploration laugh at KSP when it's used as an example of what a layman can play to start understanding the challenges of space exploration.

Yes, NASA bods laughed so hard at KSP that they sat down with Squad, and said that your game is so stupid that we will work with you to design an expansion pack.

I'm sure that's how it went down.

[tater]

]

Now, as I said, I don't think radiation should be modeled. Cancer is a touchy topic and it provides little gameplay anyway. Yes, a solar flare may kill your manned missions on route. That's realistic. But what can the player do about it? IMHO random failures the player can't successfully work out hamper the gameplay experience.

(and other stuff (cut to make thread less crowded))

Cancer? You exactly mimic the trope I was talking about. "If we don't model cancer---and who wants to play "cancer"---then there is no point in even abstracting radiation." Again, all or nothing. No one here, no one, is asking for 100% realism. How about the next attack on the notion that the game could be more realistic (outcomes matching expectations we all have from living within the universe, the way it works) can be that any time compression is unrealistic? That would nip everything in the bud, lol.

All life support can be abstracted. Eye on the ball. The goal is not to add tons of unnecessary detail, but to account for the fact that longer trips need larger (more mass to move) habitation areas. Stations that are long duration need resupply. That's the sum total we are going for here. Why do you need X hitchhiker modules per Y astronauts? Life support, shielding, exercise, etc. Done. The simple mechanism is some sort of number of kerb-days supplies per pod of a different size. A new pod might be a "Long term habitation module" that has a crap ton of stuff in it (abstracted). Radiation can mostly be assumed as part of habitation designs, anyway. Not 100% realism, but a nod to reality.

Can be a difficulty toggle, anyway.

Edited August 28, 2014 by tater

[Rowsdower]

Let me post it again: Noone asked for KSP to become 100% realistic sim.

In a thread titled "Total Realism," it had to be mentioned. Besides, I addressed that in the second paragraph.

we'd like priorities to be changed in order to improve the game.

And as I said, there's a lot of great ideas and legit concerns floating around. It's stuff that we'll be able to explore much deeper when we're past the point of scope completion.

[Renegrade]

However, to accommodate the issue that a more realistic aerodynamic simulation will make getting to orbit easier, I often suggest increasing the size of the solar system by 150%. That's it. It would take Kerbin from 9% of Earth's radius to 14% of Earth's radius, hardly a very large jump at all.

If I may, would it be possible to throw together a 1.5x RSS Kerbin? I'd give it a test run if there was one. May be a good 'presentation model' to show to Squad if it really works well.

[regex]

If I may, would it be possible to throw together a 1.5x RSS Kerbin? I'd give it a test run if there was one. May be a good 'presentation model' to show to Squad if it really works well.

I'm actually going to put one together after work tonight, was musing with ferram4 earlier that this needs to be done. I'll get together with NathanKell and have him add it to the RSS OP once it's playable. Shouldn't take too long (E: well, not too long to make, I have to finish up work, go to the gym, hang out with my kid, you get the idea. )

[DasValdez]

For the record, I'd much rather introduce my daughter to a game where she could use real-life expectations of how things work, in a casual manner, to spark interest than some broken caricature of a simulation. KSP has the potential to do that, but not right now.

So far, the only thing that didn't happen in KSP we were expecting was reentry heat, and even then, at least we got a cool animation. In my personal experience, KSP has been very successful in sparking interest in kids, who are not physicists and use the term "awesome game" instead of "broken caricature".

Just a few weeks ago, I was walking out of the grocery store when I heard someone saying "Excuse me sir!". I turned around to see a 10-12 year old kid addressing me... at first I thought I had dropped my keys or something. He goes on to tell me he thinks my t-shirt is awesome, and KSP is one of his favorite games. I was wearing my Bob, Jeb, & Bill KSP shirt.

Everything else aside, the fact that this single admittedly anecdotal event occurred should be reason for the KSP team to beam with pride.

[regex]

So far, the only thing that didn't happen in KSP we were expecting was reentry heat, and even then, at least we got a cool animation. In my personal experience, KSP has been very successful in sparking interest in kids, who are not physicists and use the term "awesome game" instead of "broken caricature".

Our expectations and experiences with the game are quite different, then, and that's okay. I don't think any of the proposed changes to make KSP more realistic (that are themselves "realistic" within the scope of the game) would ruin your child's fun. In fact, they'd be able to build planes that look correct and fly correct instead of requiring strange wing and intake stacking, and weird aerodynamics. They'd be able to recreate rocket launches that look like actual rocket launches, with very little effort. They'd be able to use the delta-V math correctly for their lifters instead of "fudging it" because isp affects fuel flow. And so on.

[cantab]

Regarding planet size, yes it does affect the game balance. In particular along with other factors it's important in how different staging strategies perform. However, why should KSP necessarily have the same balance as the real world?