Realism in KSP - Various Ideas with Pros/ Cons

[Rithsom]

All I really want added is improved aerodynamics. I'm indifferent about re-entry danger or life support, but if they do decide to add those, they should make them an option.

[lincourtl]

<this time,="" not="" speaking="" as="" a="" moderator="">I'm not even sure it's the side of fun, really. Perhaps better, on the side of simplification (and, let's note, by and large simplification of programming, not necessarily simplification of gameplay; aerodynamics is a case in point because while stock aero is a simple *model* it leads to some decidedly non-simple effects).

Well, I try to be charitable in my interpretation of the devs' intentions, since it's what they've said their goal is. Plus there does seem to be a large portion of the community who want more explosions, less complexity. And that's fine. Like you said, tastes differ.

There's a lot of complex stuff that KSP makes fun--and part of why it's fun, IMO, is that it's complex...which is very, very different from many games today. In this way, KSP is almost like a throwback to an earlier age of game, lacking quicktime events, minigames, and the like. But now I'm getting off topic...

Aye. Like I said above, and so many times elsewhere, what HarvesteR and Squad have accomplished is magical genius IMHO. They have made orbital mechanics *fun*, and in such a way that people can't help but learn something. That's truly special. It would take so little to extend that magic.

Edited October 22, 2014 by lincourtl

[Wanderfound]

I'm generally on the "yay! Realism!" side (although not of the "yay! Compulsory mathematics!" faction) but I do think that most of these issues could be resolved by having the realism things as switchable difficulty options. Let everyone play the game that they want to play; this is why the modding community is so great. KSP seems perfectly able to handle the full range from pseudo-Orbiter to computerised Space Lego.

That said, the big problem with things like current stock aero isn't that it allows sillyness, it's that it actively punishes realistic builds. A big part of the reason why FAR is so popular is that, in stock aero, if you try to construct a sensible plane it just won't fly very well.

I don't care if other people want to build things with fifty intakes and wings stacked ten deep. I do care that I'm often required to do so if I want to make something effective.

[tater]

Unless you're a pilot or play flight simulators (few do), people wouldn't know what is intuitive about flying or designing a plane, except that "pointy" stuff should go faster. You don't need a realistic aero model for that.

A bad aerodynamic model is harder than a real one, not easier.

The people that don't know the difference still wouldn't know the difference. Why should they start knowing nothing, and go to the trouble to learn aerodynamics (they will, after all, learn about how to fly and design a little plane after a fashion, after all)---and intentionally have them learn something wrong, and lousy?

It's important to remember the current atmosphere is a stand in, nothing I have read suggests it is definitive. If they are going to fix it, it can only get more realistic, as virtually any change would be an improvement.

[juanml82]

Aerodynamics

-Pros

First, these are examples of actual, realistic aerodynamics. I'm not embedding so I don't extend the length of this post.

No fighter jet was damaged in the making of those videos.

It would make nosecones and aerodynamic shapes make sense

It would add verisimilitude to anyone who wants to use aircraft for planetary exploration. Which, then again, brings obvious problems outside of Kerbin and Laythe.

It requires proper gravity turns, to those who care for that

-Cons

No SSTOs with anything that isn't a Rapier/B9 Sabre engine. Turbojet engines should be replaced by a turbofan/ramjet combination, or simply be replaced by ramjets, which won't work at less than match 0.5, thus making hypersonic planes more complicated - and the extra weight should prevent them from making it to orbit, as it should.

Fairings will be needed by rockets, hiding all the crazy contraptions. It could be resolved by translucent (ie, partial transparent) fairings, which require changes on how the game textures work.

It alters game balance. It can be resolved by enlarging Kerbin, breaking previous savegames or by altering atmospheric thrust ala KIDS, thus breaking existing designs.

Universe Scale

-Pros

Bragging rights?

-Cons

A lot more time reaching anywhere

Uglier map view

Isp

-Pros

More realistic?

A better teaching experience

-Cons

Breaks existing ships

Life Support

-Pros

Van Allen belts might provide a good challenge - essentially, orbits within certain SMAs would be forbidden.

Mission timers might provide additional challenges

-Cons

Radiation poisoning and cancer are touchy topics. Should make interplanetary manned exploration using low energy transfer impossible due to radiation poisoning. Even if the game mechanics are changed to allow faster trajectories (using ion engines, for instance) EVAs on certain bodies should be impossible and landers would require heavy radiation shielding.

Artificial gravity through centrifugal motion breaks existing designs and require some changes to the way current ships are made

Consumable supplies require micromanagement for planetary bases and space stations. Might be resolved by background resupply missions not played by the player.

Re-entry Danger

-Pros

Adds an additional challenge

Sudden increases of G force won't kill Kerbals. G forces above 20-30 might temporarily incapacitate some kerbonauts, though, adding to the challenge and reputation if individual kerbonauts become a part of gameplay.

-Cons

Requires a proper GUI to predict aerobreak results as well as survival prediction. Several aerobreak passes instead of a single aerocapture might get tedious.

Breaks existing ships

Might alter ship construction, so they have less protruding parts and require a more conventional look or else some parts get destroyed

It alters fund balance, as it would make less sense to return expended boosters, for instance. It's easily counterbalanced by providing more funds, though.

[tater]

Aerodynamics

-Pros

The current model is awful, and as far I know, explicitly a placeholder.

Many parts the devs bothered to include have zero purpose in current KSP. No aerodynamics is currently a a consideration at all.

The Devs provided aerodynamic fairings, so they must want this fixed, else why bother.

-Cons

It would be different than what is there right now (which is not good anyway).

There are no other demonstrable cons, sorry, particularly since aerodynamic stress breaking stuff apart or not can be a difficulty setting.

Universe Scale

-Pros

This is not really on the table as "realism" except where it pertains to scaling up planetary size to make the atmosphere make a little more sense, and a scaled up planet starts to demand a scaled up solar system (else you step quickly from LKO to the Mun SOI).

-Cons

Increased travel times under time warp.

Few are highly invested in this, it's a sort of red herring.

Isp

-Pros

Isp has a definition, as does mass, velocity, and acceleration. Isp should = Isp, period.

-Cons

There are no cons, the math is wrong, and aside from being "different" it changes nothing about actual play, you just need to design slightly different rockets. If having to design rockets at all differently is disqualifying for any change… little will change from 0.24 as it is. Ever. Do we really think that any rocket designed tonight should work forever? Why not change 0.24.2 to "1.0" then? (and never have any updates, because any change might change something)

Breaking existing ships is NOT a valid con. If they remake almost anything related to ship parts ships can be broken.

Life Support

-Pros

Makes the Kerbals matter more (they are virtually impossible to kill in my limited experience, now even with "deadly reentry").

Improves career gameplay (you cannot abandon people, you need to rescue them within a time limit (something like "SNACKS" still gives you months to do this, it's hardly draconian). This would only apply with them turned on anyway.

-Cons

No cons as any implementation would be a difficulty setting.

Re-entry Danger

-Pros

The game presupposes deadly reentry. Read the lander can descriptions. Anyone who knows that spaceflight is an actual thing knows that reentry is possibly dangerous.

Improves gameplay.

-Cons

No cons as any implementation could easily be a difficulty setting, just like respawning poor ole Jeb.

Edited September 9, 2014 by tater

[m4v]

A bad aerodynamic model is harder than a real one, not easier.

I wonder what is your definition of harder, since in stock pretty much anything that has an engine and a wing can fly.

[juanml82]

I'm generally on the "yay! Realism!" side (although not of the "yay! Compulsory mathematics!" faction) but I do think that most of these issues could be resolved by having the realism things as switchable difficulty options. Let everyone play the game that they want to play; this is why the modding community is so great. KSP seems perfectly able to handle the full range from pseudo-Orbiter to computerised Space Lego.

That said, the big problem with things like current stock aero isn't that it allows sillyness, it's that it actively punishes realistic builds. A big part of the reason why FAR is so popular is that, in stock aero, if you try to construct a sensible plane it just won't fly very well.

I don't care if other people want to build things with fifty intakes and wings stacked ten deep. I do care that I'm often required to do so if I want to make something effective.

Cough, SSTOs with turbojets, cough

[tater]

I wonder what is your definition of harder, since in stock pretty much anything that has an engine and a wing can fly.

I just put FAR on, and DRE, etc. Saturday night. I've been playing about 3 weeks (stock only). I've hardly noticed any changes (I did get procedural fairings, and put them around stuff I'f have left ridiculous looking in stock). Then again, I never tried to break physics in my previous designs in stock, I made rockets look like rockets.

Edited September 9, 2014 by tater

[Robotengineer]

Unless you're a pilot or play flight simulators (few do), people wouldn't know what is intuitive about flying or designing a plane, except that "pointy" stuff should go faster. You don't need a realistic aero model for that.

I disagree with this, whether you use FAR or stock-aero, you still have Thrust, Lift, Drag, and Gravity that are essential to plane design. I take particular issue with the bolded statement, people who play KSP should know at least moderately more than that.

On the other issues.

Universe Scale.

Pros: Realism, challenging, and over all cool.

Cons: Realistic, challenging, missions would no longer be simple.

Isp.

(I support this becoming stock)

Pros: Realism, adds an extra bit of difficulty.

Cons: People would have to change how they currently think about rocket engines (as well as jet engines.)

Life Support.

Pros: Realism, difficulty, (notice a theme? ) Kerbals might actually mean something, though ISRU is almost necessary to make bases/stations possible.

Cons: It becomes a chore, as well as sucking delta-V if you have to bring all that extra mass.

Re-entry heat.

Pros: realism, difficulty. As well as some excitement to an other wise boring part of missions.

Cons: It can, like LS, become a chore, more of a checklist thing than actually interesting.

[NathanKell]

I wonder what is your definition of harder, since in stock pretty much anything that has an engine and a wing can fly.

And yet all the planes I built until I installed FAR, I crashed trying to take off. Stock aero, because it doesn't work like people with flight sim (or even just has-seen-what-planes-look-like) experience expect, can be quite difficult. I oppose any system that punishes knowledge while teaching falsity, and yet could be replaced by something that would not be harder for beginners (who, as tater said, know how neither real aerodynamics, nor the SQUAD system, works).

[m4v]

And yet all the planes I built until I installed FAR, I crashed trying to take off. Stock aero, because it doesn't work like people with flight sim (or even just has-seen-what-planes-look-like) experience expect, can be quite difficult. I oppose any system that punishes knowledge while teaching falsity, and yet could be replaced by something that would not be harder for beginners (who, as tater said, know how neither real aerodynamics, nor the SQUAD system, works).

I'm an avionics technician, have flight sim experience, piloted a Cessna even, yet the case for me was backwards, everything with far crashed while with stock went fine, obviously since that while I know how to pilot a plane, I know little about building one. What I'm trying to say is, accept that your experience isn't the only truth, and stop using that as an argument.

Note that I'm not against a better aero model, I would like to Squad to implement it, I'm just playing devils advocate and questioning the arguments used.

[Wanderfound]

Cough, SSTOs with turbojets, cough

Yup, "turbojets" at present aren't actually turbojets. They're some sort of weird fantasy turbo/ram/scram hybrid.

The only reason I have turbojets on my designs at all is that I like the whistling sportsbike sound of them. If they'd fix the RAPIER effects so that they didn't sound so horrid, I'd never use a turbojet again.

I'm perfectly cool with them fixing the jets (i.e., much less thrust, realistic air intakes, and turbo/ram/scram as separate things), and I've been attempting to encourage Ferram to go back to the 2/3rd nerf he originally wanted instead of the current 1/2.

At the moment, I can easily get a large cargo plane up to Mach 11 and escape velocity without leaving Kerbin's atmosphere. I don't think that I'll have any trouble building effective SSTOs after they bring the jets closer to reality.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Wanderfound

[NathanKell]

m4v: When have I ever said it was the only truth? Did I not specifically point out in the last thread that experiences will differ? All I tried to do with my post was point out, contrary to what you appeared to be arguing, that stock aero is not necessarily easier, or easy. Not that it's not easier for some people (say, you), but that it's not necessarily easier, or easy period.

[juanml82]

I think the issue with FAR and realism is the expectation that aerodynamic failures are a thing. I have no idea what happens inside the hood in FAR and I probably wouldn't be able to understand it unless I dedicate a lot of time to it. But, no matter how much work Ferram put into it, there are wrong ideas in its conception. Namely, that jets don't take off at almost full throttle (they do) and that maneuvering hard at 350-400 km/h (let alone near match 1) is dangerous.

Check this out

Or how these guys maneuver while flying fast and low

[Wanderfound]

I think the issue with FAR and realism is the expectation that aerodynamic failures are a thing. I have no idea what happens inside the hood in FAR and I probably wouldn't be able to understand it unless I dedicate a lot of time to it. But, no matter how much work Ferram put into it, there are wrong ideas in its conception. Namely, that jets don't take off at almost full throttle (they do) and that maneuvering hard at 350-400 km/h (let alone near match 1) is dangerous.

Check this out

Or how these guys maneuver while flying fast and low

Umm...those are nearly all fast rolls and relatively low AoA pitching. I can manage all that in FAR with unstrutted eggshell SP+ wings. Change to stock wings with the CoL in the middle instead of the tip and add some struts and I can pull substantially sharper stuff than that without wing snapping.

Sure, you can break the wings off doing not-too-extreme manouevres, but only if you fly badly. The thing that rips wings in FAR isn't high AoA, it's trying to go from 0° AoA to 30° AoA in a fraction of a second. Only specialist aerobatic planes can handle anything close to that in the real world, and a hypersonic spaceplane is pretty much the opposite of an aerobatic specialist.

It's dragster vs sportscar; Skylon is designed to go very straight, very fast. It's not supposed to do combat manoeuvres. The design priorities of a dogfighter vs a top-speed specialist are sharply opposed.

FAR allows full-throttle vertical-climbing takeoffs; you just have to either get the nose up as soon as you leave the ground (before you've got too much horizontal speed), or pull the nose up over the course of a few seconds. It's go-fast-then-slam-it-into-a-handbrake-turn that causes aerodynamic failures. Planes like curves, they don't like angles.

Just after flicking into a 180° roll, immediately post takeoff:

10G pulling out of a dive at 500m, maximum elevator deflection:

6G inverted banking roll, >45° AoA:

Negative 8G at full throttle, mid-Immelman:

That plane only has two struts per wing; I deliberately left it fragile because I intended it as a trainer. If I was building an aerobatics specialist and went crazy on the strutting, it could tolerate much rougher treatment than that.

I did eventually snap the wings off that, but in order to do it I put it into a full-power dive from 20,000m and then deliberately slammed it sideways just off the deck. It still took a couple of attempts to make it die.

I do agree that it's a bit easier to break wings on large planes than it should be, at least from a game-for-fun POV, but that's more to do with KSP than Ferram. If they'd give us decent sized wing pieces (either larger, or tweakable, or procedural, or weldable) so that we didn't have to build jigsaw wings and strutting became unnecessary, that'd be a good thing.

Pretty much every flyer struts their wings anyway; why not make the strutting reinforcement a given? It'd improve the aesthetics, ease the engineering learning process and reduce part counts. I don't see any downside.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Motokid600]

One pro about realistic scale I see people lacking to mention is sense of scale. Planets take up WAY more screen and.. Its beautiful. Courtesy of Bothersome in the RSS thread. Kerbin's tiny scale is also the reason why... atleast myself finds it difficult to burn to apophasis both with FAR and stock.

[tater]

Comparing actual aircraft, that are designed to work together, vs lego aircraft makes little sense. It's amazing KSP planes work at all. Engines are not just slapped onto a jet, 10 jet models might all have the same engine (say a CFM56), but the thrust in each might vary by over 50%. Yes, some are early vs later versions in the same family, but it's not just improvements, it's what the original aircraft was designed for. Modern planes with the "same" engine often have very slightly different version---tweaked for each airframe, and they do not produce the same thrust. In KSP, there is the one basic jet, one turbofan, etc. One is slapped in something not much bigger than a BD-5, the other is the size of the space shuttle. Instead of customizing the engine (as they would in RL as needed), you have only the throttle control (or thrust limiting) in KSP.

Regarding disintegration, it can be a toggle option.

Also, isn't it established that the current atmosphere is a place holder? If so it's going to change regardless, so the only question is more vs less realistic.

Edited September 9, 2014 by tater

[tater]

I should add that part of the whole failure aspect is the "parts" bit. I'm certainly not wed to KSP style catastrophic failure. I'd prefer to see structures that are nominally rigid in RL application to be so in KSP instead of wobbling like a slinky. It might make sense if meta groups within a given craft (say any section between stages or with a stage on one side and nothing on the other) are considered "welded" into a single meta part. They need a more sophisticated damage model in that case… if a certain energy is delivered, then and only then are the parts back to their constituent selves. Bump a station lightly, and it moves. Ram it at >XX m/s, and the bit you hit first turns into its X parts, then is treated as KSP does now.

I think the failing apart/wobble is a general problem.

[PDCWolf]

They need a more sophisticated damage model in that case… if a certain energy is delivered, then and only then are the parts back to their constituent selves.

I think the failing apart/wobble is a general problem.

That would not work without a freeze every time that a collision has to be calculated, it's the same for physicssignificance=1 parts, which remain non-simulated until the engine detects a colition, and all of them come to the simulation at once causing a small hiccup or a freeze depending on how much of them you have. I ran tests for this, I might post the details someday.

[NovaSilisko]

While we're on this topic, I wanted to point out that KSP's buoyancy code could really use some attention. Right now, KSP's mass units are assumed to be tons (or something similar). But, I think the buoyancy code assumes them to be kilograms (or something similar). Thus, it encounters an object that's for example 2.5m x 2.5m x 5m, weighing only 10 "kg", and figures the thing's made of aerogel or something and sends it hurtling back up. If my interpretation of the problem is correct at least, it would hopefully be as simple as multiplying the mass used in the buoyancy code... Capsules would need some manner of kludge factor though to make sure they continue floating, though that'd be a nice excuse to add airbag parts, though

Edited September 9, 2014 by NovaSilisko

[Hannu]

Aerodynamics

-Pros

Realism and more interesting technical challenge. Possibility to learn something about flying.

-Cons

Large constructions become impossible to launch with one rocket. Proper space manufacturing tools and payload fairings should be added in game. It will also take hours of boring LKO construction work if you want to make something large. Therefore I uninstalled the FAR mod. But some aerodynamics overhaul should be done, IMO.

Universe Scale

-Pros

It is hard to see any. I do not agree that this came should be solar system learning tool. Every maneuver is similar. Just dv and flight times will change.

-Cons

Increased waiting times. Maybe memory and performance problems. Dv-requirements are so large, that if you do not adjust performance of propulsion technology to unrealistic levels, most planets are impossible to achieve with anything but very small probes. In real world it is completely impossible even think to send men to Mars with current propulsion technology.

Isp

-Pros

Realistic feelings. I think that this gives little but because it also costs little to change, it should be done.

-Cons

Maybe some people use standard rockets and they need adjusting.

Life Support

-Pros

Much more interesting resource to manage than money, reputation or contracts. It gives kerbals to some meaning in the game. Now they have only a rolegame value.

-Cons

No real cons. Maybe small children wants to play with kerbals.

Re-entry Danger

-Pros

More technical interest.

-Cons

Difficulty for someone.

Most of these things (except perhaps aerodynamics) should be quite easy to program into game and also easy to give toggle-button, if somebody feels them too difficult. So, I hope that Squad gives finally something also to technically oriented realism fans.

[Mandelbrot]

Aerodynamics

-Pros

The first FAR plane I built I flew effortlessly. I was an able stock aircraft builder before though, and have watched lots of videos of people play with FAR, so it must've just sunk in. But I had a damn hard time landing a plane in FAR. I couldn't slow down fast enough, and I lost too much lift at slower speeds. Then I took the time to look up what a flap actually did for an airplane, and how the spoiler/flap mechanics in FAR worked and then landed a plane like a leaf in the wind. Stock seemed so easy to me at the point that I started learning FAR, but it could never match the feel of the plane sort of wafting in the air. It adds so much depth to the aerodynamics. Things even fall in a more authentic way.

-Cons

The major con that I can see is also a pro for those who find little challenge in the base game due to experience or whatever, and that is, for me at least, it makes the first minute or so of the launch of an untested rocket terrifying. Because -- again this is just me -- but I find it way easier to fly rockets in stock. If this was life, I'd take the extra 1km/s delta-v loss to make whatever monster of doom I could strap together, or even just a rocket with an unbalanced CoL/CoM, reliably fly into orbit. With FAR you have to pay a lot more attention to the details of how rockets are built and going into orbit is more dangerous (pro for fans/con for new people, IMO).

Universe Scale

I would prefer not to address this, as I would be shocked if it was in the realm of consideration by Squad for KSP 1.0. Maybe in a sequel, which I am sure is a subject no one at Squad even wants to think about right now.

Isp

I think Squad has more or less decided against this already. But as it seems like such a weird decision, I can't help but say a bit about it.

-Pros

It really doesn't change things hugely. This, like Life Support and Deadly Reentry, is surprisingly easy to get used to. If it were this way from the beginning, I don't think new players would be challenged more than they are now, they'd just have to learn a little differently. TWR increases for a given stage in a rocket during ascent one way or the other, doesn't seem like it increases the learning curve substantially.

-Cons

Most people's lifters would break. That doesn't seem like a big deal. In-vacuum ships wouldn't be affected, so it mostly wouldn't break save-games (unless you just landed on Eve or something, that would be rough.) But at some point everyone's ships and saves are going to have to break before we hit the big 1.0, right? It would be my preference that Squad doesn't put save-game and ship continuity over major features, and I can't imagine that it is the case, but I can't think of any other reasons.

Life Support

-Pros

Time limits for manned missions. That's really it to me without ISRU, or maybe some recycling/fuel cell mechanic. No more bi-elliptic interplanetary transfers or waiting around on a Kerbin-crossing orbit for a few years for things to line up. Or grav-assisting your way out of a tough situation with a decade or two of time-warping.

-Cons

Just add the mass and then ignore the problem without something like Dang It! to age parts or make redundancy and repairing interesting. Other than the irksome lack of a time limit for missions, this is a mechanic I wouldn't be bothered at all if Squad skipped. I'd still use TAC or whatever, but it doesn't seem essential.

Re-entry Danger

-Pros

This seems essential. And expected, authentic, and when implemented as realistically as in DRE, really not hard at all considering the relatively slow orbital velocities. The capsules even glow and get covered in plasma! I'll bet that most people who start up KSP without introduction, upon seeing reentry heat, think that they might burn up. I actually am pretty sure this is coming in 1.0, though apparently as a toggle-able option. I mostly replied to this thread at all just in case someone who is against more realism in Kerbal reads this and goes ahead and tries DRE. It is not too hard, try it out. With the stock Mk1 capsule, no parts added (it includes an ablative heat-shield), you can transfer from the Mun, put your periapsis at 30k on Kerbin, and be fine. It just makes you have to take the shock-heating already visually modeled into the game into consideration for aerobraking and stuff like that. If you're a fan of real space-flight, you owe it to yourself to try out DRE at very least, and FAR when you're ready for it. DRE really feels like it could just be stock the way it is.

-Cons

You can't bulls-eye the space center from 500km by coming straight down and hitting the atmosphere at a 90 degree angle. Which makes it harder to hit the space center for refunds.

[Wanderfound]

Re-entry Danger

-Pros

This seems essential. And expected, authentic, and when implemented as realistically as in DRE, really not hard at all considering the relatively slow orbital velocities.

Seconded. Everybody I've shown the game to is surprised to find out that reentry heating doesn't matter in stock.

When I finally got around to installing DRE, I was astonished at how non-deadly it was [1]. I haven't bothered adding a heatshield to anything yet; I frequently deliberately burn the canards off my planes just for fun; I can easily get Mun landers with exposed tanks/materials bays/goo pods/lander legs/etc back down to Kerbin intact (nosecones and struts: not just for ascents).

FAR is a much bigger threat on reentry than DRE is; I lost quite a few Kerbals due to aerodynamic failures removing the bit with the parachutes on before I got the knack of that. Attempting to reorient a fragile Mun lander while doing Mach 10 = Not A Good Idea.

[1] Yes, I know that I could wind up the DRE settings up to crazy suicidal levels if I wanted to; not the point.

[Corw]

First of all, I strongly believe that when considering game changes argument that it breaks current designs should never have any weight. Even if you are so fond of your designs you should have accepted the notion it is a beta and that anything you may or may not have built could be ruined at any time. We can rebuild it, we have the technology () Building and rebuilding is a major part of what the game is actually about anyway.

Aerodynamics

Personally, I was so disappointed when I found out how KSP handles drag with adding up drag of all parts etc. It was the first thing I disliked about the game but I'm willing to let it go for now because I strongly believe that this falls under HarvesteRs placeholders that will be improved upon. So we wait for "scope complete".

Universe Scale

Don't see much of a gain by going bigger just because and I agree with original "scale down to be more fun" approach. For balancing, OK, but this is working out nicely for most people (or so I assume).

Isp

I think I understand why it was done in the first place (constant thrust is easier to understand) but I don't think it would have been a big deal if it was introduced the right way first time around. This might have gone too hard in the simplification direction. Personally, I think it should be fixed (hence, I consider it broken).

Life Support

I'm not sure what to think about this one, it is a large obstacle to long duration missions and I don't appreciate that. If it can be worked trough with some kind of food generation/recycling parts then I'm all for it. It would be similar to how you add solar panels to probes so you don't have to drag tons of battery stacks (I'm looking at you, FlowerChild!)

But I think it would be absurd and going too far on the realism side of things to simulate bone loss and radiation. I mean, there are some people talking about Kerbals and cancer in same sentence! Come on, people, seriously? How many books and TV shows about space exploration actually talk about space cancer? Not many that I've read, and it is because it is not fun. And I have Arthur C. Clark and Isac Asimov on my side

Re-entry Danger

Everything in game so far is hinting this will be included and I'm OK with it. I can understand it could be too hard for people, specially in the start and I fully expect it will be optional feature.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Corw