Realism in KSP - Various Ideas with Pros/ Cons

[Darnok]

I put in the time to go through through the information(which isn't that all hard to understand) and posted them as mathematical proof that I'm not simply pulling information out of my ass or making claims that I cannot back up with hard proof.

Sir, my guess is some people are trying to use walls of text and math to proove their point, but at same time those details cover them big picture,

and that is what is better for game?

My answer is realism is better, as long as it doesn't make game boring and too hard.

And most of suggestions what to change and how, I have seen here are very good and should learn people how to build rockets and plan missions in right way.

[Levelord]

If players can handle varying thrust with jets, they should be able to handle varying thrust with rockets.

Handling jet engines requires balancing the throttle to prevent flameouts. Rockets don't require throttling down or any adjustments whatsoever with this 'feature' implemented. I struggle to see why something that has so little impact on the gameplay has people urgently needing it to be implemented.

Variable thrust is a major way in which varying Isp at different air pressures affects rockets.

Thrust is proportional to the Isp which is why they used Isp values to represent engine performance which is what I was getting at.

Exhaust velocity, of course, is another way of expressing Isp for a rocket engine. Ve is exactly equal to Isp*g₀. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, other than reduced Isp at sea level means reduced thrust at sea level, assuming constant mass flow rate for propellant.

I posted only 2 equations, which some people (not you) already glazed over. It's merely to prove the behavior of the engines in regards to the atmospheric pressure.

I don't see a good reason why this cannot be simulated correctly in KSP.

It probably can, but is pointless and may potentially confuse people into thinking that it is important when its impact on gameplay/craft design is minor/neglibible.

KSP is many things to many people. If changing the way KSP handles atmospheric pressure will not affect the "moar boosters" crowd while simultaneously pleasing the "spaceflight simulation" crowd, that would seem like a win to me.

Because the spaceflight simulation crowd will never be happy with the realism of the game because it's impossible to make a 100% realistic game, (and this is coming from someone who plays flight simulation games himself). All they are doing now is nitpicking on minor details which distracts SQUAD from doing other important things. Even if SQUAD hypothetically implements this, the realism crowd will ask for something else in the name of realism and the cycle keeps going on. There is no pleasing the realism crowd and the fact that they aren't even willing to compromise on a minor mechanic like thrust variance despite evidence, shows this.

Saves and designs are going to get broken one way or another given the game's alpha state, I don't accept that as a valid argument to resist change.

It also wasn't the sole reason given. Then again, breaking saves to please a demanding vocal minority at the expense of everyone's save game state is not a valid reason either. I'd be more willing to accept a vote for the demand for that implementation rather than simply disqualifying everyone else's save games for a personal preference.

There will not be extra fuel in orbit, the delta-V of the craft will not change at all. Just because you (and others) don't consider this to be an important part of the simulation doesn't make it universally true. My feeling is that realism should be the starting point and should only be modified to make gameplay better or accomodate performance limitations. (And of course, to account for the incomplete development of the game.)

Judging from the current potato aerodynamics of KSP (which I actually want changed) you will likely end up with more fuel in orbit. I like realism in KSP, but this thrust variance, is not one that ranks up very high on the list of importance compared to other things that we could actually improve in the game. It was my main point all along, but I'm not sure people are understanding this and are getting a bit defensive.

Sure. I don't think anyone is suggesting that KSP become a tool for training aerospace engineers. But if it can be realistic and simulate a thing properly without adversely affecting gameplay, why shouldn't it do so?

It's better for KSP to be as simple as possible and if something obviously doesn't affect gameplay, then there's no reason it should be implemented either. It's more work for SQUAD, people won't notice if it's there and people won't miss it if it's gone.

[juanml82]

I still like abstracted LS. Figure out the worst possible case for a given habitat in terms of days of duration that are plausible, and that's it. A Mk1 capsule maybe 3-6 days? The limit becomes O2, likely, as dehydration (humans, anyway) is about 3 days. It's possible to imagine enough water easily for more than 3 days. I looked at the other mods, like the detail, but dislike all the added parts needed. Abstraction is fine. I might see if I can down-tweak the amount of stuff in Snacks per habitat.

I suppose the balance there is that is saves some resupply tedium in the Kerbin SoI.

Oxygen and water are recycled. Of course, real recyclers don't have a 100% efficiency (who knows what efficiency Kerbal recyclers have), but they can be disregarded for short duration flights.

[tater]

Oxygen and water are recycled. Of course, real recyclers don't have a 100% efficiency (who knows what efficiency Kerbal recyclers have), but they can be disregarded for short duration flights.

I'm not disagreeing, but since efficiency is not 100%, I'd think in terms of how much is "used up" each day. Again, some life support concern as a realism option is great, and adds a huge amount of gameplay (that people can turn off if they don't like, or turn on, which is default doesn't matter). It's really about consumables. Some habitation module can recycle at some efficiency, which can be abstracted by making more consumables per unit time, whatever.

The only con gameplay wise (from someone who wants it, others will turn it off) is possibly resupply. This is an example where "realism" would actually be easier, because if the player is managing a space program, he'd assign a resupply mission, and Jeb (and mission control, etc) would just do it. Some might like resupply missions, though. So in some sense "realism" taken farther can actually include automation that makes the game far, far easier on the player. Many are against this. I can see both sides as "realism" doesn't mean the player does the job of every person. YMMV.

Doesn't matter, have a slider and everyone can adjust their fun level as they see fit.

[Red Iron Crown]

Levelord, you seem to have two contradictory viewpoints: On the one hand you say that realistic thrust scaling is too insignificant to gameplay to bother implementing, yet you also say that realistic thrust scaling will break saves and craft designs. I'm of the opinion that saves would be unaffected by this change and only the most tightly optimized craft would be significantly affected. Conveniently, those who like to tightly optimize their craft are likely to enjoy designing ships and realism, so it would add new gameplay dimensions for them while not affecting the others.

Thrust is proportional to the Isp which is why they used Isp values to represent engine performance which is what I was getting at.

I posted only 2 equations, which some people (not you) already glazed over. It's merely to prove the behavior of the engines in regards to the atmospheric pressure.

It is this very behavior that some of us would like to see simulated in game. KSP already loosely models atmospheric effects on rockets by varying their Isp, I still don't see a reason to do it incorrectly as it is now rather than correctly.

Because the spaceflight simulation crowd will never be happy with the realism of the game because it's impossible to make a 100% realistic game, (and this is coming from someone who plays flight simulation games himself). All they are doing now is nitpicking on minor details which distracts SQUAD from doing other important things. Even if SQUAD hypothetically implements this, the realism crowd will ask for something else in the name of realism and the cycle keeps going on. There is no pleasing the realism crowd and the fact that they aren't even willing to compromise on a minor mechanic like thrust variance despite evidence, shows this.

That's a broad, broad brush you're painting with. I consider myself a part of the "simulation" crowd, but even I don't want total realism (I even posted about some unrealistic things in KSP that I wouldn't want changed in this thread). I would be pleased if thrust scaling were implemented, along with abstracted life support, ISRU, better aero/reentry effects. Once those things are hypothetically implemented, my desire for more realism would be well sated.

Of course, everyone's desire for realism is different, and I don't think my or anyone else's vision should be imposed on others. Threads like this are just a way for us to provide feedback to the devs about where we'd like the game to go, it is of course ultimately their decision on which path to follow.

It also wasn't the sole reason given. Then again, breaking saves to please a demanding vocal minority at the expense of everyone's save game state is not a valid reason either. I'd be more willing to accept a vote for the demand for that implementation rather than simply disqualifying everyone else's save games for a personal preference.

It hasn't been shown that such a change would be save breaking, nor is KSP's development direction a democratic decision. If Squad wants a poll about it I'm sure they'll do one of their surveys.

BTW, I am sympathetic about save-breaking as I too have been through a lot of versions that broke saves. But I do think it is unrealistic to expect saves to remain valid through the development process.

Judging from the current potato aerodynamics of KSP (which I actually want changed) you will likely end up with more fuel in orbit. I like realism in KSP, but this thrust variance, is not one that ranks up very high on the list of importance compared to other things that we could actually improve in the game. It was my main point all along, but I'm not sure people are understanding this and are getting a bit defensive.

We weren't talking about aero changes, but instead about thrust variance as the expression of Isp variance. I stand by my statement that delta-V for a given craft will not change, and fuel remaining in orbit will not change significantly for most designs.

It's better for KSP to be as simple as possible and if something obviously doesn't affect gameplay, then there's no reason it should be implemented either. It's more work for SQUAD, people won't notice if it's there and people won't miss it if it's gone.

By that argument, no improvements to the simulation should ever be done. Squad has already determined that atmospheric variation in Isp should be modeled in the game, it seems a small step to me to model it more realistically.

[Wanderfound]

Some might like resupply missions, though

Yup.

I like flying the milk truck to the Munar bases etc. Gives me a reason to go back to places without being driven there by science grinding.

[Tw1]

Breaking saves is therefore clearly not even on the radar as an issue.

That's an unfair limitation to ask of the developers, IMHO.

IMHO, saves are more tough than most players seem to think.

I've played since .18, gone through updates, and mod changes that said they would break my save, and they didn't.

Unless the format needs to change drastically, saves seem to adapt.

(that said, I do have a few older mod versions hanging around to make sure craft aren't breaking)

However, changes certainly will interrupt the ongoing play of a player who's not willing to make use of hyperedit, KAS, or file editing to work around them.

I don't see the problem with modifying ISP- adapting to it will mean modifying some designs, It will mean a little more engine is needed to get something into space, causing trouble for Eve, Duna, and Laythe landers with tight thrust margins.

But this is assuming that the current max thrust values for the engines are the vacuum levels. Maybe they could be the sea level values. Though maybe that would make things too easy in space...

Edited September 9, 2014 by Tw1

[Levelord]

Levelord, you seem to have two contradictory viewpoints: On the one hand you say that realistic thrust scaling is too insignificant to gameplay to bother implementing, yet you also say that realistic thrust scaling will break saves and craft designs. I'm of the opinion that saves would be unaffected by this change and only the most tightly optimized craft would be significantly affected. Conveniently, those who like to tightly optimize their craft are likely to enjoy designing ships and realism, so it would add new gameplay dimensions for them while not affecting the others.

Breaking craft files and corrupting save games are not gameplay features. You're trying to make a connection out of something that isn't there.

It is this very behavior that some of us would like to see simulated in game. KSP already loosely models atmospheric effects on rockets by varying their Isp, I still don't see a reason to do it incorrectly as it is now rather than correctly.

I'd prefer that they do something about the aerodynamics before even considering implementing thrust scaling. Otherwise thrust scaling would simply be broken in a broken aerodynamics model.

That's a broad, broad brush you're painting with. I consider myself a part of the "simulation" crowd, but even I don't want total realism (I even posted about some unrealistic things in KSP that I wouldn't want changed in this thread). I would be pleased if thrust scaling were implemented, along with abstracted life support, ISRU, better aero/reentry effects. Once those things are hypothetically implemented, my desire for more realism would be well sated.

Of course, everyone's desire for realism is different, and I don't think my or anyone else's vision should be imposed on others. Threads like this are just a way for us to provide feedback to the devs about where we'd like the game to go, it is of course ultimately their decision on which path to follow.

I painted a large brush because I'm also a realism junkie, but I also have to ironically temper unrealistic demands from a realism crowd. I agree whole heatedly about the devs decision and not imposing values on others, which was why I felt it was important to provide my feedback in balance to the demands of the vocal minority.

It hasn't been shown that such a change would be save breaking, nor is KSP's development direction a democratic decision. If Squad wants a poll about it I'm sure they'll do one of their surveys.

BTW, I am sympathetic about save-breaking as I too have been through a lot of versions that broke saves. But I do think it is unrealistic to expect saves to remain valid through the development process.

I've too grown to not be attached to my save game files, but at the same time some people are and it's also highly inconvenient to keep re-starting. So I have to be considerate of the changes I see being proposed and if it's going to benefit the most people enough to outweigh the cons of losing progress in their game.

We weren't talking about aero changes, but instead about thrust variance as the expression of Isp variance. I stand by my statement that delta-V for a given craft will not change, and fuel remaining in orbit will not change significantly for most designs.

Atmospheric pressure affects Isp and thrust, aero changes are absolutely important if thrust/Isp variance is important to you. I can't refute your claims on the fuel because I don't have the numbers to back it up but you can't deny that the KSP aerodynamics is broken and that thrust variance has to work in this broken environment regardless. Maybe when they address the aerodynamics I'll accept having thrust variance in, but not in the state it's in now.

By that argument, no improvements to the simulation should ever be done. Squad has already determined that atmospheric variation in Isp should be modeled in the game, it seems a small step to me to model it more realistically.

Aiming for simplicity/streamlining is not the same as stagnation. That's like asking SQUAD to keep the game code clean and thinking that people want a halt to game engine optimization. I haven't seen or been shown documentation on SQUAD's long term goals with Isp modelling, but whatever they decide, I'll trust in their experience to do it properly.

[lincourtl]

Just throwing this into the mix...

The folks at KSP also told Polygon that modeling the atmosphere during re-entry is something they are considering for the future, but they can't make any promises.

-- Kerbal Space Program exploit creates a new kind of space race; Polygon; Sep. 9, 2014

[NWDogg]

Aerodynamic overhaul:

Pros: It allows real rockets. Period. No nosecones is counter-intuitive, and makes a new player more frustrated than they need to be to get into the game. It makes parabolic trajectories practical, rather than punishing, which is again counter-intuitive and needlessly frustrates new players. It increases terminal velocity beyond a tiny number, which AGAIN, is counter-intuitive and needlessly frustrating to new players as in current stock.

Cons: Can't send up ridiculous non-rockets

ISP

Pros: It's correct math. Thrust varying with ISP, rather than fuel usage, means you'll end up with more fuel in orbit and able to do more fun stuff up there (theoretically, with good ship design). It also means you can use bigger engines off the ground, without need to limit their thrust down to 50% to prevent aerodynamic breakage and hitting terminal velocity (this one ties directly into aerodynamic changes.) It's correct math.

Cons: None

Scale (Something small, like 1.5 or 2x max)

Pros: Increases delta-V to orbit requirements, meaning less re-balancing of the career mode (tied in with aero changes), and slightly (emphasis on slightly) more difficult rocket design.

Cons: A lot of extra development time to implement new terrain that doesn't look horrible on ground. Time-warp increases, so more time spent doing nothing. deltaV maps would need to be updated. I wouldn't mind this one to go either way.

Re-entry

Pros: The game already tells you about it. It's intuitive, new players expect it. It's fun and adds an additional layer of puzzle-solving to extra-planetary missions.

Cons: Heat-shields would need to be modeled into game.

Life Support

Pros: Adds an additional layer of puzzle solving to interplanetary missions.

Cons: Increases micromanagement of resources on ship designs. Creates another probable situation of 'Oh crap, I just got all the way to Jool and realized I forgot to add *life support resource*' in addition to the current *solar panels*, *batteries*, *parachutes*, etc...

In summary, I think Aerodynamic changes, Re-entry heating, and most especially ISP changes NEED to be added into the game. The cons in these 3 do not outweigh the pros. Life support is a different matter. I can see that one being too much a 'add it just because' deal. Although, the interplanetary missions are a bit bland at the moment anyway (which I can safely say about the whole stock game actually), so they do need something to increase puzzle solving and dynamic gameplay in that regard.

Planet scaling (to a small degree) I agree with, but only if it is a necessity brought on by the addition of a more realistic aero system. In fact, this one I'm ok with leaving out of stock if Squad will provide a way for modders to create and edit terrain.

PS: All of the 'counter-intuitive and frustrating to new players' stuff I added, is based on how I felt when I first played this game, and I'm not a veteran or a professional aerospace engineer here.

[Wanderfound]

Time-warp increases, so more time spent doing nothing.

This comes up a lot, but I really don't get it. Double the scale, double the maximum timewarp: impact on wait-around time = 0.

Is there some limitation I'm missing that would make this not possible?

[Guest]

This comes up a lot, but I really don't get it. Double the scale, double the maximum timewarp: impact on wait-around time = 0.

Is there some limitation I'm missing that would make this not possible?

I've personally run into issues with 1,000,000x timewarp, as used in RSS, but bringing that back down to 500,000x worked fine. I don't think anyone else has experienced that, though, or it hasn't been enough of an issue (maybe just Linux x64 version?). Anyway, 500,000x seemed pretty good for RSS so I'd be happy with that. Also, for double timescale 200,000x would be excellent and I even think the max timewarp is pretty slow in stock as it is. Of course, when you increase the max you almost require an alarm clock of sorts...

[The Jedi Master]

I honestly don't know why the "ISP is not calculated by fuel" thing is so important. Most players who aren't math geeks (like myself) aren't going to care, and it dosen't fundamentally change the game.

Just gonna pop some popcorn...

[tater]

Regarding time warp, I wonder if it is possible to implement a time jump. The idea being that instead of computing the entire solar system in real time as it animates, you could jump forward to an instant in the future, then it resets all the on-raisl still at that point in the future (incrementing anything that gets used up over time even unfocused, obviously).

Ie: if you were planning on letting a couple game-years pass without doing anything else excel your Jool mission, and you have an insertion in 2 years, 37 days, 13 hours, and 10 minutes, you set jump to those values, and Poof! there you are. It would save the overrunning issue I have had sometimes (ship barely moving in TC, so I bump it up, then blow past a planned node).

Just a thought. That or have the ability to tell a maneuver node when you set it that it must pull you to 1:1 compression X minutes ahead of time (like alarm clock).

[tater]

I honestly don't know why the "ISP is not calculated by fuel" thing is so important. Most players who aren't math geeks (like myself) aren't going to care, and it dosen't fundamentally change the game.

Just gonna pop some popcorn...

Are you saying that it will not affect typical players either way, so they may as well do it right, or that it will not affect typical players either way so they should do the math wrong because… why not do the math wrong just to mess with people?

[Red Iron Crown]

Breaking craft files and corrupting save games are not gameplay features. You're trying to make a connection out of something that isn't there.

I merely point out that changing thrust scaling, which you say wouldn't significantly affect design considerations, is very unlikely to break a save. The physics models are not stored in the save game. You brought up save breaking, I feel the onus is on you to show how changing thrust scaling would break saves.

I'd prefer that they do something about the aerodynamics before even considering implementing thrust scaling. Otherwise thrust scaling would simply be broken in a broken aerodynamics model.

This is an area where the aero model is realistic. KSP represents atmospheric pressure changes with scale heights and surface pressure, a reasonably accurate model that AFAIK ferram4's aero mods do not change (could be wrong about that, somebody please correct me if so). The aero problems are related to drag and lift calculations; while atmospheric pressure are components of those calculations they are not the broken parts.

One area where atmospheric pressure is modeled unrealistically is the sharp cutoff at a bit under 70km, but I feel this is a good concession to gameplay in making low stable orbits possible.

I've too grown to not be attached to my save game files, but at the same time some people are and it's also highly inconvenient to keep re-starting. So I have to be considerate of the changes I see being proposed and if it's going to benefit the most people enough to outweigh the cons of losing progress in their game.

I'm not addressing any further arguments about save breaking. It is inconvenient and painful at times, but is pretty much a requirement for the game to develop further.

Atmospheric pressure affects Isp and thrust, aero changes are absolutely important if thrust/Isp variance is important to you. I can't refute your claims on the fuel because I don't have the numbers to back it up but you can't deny that the KSP aerodynamics is broken and that thrust variance has to work in this broken environment regardless. Maybe when they address the aerodynamics I'll accept having thrust variance in, but not in the state it's in now.

See my point about scale heights above, thrust scaling can be corrected without changing the aero model, and it will remain correct when or if the aero model changes.

Aiming for simplicity/streamlining is not the same as stagnation. That's like asking SQUAD to keep the game code clean and thinking that people want a halt to game engine optimization. I haven't seen or been shown documentation on SQUAD's long term goals with Isp modelling, but whatever they decide, I'll trust in their experience to do it properly.

I don't see the broken implementation of thrust scaling as any more complex than the correct one. Maybe others see it differently.

[The Jedi Master]

Are you saying that it will not affect typical players either way, so they may as well do it right, or that it will not affect typical players either way so they should do the math wrong because… why not do the math wrong just to mess with people?

I never said that they should or shouldn't, I was just implying we shouldn't push it so hard. Some people are being a little insane over a toothpick, IMHO.

[NWDogg]

This comes up a lot, but I really don't get it. Double the scale, double the maximum timewarp: impact on wait-around time = 0.

Is there some limitation I'm missing that would make this not possible?

Not that I'm aware of. I just didn't want to add an additional requisite feature beyond those that were mentioned in the OP to discuss. I agree with you, the time-scale issue is (theoretically) easily solvable, but to remain unbiased and my reply to the OP as streamlined as possible, I didn't consider it within this context.

[PDCWolf]

Since we are all doing this:

Aerodynamics Model:

I believe fixing the aerodynamics would add that "i saw it in real life so it must work here" thing both with planes and rockets, I remember building my first plane back in 0.15 and it didn't even took off the runway, even when it was supposed to be the easiest thing to fly in the world (long slender body, normal tail arrangement with elevator and rudder, high wing with dihedral). I tried to identify the problem (back then we didn't have much tools, CoL/M/T indicators came in 0.17 IIRC) and everything was in place (you know, moved the gear around to see where the CoM actually was, etc) and it just didn't fly well because of the aerodynamic system. And don't even get me started on the time when I realized nosecones actually made everything worse and coneless pancakes flew better than tall and thin rockets. It is really counter-intuitive, the more knowledge of real world rocketry/aeronautics you have, the worse it is.

ISP Fix

I was always bothered by how chamber pressure is not simulated at all (if you throttle down the engine, it should be less efficient too), I didn't know that thrust was supposed to change. I installed KIDS some time ago, and the difference isn't really that much, but it is a nice thing to have.

Scale

All in for it, the minimum should be to keep the 4.5km/s to orbit requirement with whatever the new aerodynamic model is. Anything above that I'd be happy with, but it is unnecessary from a gameplay standpoint

Re-entry heat

This was promised for 0.19, never came, never got word of it again. Literally everyone knows this should happen, it's in movies, and if you are old enough you remember the Columbia disaster too, so you have it present.

Life support

Also planned and promised, never heard of again. I'd be happy with something akin to TAC. I don't mind a simplified model as long as it doesn't remove difficulty and comes with pretty parts.

There aren't any cons that I can list, really.

[Wanderfound]

I never said that they should or shouldn't, I was just implying we shouldn't push it so hard. Some people are being a little insane over a toothpick, IMHO.

A while ago I would have agreed with you, but I'm increasingly swinging to the get-ISP-right side.

Apart from the substantial pool of existng players who appreciate the relatively reality-based physics under the hood of KSP, Kerbal.edu is a strong argument against including misleading models unless there is a good reason to do so. Sure, breaks from reality are fine when there's a valid reason for them (patched conics, simplified fuels, somewhat reduced scale, etc), but I'm yet to see anything that comes anywhere near to being a good reason for retaining the ISP thing. It appears to be entirely based upon pointless inertia; the dodgy ISP model adds nothing to the game.

It's not even a simplification; it's just plain wrong. And fixing it appears to be a relatively trivial task, with no significant downside.

[Levelord]

I merely point out that changing thrust scaling, which you say wouldn't significantly affect design considerations, is very unlikely to break a save. The physics models are not stored in the save game. You brought up save breaking, I feel the onus is on you to show how changing thrust scaling would break saves.

This is an area where the aero model is realistic. KSP represents atmospheric pressure changes with scale heights and surface pressure, a reasonably accurate model that AFAIK ferram4's aero mods do not change (could be wrong about that, somebody please correct me if so). The aero problems are related to drag and lift calculations; while atmospheric pressure are components of those calculations they are not the broken parts.

One area where atmospheric pressure is modeled unrealistically is the sharp cutoff at a bit under 70km, but I feel this is a good concession to gameplay in making low stable orbits possible.

I'm not addressing any further arguments about save breaking. It is inconvenient and painful at times, but is pretty much a requirement for the game to develop further.

See my point about scale heights above, thrust scaling can be corrected without changing the aero model, and it will remain correct when or if the aero model changes.

The aero model doesn't take into account changes in air pressure of a moving object, especially ones moving at mach speeds. You know, realism where it matters in a rocket traveling that fast when launching which is the whole point of thrust scaling realism? Also the atmospheric pressures in KSP isn't gradual like in real life, instead it goes through 3 or 4 distinct layers that jarrs into existence when you cross from one layer into another. That's not realistic at all.

[Red Iron Crown]

The aero model doesn't take into account changes in air pressure of a moving object, especially ones moving at mach speeds. You know, realism where it matters in a rocket traveling that fast when launching which is the whole point of thrust scaling realism?

The air pressure calculation is orthogonal to correct thrust scaling implementation. If thrust scaling were changed, it would be as correct as possible in this aero model and would remain correct in a putative new aero model.

Honestly, I do not understand why this small change is so objectionable. It increases realism with next to no penalty, and seems to be a simple change to implement (according to the programmer types anyway, not my skill set).

Edit for your edit:

Also the atmospheric pressures in KSP isn't gradual like in real life, instead it goes through 3 or 4 distinct layers that jarrs into existence when you cross from one layer into another. That's not realistic at all.

No it doesn't, it uses the scale height model. The only sharp cutoff is at the atmosphere's edge.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Red Iron Crown

[Franklin]

I'm against a full sized solar system too, but slightly larger would be nice. Otherwise I totally agree. I'd also like to see axial tilt, but it pales next to my desire for realistic aerodynamics, reeentry heating, and more realistic engine performance.

The applicable and appropriate axial tilts are a good and so far orphaned realism element, can we add those to the first post w/ Pros/Cons? It would add a level of complexity to the current "go straight up for a while, then hold the D key for a while" launch recipe. The con of course is people would need to learn that planets have tilts.

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

Not to be dismissive, but as someone who has flight experience, wouldn't you see any game that flaunts itself as a teaching tool where that's possible as a problem?

[Wanderfound]

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

Quite literally. Don't even need two.

[Creature]

I'm a gamer. I support realism but only when it bends a knee to the altar of meaningful gameplay decisions. Quite honestly some of the realism advocates do seem to maybe have lost some perspective on where the line is between stupid arcade and going grognard. On flipside many people seem to oppose the changes just for the sake of opposing the changes. But here's my take on things.

ISP.

When I started playing, I googled it and read about it. I learned something like this (still no idea how far off the mark I am): atmosphere affects thrust if fuel flow is constant, KSP makes thrust constant but alters the fuel flow. In realistic model you'd need to hit the throttle a bit more to get the same thrust and you end up burning more fuel, in KSP mode it just burns more fuel. So in the end the gameplay effect is pretty much the same, either way you need to choose an engine that has enough thrust. This is the gameplay decision here: Which engine do you choose for this rocket.

For me it's just comparing peanuts to peanuts. However I'd argue that many people don't even care about the effect of atmosphere on the engine at all. They have enough thrust to lift off, enough dV to do what they want and that's it. Only substantial thing the realistic ISP would do is add a level of complication. I don't mind either way but I can see why they want to simplify it a bit. The educational value is that atmosphere affects engine performance. That's not wrong. The details are, but so is the Bohr model and still they use it to explain the structure of an atom.

I honestly do not understand how this has become such a major issue for people. But then again, the arguments against it aren't really all that strong either so might as well change it. Maybe then even I would learn how it really works.

Pros:

Realism crowd isn't complaining.

Cons:

The low-complexity crowd isn't complaining.

Life support

With every life support mod you do pretty much one thing. Estimate how long the mission will last and how many kerbals are going. Add tonnage to compensate. Forget unless you estimated wrong. It's fun for some people and I understand it, but enjoying the mechanic pretty much requires the premise that you want to have a life support system. The mechanic itself is simply a timer that you need to satisfy.

Unless there's something substantial gameplay wise added to life support, I'm adamantly against it. If someone implements kerbal comfort and happiness levels, a reason to actually take kerbals somewhere other than the arbitrary science experiments they can do, meaningful decision on how the life support is done, then I'm definitely for it! I'd love to have my miner kerbals produce more funds if they have access to comfy living quarters with huge snack supplies to wolf down, I want my science kerbals to get more lightbulbs over their heads if they have ample supply of extra electricity to play video games and get intellectually stimulated and Jeb to get frustrated if he doesn't get to do a 5 G turn at least once during the mission. Anything meaningful. But not "Add 2 tons of life support to last a year. 4 tons for 2 years. 6 if you think you need 3 years." Also I don't want kerbals to die but that's just personal preference.

Pros:

Could be interesting.

Cons:

Could be arbitrary.

Aerodynamics

This one's s great example. The soup dynamics make any design decision on the shape of the craft irrelevant. Barn doors and pancakes fly just as well as sleek, beautiful planes. With FAR, every choice matters.

Pros:

Meaningful design.

Cons:

Can't think of any.

Re-entry

Along with aerodynamic forces being able to break joints, this one makes you think about the craft design quite a bit.

Pros:

If you want to bring something back, you need to figure out how to do it properly.

Cons:

Some wacky space plane designs become harder or impossible.

Universe scale

With improved aerodynamics, the planets can and need to be bigger. I think the 4,5 km/s to orbit is pretty good, it could go up to 6 but not more than that. After playing with RSS, the launches are quite exciting at first, but soon the scale starts to be a bit tedious. 15 minutes to orbit doesn't sound like much, but after 10 launches it starts to feel a bit long. This however is nothing more than a personal preference. The stock launch is way too quick though. I don't like dropping my first stage 15 seconds after liftoff.

Pros:

More immersive launches (highly subjective)

A huge planet looming over your head is a sight to behold

Cons:

Longer launches (migh be an issue for some)

Planetside travel gets more tedious. Procedural terrain isn't THAT exciting to watch.