Realism in KSP - Various Ideas with Pros/ Cons

[tntristan12]

I've been a log time advocate of a "laundry list" update like this. I'm sure some of these "small" problems are low on the devs' priority list, but I also feel like that doesn't mean we should just put them by the wayside and completely forget about them for however many years this game is going to remain in development. Besides, I feel like it could be a nice break for the devs to take away from implementing large, game altering features (however necessary they are being completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make). Some of the best updates have been ones that pushed through some under-the-hood optimizations or "little things" that the general public tends not to notice, but makes the game run more smoothly and easier to update in the long-run.

[Guest]

I've been a log time advocate of a "laundry list" update like this. I'm sure some of these "small" problems are low on the devs' priority list, but I also feel like that doesn't mean we should just put them by the wayside and completely forget about them for however many years this game is going to remain in development. Besides, I feel like it could be a nice break for the devs to take away from implementing large, game altering features (however necessary they are being completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make). Some of the best updates have been ones that pushed through some under-the-hood optimizations or "little things" that the general public tends not to notice, but makes the game run more smoothly and easier to update in the long-run.

We won't see one of those until "scope completion" (whatever that actually entails, it's just as cryptic as the upcoming "OMG MASSIVE SEEKRET FEATURE"), if ever.

[Renegrade]

I've been a log time advocate of a "laundry list" update like this. I'm sure some of these "small" problems are low on the devs' priority list, but I also feel like that doesn't mean we should just put them by the wayside and completely forget about them for however many years this game is going to remain in development

I wish Squad and Marek Rosa (of Space Engineers) could get together and exchange notes. KSP needs more small updates that knock these minor things off (and more frequently), and Mr. Rosa needs to make an update that has something other than minor things in it (just a handful though) .

I noticed another minor thing today while playing. Jool states it has an atmosphere height of 200km in it's description in-game, but the wiki says it's like 138km (and I was at 140km earlier today and was outside of the atmosphere). How long as that been in there? :S

(Plus I'd like to reiterate that Gilly's high/low space regimes and warp regimes are kinda close in)

We won't see one of those until "scope completion" (whatever that actually entails, it's just as cryptic as the upcoming "OMG MASSIVE SEEKRET FEATURE"), if ever.

Scope Completion is October...2029.

[Wallygator]

Can someone please define what "scope complete" actuality entails? I cannot find anything referencing a definition in regards to KPS development methodology.

I infer that it means that all the basic systems and features are implemented - but that specific content and balancing would still remain to be to adjusted.

I apologise if this question is off topic in this thread.

[Guest]

Can someone please define what "scope complete" actuality entails? I cannot find anything referencing a definition in regards to KPS development methodology.

Apparently it's when all the major systems are complete and in the game. What constitutes the "major systems" is anyone's guess (even the devs themselves, I suspect, but I won't get into that). Once that's finished, apparently, we'll get the "thousand cuts" updates many of us crave over this career nonsense.

[Jouni]

Yes, those figures sound about right. The question is though: will that really ruin the game?

Yes. That would ruin a part of the game, just like the magic Star Wars technology masquerading as jet engines has ruined another part. Reaching orbit should be hard and expensive, or otherwise it doensn't feel like spaceflight at all.

[Wallygator]

Apparently it's when all the major systems are complete and in the game. What constitutes the "major systems" is anyone's guess (even the devs themselves, I suspect, but I won't get into that). Once that's finished, apparently, we'll get the "thousand cuts" updates many of us crave over this career nonsense.

Thanks for that. That makes some sense. Perhaps if Rowsdower is listening he can provide the devs definition also? I suspect that there is probably a strong thread of expectation management here.

Now, to add my two cents (pence? seeing as I'm in the UK)

Aerodynamics

-Pros

A realistic model encourages young people to associate actual model rocket behaviour with rockets in KSP.

-There are no Cons here. It totally support Kerbal EDU, etc. Live Physics...

Universe Scale

-Pros

Watching Cosmos in the background conveys a sense of wonder at the expanse of space

-Cons

Too far, too long and too distant for many objects in the game (so a careful rebalancing would be needed if a realistic solar system model was introduced.

Isp

-Pros

See aerodynamics above (I support the idea of ISP accuracy)

-Cons

can’t see any as long as balance is maintained

Life Support

-Pros

provides a sense of urgency and focuses the player on planning and executing achievable missions

-Cons

might add too much tension. perhaps alleviated by a level based complexity toggle.

Re-entry (and other) Danger

-Pros

Maintains consistency with real life perceptions of the danger (and recent memory) of space flight (re Challenge, Columbia, Apollo 1, Nedelin, Soyuz 1 and 11, etc.

-Cons

might be a tad bit depressing.

[NecroBones]

Right, "scope complete" basically means all of the main gameplay systems are in place. That comes well before "feature complete", since they will still be adding features. "Feature complete" essentially means you've moved on to polishing and bug-fixing, since everything else is done.

[Wanderfound]

Re-entry (and other) Danger

-Pros

Maintains consistency with real life perceptions of the danger (and recent memory) of space flight (re Challenge, Columbia, Apollo 1, Nedelin, Soyuz 1 and 11, etc.

-Cons

might be a tad bit depressing.

Easily avoided, though. As currently implemented by mods, reentry heating is very easy to deal with.

The Deadly Reentry mod could be more accurately titled "mildly hazardous if you're completely suicidal reentry".

[Wallygator]

Easily avoided, though. As currently implemented by mods, reentry heating is very easy to deal with.

The Deadly Reentry mod could be more accurately titled "mildly hazardous if you're completely suicidal reentry".

Ha! so true!

[Guest]

The Deadly Reentry mod could be more accurately titled "mildly hazardous if you're completely suicidal reentry".

Did anyone aside from me notice the tweaking options for DRE in the DRE OP? I feel like if it's too easy for you then you should up the heating instead of saying it's too easy. Or do you feel it should be configured unforgiving out of the box? If that's a big problem then maybe that could be brought up in the DRE thread? I'm sure NathanKell would appreciate the feedback.

Bottom line, though, if it gets implemented by SQUAD you're going to have to tweak it anyway, whether through mods or the menu, because SQUAD will probably make it even easier than out-of-the-box DRE...

[tater]

I read the DRE readme (as a modder of other games I realize from experience, no one reads them. Ever, as far as I can tell.) I did the suggested 1.12 to start with. I managed to kill 3 guys because I did not realize that the Mk1-2 pod didn't have an integral heat shield like the Mk1). Live (or die) and learn.

[Wanderfound]

Yes, I know that you can wind up Deadly Reentry if you want to.

But it seems to have a reputation as an extremely lethal and difficult hyper-realism mod, and it just isn't when it's on the default settings.

I'm not complaining; if anything, I'm saying this to encourage more people to give it a try. Toasting canards is way fun.

I think it should be made stock, with the default settings at least as hard as they are at present, but retaining the ability for the user to wind it up or down as far as they like.

[Renegrade]

Yes. That would ruin a part of the game, just like the magic Star Wars technology masquerading as jet engines has ruined another part. Reaching orbit should be hard and expensive, or otherwise it doensn't feel like spaceflight at all.

Agreed about the Star Wars turbofan/turbojet/ramjet/scramjet magical engines, but I don't really find the current atmospheric game 'hard and expensive', except maybe an Eve surface return or such.

While I agree that it's the wrong direction in terms of difficulty, I don't think it's that big of a jump between millions-of-funds-not-being-used and millions-of-funds-not-being used etc. There are other ways aside from souposphere to impose cost.

Bottom line, though, if it gets implemented by SQUAD you're going to have to tweak it anyway, whether through mods or the menu, because SQUAD will probably make it even easier than out-of-the-box DRE...

Well, to be fair to Squad, that WOULD be realistic with current itty-bitty neutron-star-density Kerbin.. Mach 6 is a bit toasty, but not like Earth's Mach 25.

[NathanKell]

Yeah, we've flown airplanes (if you can call what those SCRAMjet tests are "airplanes") at Kerbin-orbital-speed. Deadly Reentry isn't. And, indeed, there's been a fair amount of complaint about that in the thread, although much of it comes not from the low heat of reentry but from the high maximum temperature of parts; even scaled down by DRE, fuel tanks break at about 1400C, which is crazy when you think about it. That's still better than stock, where most parts have a maximum temperature of 3600 (which is beyond the boiling point of even high-temperature metals, and over double what real heat shields are rated at).

Renegade: I made that square-cube assumption because I assume people are in general sane and will build, generally, sane rockets. An assumption you yourself alluded to with the whole bit about non-increasing frontal area.

And for the love of all that's unholy, don't suggest lowering the PMF *further*. It's already, like, Redstone-level (75-80% propellant *without payload*).

[Jouni]

Agreed about the Star Wars turbofan/turbojet/ramjet/scramjet magical engines, but I don't really find the current atmospheric game 'hard and expensive', except maybe an Eve surface return or such.

The delta-v requirements of reaching orbit are a bit low for my taste. Given the current efficiency of engines, reaching orbit from a balanced Kerbin should require 5000-6000 m/s. That way you could still build SSTO rockets if you really wanted so, but they would not be useful for anything. Spaceplanes would also become more interesting, as they would require a nontrivial rocket stage to reach orbit.

[Renegrade]

Yeah, we've flown airplanes (if you can call what those SCRAMjet tests are "airplanes") at Kerbin-orbital-speed. Deadly Reentry isn't. And, indeed, there's been a fair amount of complaint about that in the thread, although much of it comes not from the low heat of reentry but from the high maximum temperature of parts; even scaled down by DRE, fuel tanks break at about 1400C, which is crazy when you think about it. That's still better than stock, where most parts have a maximum temperature of 3600 (which is beyond the boiling point of even high-temperature metals, and over double what real heat shields are rated at).

Actually, why ARE the stock parts rated for that temperature? Engines and really tight solar orbits are the only places to experience those temperatures in stock, aren't they?

And what are they made out of? Carbon nanotubes?

Something else they should peek at during a balance pass..

Renegade: I made that square-cube assumption because I assume people are in general sane and will build, generally, sane rockets. An assumption you yourself alluded to with the whole bit about non-increasing frontal area.

I dunno about this 'people are in general sane' and especially 'will build, generally, sane rockets'. I've seen some pretty scary rockets in pictures and youtube and such, hehe.

(Also KSP's physics encourages people to make squat rockets, since they're easier to strut together...)

And for the love of all that's unholy, don't suggest lowering the PMF *further*. It's already, like, Redstone-level (75-80% propellant *without payload*).

No? Not 50 tons of tank for 5 grams of fuel? Aww...

The delta-v requirements of reaching orbit are a bit low for my taste. Given the current efficiency of engines, reaching orbit from a balanced Kerbin should require 5000-6000 m/s. That way you could still build SSTO rockets if you really wanted so, but they would not be useful for anything. Spaceplanes would also become more interesting, as they would require a nontrivial rocket stage to reach orbit.

Well, that would require a much bigger Kerbin with stock aero (or much thicker air, maybe they could launch from underwater?), or a much-much bigger Kerbin with some sort of real aero (maybe around 3.5-4x scale -- I seem to recall 6.4x being about 7 to 7.5km to orbit or thereabouts with FAR).

Or we could knock back engine efficiency (Nathan says 'heck no' to propellant mass fraction changes) across the board. Squad did get a bit frisky with the buff wand when fixing the 'NASA' problem.. but it would take quite a trim to make it 6k-equivalent to orbit..

Don't you think it would be better just to attack cost from a different angle, like funds, build times, or other forms of part availability?

[Jouni]

Don't you think it would be better just to attack cost from a different angle, like funds, build times, or other forms of part availability?

It's more about game design than game balance. Everybody knows that rockets have stages. If we have a kind-of-realistic game about rockets, where the rockets don't need staging to reach orbit, it's a design failure that needs to be fixed.

[Flayer]

When i first found out that nosecones did nothing, i still added them to rockets and sideboosters because rockets need nosecones. There is no debate necessary on this. Since then i have installed FAR to compensate for this nonsense.

[Sky_walker]

It's more about game design than game balance. Everybody knows that rockets have stages. If we have a kind-of-realistic game about rockets, where the rockets don't need staging to reach orbit, it's a design failure that needs to be fixed.

Technically - early Atlas rockets were... sort-of Single-Stage-To-Orbit designs.

There were also multiple designs and ideas, like Aquarius, for SSTO rockets, however none of them accomplished a successful spaceflight.

In either case - purely theoretically there's nothing stopping you from building SSTO rocket in real life. It's just that from practical point of view - it's a stupid idea. You waste time, money and resources on something that performs significantly worse than staged rocket.

In KSP on the other hand it's quite opposite - it's cheaper, more efficient and in some (rare) cases easier to build SSTO than multi-stage rocket. This leads to plenty of obscure misconceptions.

When i first found out that nosecones did nothing, i still added them to rockets and sideboosters because rockets need nosecones. There is no debate necessary on this. Since then i have installed FAR to compensate for this nonsense.

Yea.... that's the problem.

To get KSP behave in a... logical way you NEED mods.

As I tried to highlight in few points of my lengthy post - majority of new players expects several things from a game about spaceflight, including possibility of death during the reentry, aerodynamics that make some sense, or a proper maths running behind the scenes:

Aerodynamics

-Pros

• Intuitive rocket design will be good rocket design, unlike in a current implementation, where players are punished for building rockets that look like these from real world
  
• Nose cones will be beneficial, not punishing
  
• Shielded docking port will be beneficial in some designs, not inferior in every way to the unshielded one
  
• Building planes (inc. spaceplanes) will be easier and more intuitive (I'm yet to build successful airplane in stock aerodynamics, while I did it just fine in FAR)
  
• Game will hopefully start teaching people good things. For example that the best way to get in space is not by using stacks of turbojet engines and one small rocket on top of that
  

-Cons

• Current veterans will have to un-learn their old habits
  
• Some of the whackjobs won't work any more
  
• It'll require more work than it looks on a first glance from the devs. Not only they'll have to code in proper simulation, but we'll also need to have fairings in a stock game (including proper customizable inter-stage fairings) and all of the missing parts related to aerodynamics and structure.
  

Re-entry Danger

I moved it right under aerodynamics as for me - these two are linked. Proper aerodynamics = proper reentry dangers.

This one is a change that makes least of a difference to the new players.

-Pros

• Every new player expects reentry to be dangerous. Every new player tries to build a rockets that take that into account. Every new player is somewhat disappointed to find out that it's not the case.
  
• Players won't be punished for building realistic descend modules.
  

-Cons

• Current veterans will have to un-learn their old habits
  
• Some of the current reusable rockets will be useless with a proper reentry damage.
  
• Slight increase in difficulty - it should be migrated by user interface displaying warnings when flight path leads to potentially deadly atmospheric reentry (and highlight it when you are on a perfect reentry angle/speed combination)
  

Universe Scale

Mind you - I don't want game to up-scale into a fully realistic sizes. Just something that wouldn't lead to insane densities.

-Pros

• More realistic ascend paths - no more forced turns at 10km, instead players will use proper gravity turns and see pretty much the same thing they can in transmissions from the real rocket launches
  
• "Going up" won't be nearly as huge part of a challenge as it is now - people will learn a proper thing about the space flight
  
• Kerbin (and, well, all the other planets) won't be a neutron star any more with it's insane density
  
• It'll trigger Kraken's bane near Mun and Minimus so we won't be experiencing bugs out there that we do now
  
• Atmosphere will behave in more natural way allowing for more accurate and easier aerodynamics simulation
  
• Which will also allow a proper "translation" of real-world rockets and engines to the KSP reality
  
• Game will finally be able to use close-to-real-world values for rocket engines which also adds to the educational value
  

-Cons

• Ascend might take slightly longer (depends on a scale)
  
• Flight between the planets and moons might take longer, though it's not really a problem as people run time compression on this one regardless
  
• It might require some additional work rebalancing the game (though this change should be combined with fixes to the aerodynamics, therefore overall delta-v requirement to ascent into orbit would remain similar)
  

Isp

-Pros

• You get the underlying maths right fixing an obvious issue with the code
  
• Isp will be Isp not just from name itself
  
• Added educational value to the game - aka. "KSP won't be teaching you wrong things"
  
• No need to make any additional changes to the game balance, as game doesn't display any numbers to the player anyway, so for a new customers it won't make any difference on a negative side.
  
• You'll be able to use some of the real-world maths in KSP that you cannot now due to the incorrect implementation
  

-Cons

• Current veterans will have to un-learn their old habits, especially if they got every rocket calculated down to 1 m/s
  

Life Support

Before we get into details - it should be balanced in a way where doing a short orbital flights, or a trips to minimus and back shouldn't require any other supplies besides these in a Mk1 pod. Thinks like radiation should be IMHO out of question.

-Pros

• Added depth to the game, shows some of the real-world challenges involved in a space flight
  
• Space stations and bases would finally make some sense
  
• Planets with natural resources - like oxygen on Laythe or ice on Eeloo would be more desireable adding another consideration (an advantage) to planning the missions
  
• You could build farms / villages, etc. - just look at the popularity of farmville!
  
• It'd create additional differentiation between unmanned and manned missions, giving players a reason to send unmanned missions - it'd really make a huge difference comparing to what we have now: a game that tries very much to convince everyone that if we can send Curiosity to Mars we could just as well send men out there tomorrow.
  
• It'll add a whole new level of depth and planning to the interplanetary missions rewarding players for thinking ahead and giving them a reason to send unmanned missions ahead of manned (to get an idea on how long it'll take to get there, perhaps also creating resource depots or planet-side bases).
  

-Cons

• Current veterans will have to un-learn their old habits
  
• It might be a similar thing to the solar panels and people forgetting to unfold them - only this time we'll have people forgetting to take food
  
• It'll be most likely the most item-intense addition to the game from all of these related to the realism.
  
• It will require adding window with an information about the spacecraft - how long will resources last? What's the current balance of consumption vs production? When we'll run out of food? - still though IMHO it's simpler and more user-friendly than displaying it as an additional types of fuel (even if in essense these are just a types of fuel, and few mods already implement it like that).
  

ADDITIONAL

Delta-V readouts

• Super-helpful for a new players who like to have their missions planned
  
• Decreases guesswork in a game (Having your Kerbal stranded on a Mun mission is annoying, but doesn't even come close to the frustration of getting that in the interplanetary flight)
  
• Adds to the educational value (people will not only learn what the delta-V is but also how amazingly helpful it can be!)
  
• Game will give people an option to have everything lined up perfectly instead of forcing everyone into guesswork and try-fail-try again mechanic even if they hate it (part of the reason why MechJeb and Kerbal Engineer are so popular that some people consider them mandatory to enjoy the game)
  

Rescale the tech tree

• Make it impossible to research the whole tech tree on a Kerbin itself
  
• Split technologies in a logical way (so that we'd have more nodes to research)
  
• Move nuclear engines somewhere near the end of a tree (if not the the last spot, the final tech, as none of them have been used to propel spacecraft yet)
  
• Put unmanned cores earlier in a tree
  
• Make the whole tree at least somewhat similar to the real-world progress (though I think everyone agree that they still want to have manned pod available from the start)
  

Additional launch sites

• Either researchable or unlockable by landing in the site
  
• Put them at the different latitudes, so that people would be able to learn what are the challenges involved
  

Rebalance jet engines

• Make them work in at least somewhat realistic manner, so that we would have...
  
• No more rockets propelled by jets!
  
• Add ramjet/scramjet equivalent - engine that doesn't work below certain speed threshold
  

Change nuclear engines

• Make them use only a liquid fuel. There is absolutely no need for oxidizer in nuclear engines.
  
• Add consequences to crashing them
  
  • At a very least - huge drop in reputation (make it dependant on a biome? Eg. crash on badlands wouldn't make any difference at all?)
    
  • In a best case - permanent pollution of the area in a certain radius of the crash side (instant death for any Kerbal trying to enter it), huge penalty in reputation, reputation cost for each LV-N launched (so players wouldn't be able to use them without positive reputation)
    

And something to make life easier, though only remotely related to the realism (again - difficulty is directly proportional to how you explain the game to user) :

Improve maneuver nodes

• Change color when a deadly reentry path&speed combination occurs
  
• Add something to inform people if they'll be touching atmosphere or not instead of forcing them to use the KSP wiki for that
  
• Precision......
  
• Add option to reset the game speed back to 1x when 1 minute away from the node (gash, missing the node from jumpy time acceleration can be sooo frustrating)
  
• Ascend/Descend nodes should appear on your orbit around current planet if you have another planet selected as a target
  

Improve the docking interface

• Add a docking camera, perhaps inspired by one in Soyuz - black&white with clear cross-hair and clear readings next to it.
  
• Change the docking GUI. Right now it makes docking more difficult, not easier. Data output should be clearly visible while docking, it cannot be clustered in a tiny spot of bottom-left corner of a screen. Don't be afraid to show numbers - they make stuff easier, not more difficult, if you know how to present them to the user in an accessible manner.
  

Edited September 12, 2014 by Sky_walker

[juanml82]

Technically - early Atlas rockets were... sort-of Single-Stage-To-Orbit designs.

There were also multiple designs and ideas, like Aquarius, for SSTO rockets, however none of them accomplished a successful spaceflight.

In either case - purely theoretically there's nothing stopping you from building SSTO rocket in real life. It's just that from practical point of view - it's a stupid idea. You waste time, money and resources on something that performs significantly worse than staged rocket.

In KSP on the other hand it's quite opposite - it's cheaper, more efficient and in some (rare) cases easier to build SSTO than multi-stage rocket. This leads to plenty of obscure misconceptions.

NASA tried to build an SSTO in real life - the VentureStar. It didn't work because there are no known materials to create a hydrogen tank that's light enough to work in an SSTO while also holding the hydrogen. That stops the building of an SSTO rocket in real life.

And by this, I mean a rocket capable of carrying a sensible payload. If all you want to put in orbit is the real life equivalent of a probe core, a solar panel and a thermometer (say, a picosatelite), you can probably do it with a powerful first stage, but it's just not economical.

So, back to realism, while the payload to mass fraction should remain higher than in real life due a matter of gameplay and that will make SSTO rockets easier, I think we can't talk about realism and consider non rapiers SSTOs possible unless we're only talking about putting an okto probe core in orbit.

[NathanKell]

That's not quite it.. The composite tank they forced the engineers to use in the X-33 failed, but there was a backup. Also, let's recall that X-33 was a reusable lifting body. The requirements for that are way steeper than just SSTO. Heck, Titan II's first stage was capable of single-stage-to-orbit with a few dozen kilograms of payload, on gas generator hypergolics of 296s specific impulse! Old-Atlas (i.e. balloon-tank) could easily be SSTO with today's staged combustion kerolox engines. And you could convert SLS into a single-stage-to-orbit design without too much trouble (hah, you could even just not jettison the boosters), although again payload would be quite limited.

The argument for SSTO hinges on reusability though (you're not expending anything!), but reusable TSTO has it beat (as Falcon 9 will be proving) in pretty much all the ways that matter.

[Special Agent Sigvan]

I am going to win this thread with one simple argument:

Gameplay > Realism. This is a fact that ANY game developer should know, regardless of whether the game is a simulation (And KSP isn't), Gameplay and user experience come first.

KSP fails to keep the player interested and no matter what you do the game takes realism before player experience and thus in the end, ruins experiences. Many other games have given me superior experience and were not realistic, and KSP fails to do that (Even with it's realism) in any way.

My 100 hours in KSP are all for naught. I haven't gotten anything done and to be honest the game would be better if it came with mods. Since that's where the majority of my play time came from. And in the end the mods that not only said "Screw the base game's concepts" but also said "Screw realism".

And in the end I did not enjoy those 100 hours, and KSP was not an enjoyable experience and continues not to be, mainly because it's supreme failure to keep me playing and encouraged to do so.

All of that coupled with:

- Adverse amount of rabid fanboys on the Steam forums.

- Ever decreasing amount of mods that suit me.

- Ever increasing grindyness of the game.

- General Suffering trying to get anything done, especially early on.

- Unstableness of the game with mods.

Have essentially sealed KSP's fate to reside in the list of "Games that I don't like and don't think anyone should be able to like" for the rest of eternity.

In KSP

Everything > User Experience.

When it should be

User Experience > Everything.

[Red Iron Crown]

Gameplay > Realism. This is a fact that ANY game developer should know, regardless of whether the game is a simulation (And KSP isn't), Gameplay and user experience come first.

I don't think anyone is saying anything about realism being more important than satisfying gameplay. They're not opposites though, for the sort of game KSP is increasing realism improves gameplay up to a point, and it is where that point lies that is the topic of debate.

From the rest of your post it sounds like where KSP is now doesn't satisfy you completely, and that is true of many if not most players to one degree or another. The unfinished nature of the core game and the instability of mods interacting with a changing game and each other definitely detract from the player experience, but unfortunately that is the nature of early access games. I would suggest a break from it (which sounds like what you're planning anyway), but don't write it off completely. Let a couple of updates go by and try it again, see if it comes closer to meeting your expectations.

[Vanamonde]

It's unfortunate that you didn't like the game, Special Agent Sigvan, but that isn't a realism issue. Let's please keep this dicussion on-topic.