Realism in KSP - Various Ideas with Pros/ Cons

[juanml82]

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.

Well, the other tank wasn't tried. I'm pretty sure the proponents of the failed tank would have said, at the drawing board stage, that it would work. The key in real life is to put a sensible payload. Putting a very small payload in orbit is cheaper with staged rockets than with SSTOs. As for larger payloads, including manned capsules, it's just not attempted.

KSP, out of necessity, doesn't present the players with the same constraints as if real life. Funds are plentiful. Otherwise, a realistic space economy would mean funds get so reduced after the first Mun landing that you can no longer send kerbals outside LKO. So you could easily design a picosatellite, mount it into an SLS tank with the KS 25-4 engine cluster and send it straight to the Mun, and probably beyond. Which means you need gameplay constraints to entice players to build staged rockets. In a way, you have to cheat realism there because trying to achieve realism through realistic economic constraints would severely hinder gameplay.

[Special Agent Sigvan]

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.

I'm not saying they're opposites. I'm saying that User Experience and Realism are too totally different things. And cannot coexist with each other unless one is more important then the other. KSP's current Gameplay can stay the same (i.e. Space Simulator, not GTA 5), but the current user experience cannot.

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.

Eh, I am. Right now it's just a matter of "Can I be willing to learn basic SPPAAAAAACE MAAAATH, or play a lot more Gunpoint, Gods Will Be Watching, Luftrausers, FTL or just do nothing for a while (Which currently what I'm doing. I'm having the gamer equivalent to a mid-life crisis.)"

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.

I get that. The realism is what turned me off in the first place. It's what continues to turn me off to this day, and in the end it's what turns the vast majority of players off to this day. And in the end until it realizes that realism isn't going to carry your game (Though it is enough to keep me playing every now and again).

Realism can only be taken two ways: Absolute Realism, and no realism at all. The common middle ground quickly becomes messy and in the end you end up choosing one or the other.

The correct question isn't whether certain things should be realistic, but where we can throw our realism out the window and add a new one in, and where we need to stop with that and leave the rest as normal, realistic, realism.

In the end, KSP is stuck in a grey zone, where it can't get anything done with it's current realism, but it can't go forward and add more realism without alienating the fanbase to an extent.

The ENTIRE issue is realism.

KSP needs to make is many small changes:

- Add realism where it's required (But will only marginally interfere with player experience [such as the current physics engine, for example]).

- Remove realism where it isn't.

KSP can stay KSP, but it needs to stop being "Whacky Space Simulator" and be "(Slightly more) Enjoyable, pickup-able Space Simulator"

Though I won't say what we have now is bad (Though it's just not user friendly enough), what could be is both far better, and FAR FAR worse.

[Franklin]

Brief synomsis of Special Agent Sigvan's take on KSP:

Gameplay > Realism.

KSP fails to keep the player interested

the game takes realism before player experience

Many other games have given me superior experience and were not realistic

My 100 hours in KSP are all for naught.

the game would be better if it came with 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

because it's supreme failure to keep me playing and encouraged to do so.

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.

I'm saying that User Experience and Realism are too totally different things. And cannot coexist with each other

Space Simulator, not GTA 5

it's just a matter of "Can I be willing to learn basic SPPAAAAAACE MAAAATH, or play a lot more Gunpoint, Gods Will Be Watching, Luftrausers, FTL

The realism is what turned me off

in the end it's what turns the vast majority of players off

in the end ... realism isn't going to carry your game

Though it is enough to keep me playing every now and again

Realism can only be taken two ways: Absolute Realism, and no realism at all.

The correct question isn't whether certain things should be realistic, normal, realistic, realism.

KSP ... can't go forward and add more realism without alienating the fanbase

to an extent

The ENTIRE issue is realism.

KSP needs to make is many small changes:

- Add realism

- Remove realism

KSP can stay KSP

but it needs to stop being ... Whacky

and be ... pickup-able Space Simulator

Though I won't say what we have now is bad (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.)

For those curious Special Agent Sigvan used the word realism 19 times.

[juanml82]

I'm not saying they're opposites. I'm saying that User Experience and Realism are too totally different things. And cannot coexist with each other unless one is more important then the other. KSP's current Gameplay can stay the same (i.e. Space Simulator, not GTA 5), but the current user experience cannot.

Eh, I am. Right now it's just a matter of "Can I be willing to learn basic SPPAAAAAACE MAAAATH, or play a lot more Gunpoint, Gods Will Be Watching, Luftrausers, FTL or just do nothing for a while (Which currently what I'm doing. I'm having the gamer equivalent to a mid-life crisis.)"

I get that. The realism is what turned me off in the first place. It's what continues to turn me off to this day, and in the end it's what turns the vast majority of players off to this day. And in the end until it realizes that realism isn't going to carry your game (Though it is enough to keep me playing every now and again).

Realism can only be taken two ways: Absolute Realism, and no realism at all. The common middle ground quickly becomes messy and in the end you end up choosing one or the other.

The correct question isn't whether certain things should be realistic, but where we can throw our realism out the window and add a new one in, and where we need to stop with that and leave the rest as normal, realistic, realism.

In the end, KSP is stuck in a grey zone, where it can't get anything done with it's current realism, but it can't go forward and add more realism without alienating the fanbase to an extent.

The ENTIRE issue is realism.

KSP needs to make is many small changes:

- Add realism where it's required (But will only marginally interfere with player experience [such as the current physics engine, for example]).

- Remove realism where it isn't.

KSP can stay KSP, but it needs to stop being "Whacky Space Simulator" and be "(Slightly more) Enjoyable, pickup-able Space Simulator"

Though I won't say what we have now is bad (Though it's just not user friendly enough), what could be is both far better, and FAR FAR worse.

Well, you shouldn't need to use math to play the game. When did you feel you had to? The only thing I can think about is by manually calculating delta-v, but there are mods for that (and delta-v readouts should be included. Maybe in a more cartoonish way, with Gene Kerman telling you where the rocket can go or something, but they have to be included)

[Special Agent Sigvan]

Well, you shouldn't need to use math to play the game. When did you feel you had to? The only thing I can think about is by manually calculating delta-v, but there are mods for that (and delta-v readouts should be included. Maybe in a more cartoonish way, with Gene Kerman telling you where the rocket can go or something, but they have to be included)

That was more just a figure of speech, since the name of "Space stuff" evaded me.

I finally remembered it was astronomy.

So SPAAAAAAAAACE ASSSSTRRRONOMY

[Rowsdower]

For those curious Special Agent Sigvan used the word realism 19 times.

Is there something wrong with that, Franklin?

[Special Agent Sigvan]

Is there something wrong with that, Franklin?

It's realistic.

[Rowsdower]

It's realistic.

Your reply is the real deal, sir.

[Renegrade]

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.

Agreed again there, but even on 1.0 scale with FAR, I generally find a two-stage design much more practical than a one-stage except for very small payloads, and even then I tend to gravitate towards cheaper SRBs and a small liquid second stage to circularize.

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.

Err, you didn't really touch on HOW realism interfered with the gameplay. Gameplay and realism aren't a zero-sum game, you know. Is there something specific you have in mind, like an example?

(That's why I'm generally opposed to 6.4x+ RSS scale but not opposed to Aero or LS or DRE: RSS really taxes the physics warp and leaves me in the atmosphere forever and ever.. The other things are challenges to overcome, systems to manage or things to learn, ADDING to the gameplay)

Well, you shouldn't need to use math to play the game. When did you feel you had to? The only thing I can think about is by manually calculating delta-v, but there are mods for that (and delta-v readouts should be included. Maybe in a more cartoonish way, with Gene Kerman telling you where the rocket can go or something, but they have to be included)

By the way, both Kashua and FlowerChild basically play without any math at all. No DV or anything, just incremental design. No delta-v calculations, no TWR, mass ratios, nuthin'.

(I personally happen to like the numbers and think that they're both a bit odd..)

[Special Agent Sigvan]

Err, you didn't really touch on HOW realism interfered with the gameplay. Gameplay and realism aren't a zero-sum game, you know. Is there something specific you have in mind, like an example?

(That's why I'm generally opposed to 6.4x+ RSS scale but not opposed to Aero or LS or DRE: RSS really taxes the physics warp and leaves me in the atmosphere forever and ever.. The other things are challenges to overcome, systems to manage or things to learn, ADDING to the gameplay

Good example would be generally designing ships:

It can be tedious and un-intuitive, and can easily end up being the least fun part of KSP if you aren't Scott Manley. It takes away from user experience.

And the only reason I say Realism and gameplay are two different things is because the only way to compare realism to the rest of the gameplay is to compare it separately. And the fact is that realism doesn't have a direct influence on gameplay (Like, for example. ADS in shooters has a direct influence on gameplay while realistic huds don't), it isn't one thing. It's a change within the gameplay.

[tntristan12]

Your reply is the real deal, sir.

Would you go so far as to say it's... realistic?

*run away*

.

.

.

.

But in all seriousness, I don't think "realism" is the issue. If you peruse through the forums long enough there is certainly no shortage of quality suggestions that would both enhance realism *and* make the game less grindy. A lot of what I'm hearing SAS argue is that realism is what is making the game grindy, but I don't think that's the case. For example: boiling something as involved as scientific conquest into what amounts to an MMO fetch quest where the macguffin is soil samples from as-yet-unvisited biomes is quite possibly one of the most glaring examples in a game that tries so hard to strike the balance between these two (fallaciously) "opposing" approaches to KSP - realism and gameplay.It just goes to show that you can't swing too far one way or the other, and it may just be my opinion but it seems to me like that's what most of the cooler heads in this thread are debating. Not that we should have a 100% point-blank, ripped from the textbooks space simulator a la orbiter.

Can we all agree on that much, at least?

[tater]

If you had some more data (total dv, etc, in construction, there would be less guess work. The VAB could have a white board on the wall that (zoom in by an engineer down on the floor (it's a LARGE board) that shows the current altitude, orbit, etc that the craft can do. No math.

One stage, and you see a marker-drawn parabola, and 60k written at the top. Add another stage, and it shows an orbit, another, and it shows a sketch of a Mun/Minmus transfer, etc.

I'm talking very sketchy here. Like Jeb drawing on a white board

Edited September 13, 2014 by tater

[Hannu]

Eh, I am. Right now it's just a matter of "Can I be willing to learn basic SPPAAAAAACE MAAAATH, or play a lot more Gunpoint, Gods Will Be Watching, Luftrausers, FTL or just do nothing for a while (Which currently what I'm doing. I'm having the gamer equivalent to a mid-life crisis.)"

I get that. The realism is what turned me off in the first place. It's what continues to turn me off to this day, and in the end it's what turns the vast majority of players off to this day. And in the end until it realizes that realism isn't going to carry your game (Though it is enough to keep me playing every now and again).

What kind of realism you mean? Orbital mechanics at all? What do you want KSP to be?

But I think that you are right when you say, that adding the realism decreases amount of interested people. Most human beings hate physics and mathematics. KSP has been somewhat nerdy game to special audience, who are interested in orbital mechanics and physics (and math) needed in space flights. I am such and have loved to this game and want more realism, more physical data and more mathematics. I have programmed porkchop plotting software, calculate DVs of every phases in flight, make accurate burns to minimal energy trajectories and feel that it is best in game. And I really fear that when Squad smells money they change direction of development to get as many customers as possible and it is possible only by changing difficulties from technical things and physics to easier understandable things, like money and reputation. They have already done that. However, solar system with 1/r^2 gravity is not very good base to game for all. At least if there is not (practically) infinite dv.

[Hannu]

If you had some more data (total dv, etc, in construction, there would be less guess work. The VAB could have a white board on the wall that (zoom in by an engineer down on the floor (it's a LARGE board) that shows the current altitude, orbit, etc that the craft can do. No math.

This would be practically useless "fancy stuff". Maybe if you make just one way trips or flybys, but it is practically impossible to calculate "where you can go" with this simply manner if you make an Apollo-style mission. Or try to visit multiple bodies or have separate rover, lander, mapsat and mother ship with return capabilities in one launch.

[Sky_walker]

I'm not saying they're opposites. I'm saying that User Experience and Realism are too totally different things.

They are different things but not opposite - which is some obscure assumption that you build your argumentation on.

And it works both ways - unrealistic games (eg. arcade) don't always offer great user experience.

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.

This.

And I really fear that when Squad smells money they change direction of development to get as many customers as possible and it is possible only by changing difficulties from technical things and physics to easier understandable things, like money and reputation.

If Squad wants to see where the money is they should take a look at the most popular mods. These tend to belong in one of two categories: 1) Parts packs. 2) Stuff that increases various aspects of realism.

They're addressing parts packs, but somehow are very resistant to adding various aspects of realism while in fact it could make the game easier to understand by a new players, not more difficult as few overeager people here suggest without giving it a second thought.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Wanderfound]

I get that. The realism is what turned me off in the first place. It's what continues to turn me off to this day, and in the end it's what turns the vast majority of players off to this day.

You seem to be workng under the assumption that "Sigvan's personal preference" is identical to "the vast majority of players". I think that you're mistaken in that assumption.

The evidence of these forums (and the existence of a large and fanatically dedicated KSP fanbase in general) strongly suggests that your preferences are not at all representative of the bulk of KSP players. I suspect that you're also mistaken about the preferences of the gaming audience in general, but even if you aren't: so what?

Not everything has to be keyed to the lowest common denominator. Squad is not in direct competition with whichever piece of mass-market fast-twitch garbage is fashionable this week. The market is big enough to support more than one style of gaming, and it is not necessary to sacrifice everything to the pursuit of market share in order to make a successful game or a profitable gaming company.

Yeah, if they tuned down KSP into yet another piece of vacuous arcade candy, Squad might increase their sales for a month or two. But the cost of that would be to alienate most of the existing user base, drive off the substantial pool of non-traditional gamers that are attracted to KSP, and destroy what it is that makes KSP more than just another piece of EA-style profit-driven ephemera. Squad would change from being the producers of an exceptionally successful, exceptionally high-quality non-traditional game into being just another maker of mindless trash scratching around for the crumbs dropped by the large traditional gaming houses.

No thanks; not interested in that.

[tater]

This would be practically useless "fancy stuff". Maybe if you make just one way trips or flybys, but it is practically impossible to calculate "where you can go" with this simply manner if you make an Apollo-style mission. Or try to visit multiple bodies or have separate rover, lander, mapsat and mother ship with return capabilities in one launch.

You entirely miss the point. This is a device that teaches new players, and gives them some idea what they have in the VAB, nothing more. It's back of the envelope, and gives slightly more information than just trial and error.

[juanml82]

By the way, both Kashua and FlowerChild basically play without any math at all. No DV or anything, just incremental design. No delta-v calculations, no TWR, mass ratios, nuthin'.

(I personally happen to like the numbers and think that they're both a bit odd..)

Nuts! Nuts! They are nuts I say!

Now, really, it's up to then. It's not realistic, though.

This would be practically useless "fancy stuff". Maybe if you make just one way trips or flybys, but it is practically impossible to calculate "where you can go" with this simply manner if you make an Apollo-style mission. Or try to visit multiple bodies or have separate rover, lander, mapsat and mother ship with return capabilities in one launch.

Actually, that's what a delta-v readout does: you check if your transfer stage has enough delta-v to make it to destination and if your lander has enough to make it to the surface and back. Tater's idea could work with the player selecting a destination and the kerbal engineer checking at which stage the craft reaches the destination - or the game can simply believe (or be told by the player) that a part with landing legs and a manned capsule is a lander. And if the ship doesn't have enough dv or twr, this new kerbal will write stuff like "add moar boosters to stage 2" or "add more fuel" (which can quickly be followed by "add moar boosters" as mass increases).

Now, admittedly, some designs will let the kerbal wondering and unable to give an answer, but that's also true of KER or MJ: put a lander upside down and MJ will report negative dV. Attach rovers to a radially placed docking port and their dV readout is zero. But you can at least know if the transfer stage can make it to its destination.

[Renegrade]

Nuts! Nuts! They are nuts I say!

I concur. I used to scribble up the figures by hand, then I threw together a ten line script, and finally installed KER (and then VOID). I generally like to do things by hand first so I can get a feel for how it works, but I definitely always like to know the numbers. Makes me feel all NASA-y inside~

(Of course this is where I find out that they actually put the Apollo program together out of random parts and slowly refined the designs using some sort of secret 'revert' functionality)

[CDK]

I think this thread should be closed.

[NathanKell]

That's nice. Our community manager doesn't, though.

[StevenRS11]

I HAVE THINGS TO SAY

So, um, I'll say them I guess.

First of all, I don't think anyone thinks that putting realism above fun is good. It's just that for some people (and to varying degrees) realism IS fun. With that in mind, debating whether or not some element of realism is fun or not is impossible, because it's different between people in a rather fundamental way.

Now, a totally different thing. It seems like people are equating realism with "hard". Sometimes, yes, but always? No. We have lots of experience with reality, so lots of things "make sense". I used to make paper airplanes a lot, and stock aero made zero sense to me. I installed FAR, and things actually got easier for me, cause my real world experience carries over to KSP if the models line up close enough.

[tater]

And, for the Nth time, many"realism" options would have a toggle within the difficulty settings. Some stock version of delay reentry is there, but that could have "no effect" (0.24.2 version) for EASY mode, then a slider with ship damage at some non-fatal level, then catastrophic damage, and a "hard" mode where the reentry is set even hotter.

So everyone gets to play how they like. No one for more realism is suggesting that anyone have to do math, or even worry about reentry, we're fine with difficulty settings. Many against more realism seem to want to set the knob on "fantasy" and break it off. It's better to design the guts of it as best you can, then tone it down with sliders, as it is easy to adjust, and much harder for modders (and less optimized, I'd think).

[Sky_walker]

And, for the Nth time, many"realism" options would have a toggle within the difficulty settings.

This would cause all sorts of problems.

Just imagine the descriptions for ships:

"Works only with force-field-based-atmosphere, non-realistic reentry, incorrect thrust calculations"

I'd much rather prefer improvements to the GUI and developers finally starting to implement some features that explain game to the player, than having XX different game modes, most of which make ships incompatible with each other.

Though yes: It's much better to have increased realism as an option in the stock game than not having it at all. Still though IMHO the major problems are not based on merit but rather habits of the old players and how very much they're afraid of change. Just look at most of this discussion - well over 2/3 of "cons" that people list for various elements related to the realism were already proved by mods not to be truth.

They're just imaginary fears of some players. Nothing more.

[Renegrade]

"Works only with force-field-based-atmosphere, non-realistic reentry, incorrect thrust calculations"

I don't think we need an option for thrust correction. And said ship would work fine with or without it, unless it's TWR is like 1.02. An even then it will eventually take off once it burns some fuel down.

I'd much rather prefer improvements to the GUI and developers finally starting to implement some features that explain game to the player, than having XX different game modes, most of which make ships incompatible with each other.

..wait, that isn't the hidden feature is it? That experts don't need? An overhaul to the training system?

I definitely think some sort of .. guided introduction would be good for newcomers to the game. However, if we had core changes, it would be better to do these introductions AFTER the changes are made, least they fail to mention heat shields or tail fins or something....