Realism in KSP - Various Ideas with Pros/ Cons

[Wanderfound]

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".

Like how FAR/NEAR planes don't work in stock aero and vice versa? Or like how I always need to strip the RPM IVA cameras off my planes before I post them to the Spacecraft Exchange? Or the routine occurrence of "hey, you said this was stock and it isn't" followed by "whoops, forgot to pull the Mechjeb unit off".

That's always going to be an issue, unless they lock the game down tight and try to force everyone to play the same way. Integrating these things into stock should reduce that issue, not increase it. Once Porkjet's stuff gets immortalised, I won't have to put a "requires SP+" tag at the bottom of everything.

[Sky_walker]

I don't think we need an option for thrust correction.

Me either, but last time regex stepped forward with it - he was almost burned alive by "anti-realism" people.

..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....

I'm not talking about guided introduction or tutorial. I'm talking about self-explanatory GUI.

See related: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93292-Realism-in-KSP-Various-Ideas-with-Pros-Cons/page6?p=1403400#post1403400

Like how FAR/NEAR planes don't work in stock aero and vice versa? Or like how I always need to strip the RPM IVA cameras off my planes before I post them to the Spacecraft Exchange? Or the routine occurrence of "hey, you said this was stock and it isn't" followed by "whoops, forgot to pull the Mechjeb unit off".

That's always going to be an issue, unless they lock the game down tight and try to force everyone to play the same way. Integrating these things into stock should reduce that issue, not increase it. Once Porkjet's stuff gets immortalised, I won't have to put a "requires SP+" tag at the bottom of everything.

Now it's very easy to account - once you run the game all of the spacecrafts that you will build in it are going to work across the save games and across different users running stock KSP.

With difficulty settings you can have ships that work on one save, but don't in another simply because of a different difficulty options.

Also note that people who install mods already account for increased complexity. That's not the case for those who play stock.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Red Iron Crown]

Once Porkjet's stuff gets immortalised, I won't have to put a "requires SP+" tag at the bottom of everything.

Nah, you'll just have to put a "requires SP++" tag when porkjet releases those tasty parts he's teased.

[Wanderfound]

Now it's very easy to account - once you run the game all of the spacecrafts that you will build in it are going to work across the save games.

With difficulty settings you can have ships that work on one save, but don't in another simply because of a different difficulty options.

Also note that people who install mods already account for increased complexity. That's not the case for those who play stock.

Ideally, they'd set up as much as possible to work like Kerbpaint: if you use it, you get funky colours, but if you don't, the design goes back to default with no redesign required.

I'd love a mod that would automatically detect and remove mod parts; it'd make designing a lot easier. Some designs will break, but not most, and the broken designs wouldn't have worked in stock anyway. Especially for those that part-clip things, stripping back to stock is a pain.

[Renegrade]

Me either, but last time regex stepped forward with it - he was almost burned alive by "anti-realism" people.

Yeah, I saw. And got involved too. And why I'm here now. Unlike the other changes, it's not going to cause massive gameplay changes.....or take longer than five minutes to implement.

2500 funds says that it has a better gameplay:implementation time AND realism:implementation time than whatever the "Secret Feature" is.

I'm not talking about guided introduction or tutorial. I'm talking about self-explanatory GUI.

See related: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93292-Realism-in-KSP-Various-Ideas-with-Pros-Cons/page6?p=1403400#post1403400

OH yeah, those would be good things too. Better/clearer UI should be an "always" thing.. like "fixing bugs"~

[tater]

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.

The devs have already said there would be difficulty settings.

The idea that ships could not be shared is a non-issue, as there are already vast numbers of mods. There is no way to have an "option" without it breaking designs for one setting vs another setting. Even life support, as your Duna ship on easy with a single, tiny crew pod will not work for a 2 year trip.

[Guest]

2500 funds says that it has a better gameplay:implementation time AND realism:implementation time than whatever the "Secret Feature" is.

ZOMGWTFBBQSEKRETFEATURE is actually just hype itself. Hard to beat that implementation time nowadays...

[Renegrade]

ZOMGWTFBBQSEKRETFEATURE is actually just hype itself. Hard to beat that implementation time nowadays...

Haha - if you're right on that, then yes, that coding time for pure hype is zero.. significantly less than 5 minutes!

Now THAT's a ratio!

However, I'm certain that the secret feature is extra randomization on the mission description text, which would take at least 6.5 minutes to implement and have almost no value whatsoever...

So, accountants telex rightfulness hilly doll holidaying mackinaws wobbly apprenticing paradigm jealousy cognate chronicles loopier filliping.

[Sky_walker]

The devs have already said there would be difficulty settings.

I know.

But none of them will change physics modelling.

[lincourtl]

So, accountants telex rightfulness hilly doll holidaying mackinaws wobbly apprenticing paradigm jealousy cognate chronicles loopier filliping.

This is where you come in.

[tater]

I know.

But none of them will change physics modelling.

Who suggested they would?

You can keep the physics, and turn off the consequences. Deadly reentry as it comes is not terribly deadly. Adjust that one value (he suggested to start at 1.12 as I recall), and it is nastier, and presumably if you lower the value, it does even less damage. You could run FAR, but turn off aerodynamic failures to the ship---the atmosphere is there, and acting the right way, but on EZ mode the ship doesn't disassemble. Life support can kill, reduce reputation, or do nothing at all.