Realism in KSP - Various Ideas with Pros/ Cons

[Rowsdower]

Like, the mods here keep the peace, but who here brings all these topics of discussion and questions up to Squad?

If only we had some type of community manager around here

But seriously, in a situation like this, not every question's going to be answered, especially considering that the guys are in ongoing development at this moment. However, threads like these are certainly viewed and if you knew how much bugging and pestering happens from my end, you wouldn't believe it When I have answers, I bring them to you.

Now I've got a direct quote that HarvesteR was kind enough to rattle off regarding ISP. This is all that will be said on the matter:

"We are aware that the Isp maths are incorrect for the engines, but that is an issue of low priority at the moment, because gameplay-wise, it would change very little to have that corrected. As for the argument about this being 'too small to not be corrected', that is a kind of inside-out notion. Every issue takes up development time and effort, and we're constantly having to prioritize. If you ask us why we wouldn't fix an issue that small, ask instead why an issue so small would be prioritized over more important ones in order to be fixed."

Finally before continuing on with the thread, it is imperative that my POST from the last thread be kept in mind at all times. Even if you're super passionate about wanting the smallest detail of realism in the game, please remember that these are things that will be revisited upon scope completion. I'm not saying you can't discuss, hash it out or pine for it all you want, but just don't expect things to happen tomorrow - not that most of you expect it that way, but I'm just trying to be clear as day about it.

[NathanKell]

1. Thrust correction takes 6 lines of code, across three modules (2 per module in ModuleEngines, ModuleEnginesFX, and ModuleRCS). They break down as:

1 line to change the thrust to thrust * realIsp / atmosphereCurve.Evaluate(0), done before fuel is requested.

1 line to change the GetInfo display to show both sea level and vacuum thrust in the VAB/SPH

The thing is, though, that it *does* change how upper stage engines (LV-909, LV-N, etc) behave at sea level quite severely (for instance, LV-N loses three quarters of its thrust), and therefore in the eyes of the devs probably requires some balancing work, which might well be the actual reason why Harv's response above is the one it is, since changing six lines of code is not exactly a timesink.

2. The legacyAtmosphere model that Kerbin and other planets use works as follows: atmospheric pressure = e^(-height / scaleHeight), times a multiplier (1.0 for Kerbin), where height and scaleHeight are both in km. It is clamped to 0 when the result of the exponential (e^x) drops below 0.00001. The variation from sea level to cutoff is entirely smooth; don't be fooled by the gauge displayed in the GUI with its bands, it's just a gauge. You can use a mod like graphotron to plot it. What you might be thinking of is temperature, which does have bands in real life.

As for why people fly the pitch programs (aka not-gravity-turns) they do? Because

1. It's best to get out of the souposphere as quickly as possible, so fly straight up.

2. Since drag does not depend on surface area or orientation, turning your rocket off-axis so it's no longer streamlined doesn't actually increase drag, so there's no reason other than steering loss to make as sharp a turn as you can.

However, I'm pretty sure you'll find a gradual turn starting at about 7-8km will be more efficient (although slightly harder to fly, the third reason people don't). In fact, if you dig through the challenges in the Challenge forum, you'll find that those pitch programs are the most fuel-efficient in the stock atmosphere.

EDIT:

As for g0, it's off by a factor of 0.1%, not 10x. The correct value, used everywhere else in KSP, is 9.81 (technically 9.80665, but KSP rounds). However, only for engines, 9.82 is used. The only effect that has is to make engines ever so slightly more efficient than their Isp says they should be (since Isp, when given in seconds, is exhaust velocity divided by g0).

It has nothing to do with planet size (????) or bouyancy; the latter issue appears to be that masses are not converted from tonnes to kilograms for the buoyancy calculations.

Edited September 9, 2014 by NathanKell

[haltux]

Lets implement a Life Support System but not in a way of a Ressource. Lets pretend every command module would've implemented Life support things in there directly.

Like some plancton-cleaner converting CO2 back to O2 and producing new snacks with the Carbon and other extracted things and Recycler converting Urine to Water. Lets pretend such a thing is implemented in every Pod.

So now you'd have some sort of Timer how long you can stay on EVA , so no Command Seat missions anymore. And every Pod would consume an amount of Electricity per Second. So Life support would be a 'balancing out energy supply' problem rather than a 'we need 10t more snacks on the ship' problem. And if it runs we would still save the Kerbalish way of doing missions. If a Pod runs out of Energy for Life support another timer would start how long this Pod can provide support while unpowered, so with the assumed left snacks until their empty and until the Kerbals will die due to CO2. A bigger Pod can provide a bigger Time unpowered with the Hitchiker and the Lab being the best.

Another useful thing in such a scenario would be a generator producing electricity from fuel and oxidizer as your last hope in the night, but such a generator was already announced to come so no problem there. A Manned mission would need much more electric charge per second than a probe mission, which is the same way in real but not in KSP right now.

It would implement Life support in a believable way while keeping it a balancing and not a more fuel problem.

what doya think?

That looks very much like no life support at all. Electricity is not really an issue, so basically the gameplay would be unchanged.

And generating snacks from CO2 with plancton in a capsule is just silly.

[tater]

I really like this idea. You can go all the way to Duna and don't have to worry about your guys dying from starvation. But theres only so much science they can gather with an empty stomach.

I'd have them starve, but perhaps you could set them to "emergency rations" and they lose morale while they bide their time for the rescue mission. Again, any starving a difficulty setting.

[Franklin]

If only we had some type of community manager around here

But seriously, in a situation like this, not every question's going to be answered, especially considering that the guys are in ongoing development at this moment. However, threads like these are certainly viewed and if you knew how much bugging and pestering happens from my end, you wouldn't believe it When I have answers, I bring them to you.

Now I've got a direct quote that HarvesteR was kind enough to rattle off regarding ISP. This is all that will be said on the matter:

"We are aware that the Isp maths are incorrect for the engines, but that is an issue of low priority at the moment, because gameplay-wise, it would change very little to have that corrected. As for the argument about this being 'too small to not be corrected', that is a kind of inside-out notion. Every issue takes up development time and effort, and we're constantly having to prioritize. If you ask us why we wouldn't fix an issue that small, ask instead why an issue so small would be prioritized over more important ones in order to be fixed."

Finally before continuing on with the thread, it is imperative that my POST from the last thread be kept in mind at all times. Even if you're super passionate about wanting the smallest detail of realism in the game, please remember that these are things that will be revisited upon scope completion. I'm not saying you can't discuss, hash it out or pine for it all you want, but just don't expect things to happen tomorrow - not that most of you expect it that way, but I'm just trying to be clear as day about it.

I actually really appreciate this clarification, and it settles a lot of frustration to know, even if we're not always aware, we have a voice here you're carrying on. Seriously, thank you.

Plus HarvesteR's response is perfectly reasonable, and the fact that he didn't just dismiss it as an intentional element and more just something too [effectually] small to worry about right now is really helpful in understanding workflow as it is. Like regex has said, we don't have a roadmap, so panic over the unknown sets in. I'm glad it's at least seen for what it is, and may be rattled off in the future.

That sort of direct dev insight helps loads with these sort of threads where it seems like we're all just yelling at the mountains sometimes.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Franklin

[Chewy]

While I realize this would be a fairly big undertaking by the dev's, in my perfect world I wouldn't mind a sort of mission planner mode to help beginners (and veterans) handle the realism with all the tools NASA has access to. The mission planner would let you plan out the major manuevers of your mission. Gene Kerman would analyze your vehicle in comparison to what your mission requires.

Gene would let you know that they put a scale model of your rocket in the wind tunnel and it doesn't look like it will fly straight, and his analysis shows that while you have barely enough fuel, you won't have enough life support (snacks) for that trip to Jool and back and that the one battery you're bringing won't last the trip because you don't have any solar panels. Gene would also tell you that you will burn up entering the atmosphere at that angle and that even if you did survive re-entry, your single mk1 parachute is a bit undersized to land both your capsule and the three hitchhiker containers attached to it. Gene gives you his mission analysis and it up to you whether you choose to listen or not.

I could even see getting in-flight feedback from mission control that you've used too much fuel in comparison to your mission plan or that you are on a trajectory that could kill your kerbals on re-entry. Of course its always an option that you can risk it and just launch your rocket without Gene's analysis and turn off your radio link to mission control because they start to annoy you with minor problems that you already know about.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Chewy

[Renegrade]

The thing is, though, that it *does* change how upper stage engines (LV-909, LV-N, etc) behave at sea level quite severely (for instance, LV-N loses three quarters of its thrust), and therefore in the eyes of the devs probably requires some balancing work, which might well be the actual reason why Harv's response above is the one it is, since changing six lines of code is not exactly a timesink.

Meh I still say it's three lines~ But close enough

I don't think any balance would be needed, however, as those engines with poor vac isp are pretty much supposed to suck in the atmosphere.

Personally though I'd love to see the sea level isp of some of those 'vac-oriented' engines nerfed to heck and back.

Anyhow regarding what Harv said; it may be a boring and low-priority thing, but it would actually help a lot of the modding community. Those thrust correctors are very common nowadays, and all the different implementations would become unnecessary if stock had it.

Plus it would let ions have a really low SL isp (I doubt an ion drive would even work at sea level at all in real life, wouldn't the charge just dissipate in the air?), without messing up the energy/sec display. That's why the PB-Ion is 4200/4200; that way you can see the approximate energy drain in the popup.

It's puzzling because if it was in the game all along only to be overridden by a bug, wouldn't they have added thrust values for sea level and vacuum in the context menu in the VAB before then?

Ah no, the current system's been there all along (fuel varying rather than thrust). I believe it pretty much 'evolved' into it's current state from a very primitive, non-rockety placeholder/beginning.

Most likely because of the scales used for Kerbin and the planets. Which also explains why the 'water' is so dense that steel girders and asteroids float. As far as I know the Aero overhaul and DRE were at least known development goals, so we know that they are working on those.

But Kerbin's g0 is 9.81 according to the Gravioli detector... :S

Anyhow, KIDS has a fine implementation of a thrust corrector; I'd recommend trying flying with it. You can just use the 'stock' KIDS profile, and turn on/off the 'thrust varies with Isp' option to get a feel for how it works.

[SkyRex94]

That looks very much like no life support at all. Electricity is not really an issue, so basically the gameplay would be unchanged.

And generating snacks from CO2 with plancton in a capsule is just silly.

Keeping the Gameplay basically as it is was the idea to compromise it. And it would change EVA and Command Seat Missions.

And 'snacks' was a KSP-Term of saying eatable energy sources like C6H12O6 (aka Sugar) which can be made from CO2 and Water but consumes energy. It was just idealized, but not silly. We're just burning things in our body (lets assume Kerbals also gain their energy through eating and breathing) , but we're not destroying anything we eat. We gain Energy from the chemical connections in the molecules and release the endproducts as waste (containing the same number of Atoms as we have eaten(minus some we utilized to grow, but thats mostly in childhood)). And so in an idealized process with no energy loss (lets pretend thats possible in KSPUniverse) you can recreate the original chemical connections under the use of energy. And plants do that with sunlight energy to grow and form complex molecules mainly out of Water and CO2 (and some minerals and stuff), and these mostly Hydrocarbons + O2 contain more chemical energy than H20 + CO2 contained before, put in there from photone energy gained through photosyntesys.

In real world no 'converter' would be 100% efficient , but the principle of recreate burnable material from the burned endproducts while consuming energy is nowhere near 'silly' !

[Red Iron Crown]

If only we had some type of community manager around here

But seriously, in a situation like this, not every question's going to be answered, especially considering that the guys are in ongoing development at this moment. However, threads like these are certainly viewed and if you knew how much bugging and pestering happens from my end, you wouldn't believe it When I have answers, I bring them to you.

Now I've got a direct quote that HarvesteR was kind enough to rattle off regarding ISP. This is all that will be said on the matter:

"We are aware that the Isp maths are incorrect for the engines, but that is an issue of low priority at the moment, because gameplay-wise, it would change very little to have that corrected. As for the argument about this being 'too small to not be corrected', that is a kind of inside-out notion. Every issue takes up development time and effort, and we're constantly having to prioritize. If you ask us why we wouldn't fix an issue that small, ask instead why an issue so small would be prioritized over more important ones in order to be fixed."

Finally before continuing on with the thread, it is imperative that my POST from the last thread be kept in mind at all times. Even if you're super passionate about wanting the smallest detail of realism in the game, please remember that these are things that will be revisited upon scope completion. I'm not saying you can't discuss, hash it out or pine for it all you want, but just don't expect things to happen tomorrow - not that most of you expect it that way, but I'm just trying to be clear as day about it.

Thanks Rowsdower, I appreciate you and HarvesteR taking the time to address some of the concerns brought up in this thread. I don't think anyone wants the game to be perfectly realistic or another Orbiter, I think we all understand that a balance must be struck that keeps the game accessible and fun while maintaining or improving the high level of realism that is a factor in the success of KSP so far.

And it is a factor. The community that got the ball rolling for KSP was mostly composed of physics and engineering types attracted to the design and orbital mechanics aspects of the game. Almost all space games before then always oversimplified space travel, dumbed it down for the perceived limitations in player understanding. KSP was one of the first, if not the first, to feature realistic physics and orbits in a game rather than a Serious Business simulator, that made realistic space travel fun. If you look at the list of simplifications listed in HarvesteR's post you linked, something surprising emerges:

A real orbital rendezvous (as per Orbiter), would require 5 different steps: Launch, Establish orbit at LEO, Plane Alignment, Orbit Sync, and finally docking.

I want to simplify this to a point where the average gamer can do it, without requiring a reading of the JPL pages on orbital mechanics... So here's what I have so far:

- Plane Alignment can be removed by restricting the game to a 2D plane. (the game is 3D, but all motion is restricted to the XY plane)

- The game shows the space vehicle from the outside (a side-looking camera that is always oriented so that the surface of the planet is 'below').

- Characters go into the rocket as it's 'crew', which justifies (more or less) the fact that space flight is made easy, since one might think they are doing all the heavy work.

- The whole concept of 'Orbit' can be distilled down to simply 'altitude', where once above a given point (say, the limit of the atmosphere), the game takes on 'orbital mode' and you fly about on your RCS thrusters.

- in 'atmospheric flight mode', the main engines default to 75% throttle. Pushing them up to 100% may be considered as 'afterburning' and will increase heat and pressure, and may lead to an explosion. In 'orbital flight', the engines default to zero thrust, and the retro-engines (if available) respond to 'negative throttle' (all throttle is controlled by the W and S keys)

- as you gain altitude, the planet below moves around so that it's always visible to the sideways-looking camera. It moves in such a way as to be right behind the ship once it reaches orbit... in this way, one might imagine your orbital trajectory as being in the direction of the locked Z axis.

- RCS is simplified to clicking around the command pod to produce thrust in the direction of clicking... this is calculated to take rotation into account, so orientation only matters when it's time to land or dock.

Just about none of these simplifications made it into the game, or stayed there if they did. We do our rendezvous/docking maneuvers using the five steps he wanted to simplify. The game has changed since that post, becoming more realistic as the game caught on with people that knew the difference. It is not despite its realism that KSP is successful, it is because of it, IMO. NASA doesn't approach all those dumbed-down space games to collaborate, they approached Squad because the simulation was so realistic and enjoyable that their own people were abuzz about it.

Of course, Squad is a business and KSP has to be a profitable product. Maybe the market for the realistic space sim has been tapped and the majority of potential buyers remaining are more casual-play oriented. So there must be great temptation to broaden its appeal by simplifying things or making no further realism improvements. I hope that KSP can stay true to its roots and continue to strike the balance of realism and fun that has served it so well this far. The casual gamers are just that, they will play KSP and cast it aside. Diluting what makes KSP so good (and it is very, very good) will lose the core audience that are going to buy DLC, or KSP 2, or merchandise, all while proselytizing for KSP to whoever will listen.

Anyway, I'm not demanding anything nor do I wish to sound preachy, just passing on my thoughts on the whole realism thing.

[tater]

I think generally "Life support units consumed per person, per unit time" is entirely reasonable. Add in power as a separate requirement (life support is simply a system set to use power at a trickle, so all habitation modules would use some amount all the time). Which specific elements are consumed, and which are recycled frankly doesn't matter as all such systems are under 100% efficiency, they will slowly lose some of their initial "capital" of LS. The abstraction would be that they are used up. You can either had advanced modules come with more LS per person (at a larger amount per unit module mass), or you could have the "burn rate" of LS vary by the number of kerbals, but be module specific.

Note that while you can get elements from fuel/oxidizer, certainly (H and O), that can be an additional part that "burns" fuel/oxidizer, and produces LS if you like. Note that extra parts to recycle better, make LS units, whatever just adds fun new stuff to the tech tree. Hydroponic pods, whatever (I see the mods have these).

As was stated above, by later game missions, you will have nuclear propulsion, advanced habitation modules, and you need not be overly concerned.

A difficulty set might have (the harder settings include the effects at their level, and the lower levels in addition. Note that the base power require counts as "LS"):

Easy-No LS counted (stock now)

Still Sorta Easy-Kerbals without LS harm Reputation.

Sorta Easy-Kerbals without adequate LS (under X% remaining per guy) do science at 50% (plus above)

Normal-Kerbals become comatose when LS=0 (alive, but can't do anything, no ship control, no science… like a probe without electricity)

Hard-Instead of comatose, Kerbals with LS=0 die, they will hit the comatose stage from "normal" for a while before hand (a sort of last ditch chance to save them).

[juanml82]

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.

That sounds like a good idea.

That's actually where we left off in the other realism thread when the presumed bug was re-classified as a feature request by someone who isn't even part of the Squad team. Which brought Ted down from the mothership, etc.

I know Squad's terribly busy, but this forum really needs a direct (I mean, sits next to the devs direct) point of contact between the community and them. Someone who can reference requests like this thread and "why things are as they are" notes back and forth between the mothership and us squabbling amongst ourselves.

I know that's supposed to be what the forum's for (and to a different extent, the bug tracker), so I'm not dumping on the mods or community managers so don't take it that way, but communication feels more like throwing pennies down a well and listening for the bottom.

Like, the mods here keep the peace, but who here brings all these topics of discussion and questions up to Squad?

I'm just curious keep in mind, don't read this post with any tone of hostility.

We should all remember that "the community" writing in this thread is probably around two dozen people, at most. It may not be (and likely isn't) representative of the universe of KSP players.

[Franklin]

I really meant more in general, but it's a moot point since Rowsdower's response.

[NathanKell]

We should all remember that "the community" writing in this thread is probably around two dozen people, at most. It may not be (and likely isn't) representative of the universe of KSP players.

This is very true, but it cuts *all* ways. For that reason, it seems it is not a useful argument on any side. We simply don't have information, and we should never assume there is a Silent Majority on anyone's side.

[Wanderfound]

I'd have them starve, but perhaps you could set them to "emergency rations" and they lose morale while they bide their time for the rescue mission.

Or crew numbers. Kerbal Donner Party...

[Wanderfound]

(snip scary old quote about hyper-simplified KSP)

Wow.

I'd never seen that before, and I am immensely grateful that that sort of approach got binned. If KSP was anything like that outline, I wouldn't have any interest in playing the game. I doubt that people like Manley/Munroe/Ferdowski would have been drawn in, either.

Praise be to Kerweh.

[lincourtl]

Of course, Squad is a business and KSP has to be a profitable product. Maybe the market for the realistic space sim has been tapped and the majority of potential buyers remaining are more casual-play oriented. So there must be great temptation to broaden its appeal by simplifying things or making no further realism improvements. I hope that KSP can stay true to its roots and continue to strike the balance of realism and fun that has served it so well this far. The casual gamers are just that, they will play KSP and cast it aside. Diluting what makes KSP so good (and it is very, very good) will lose the core audience that are going to buy DLC, or KSP 2, or merchandise, all while proselytizing for KSP to whoever will listen.

Anyway, I'm not demanding anything nor do I wish to sound preachy, just passing on my thoughts on the whole realism thing.

Yes, this. Exactly. I think the rapid growth of KSP is evidence that people respond to games that allow them to experience glamorous, yet otherwise inordinately difficult, activities like spaceflight in fun ways. I think the game, and that experience, can be improved by enhancing the realism aspects in a small handful of key areas, and a couple of incredibly minor ones, without sacrificing fun. Coincidentally it improves the educational value of KSP as well -- independent of anything Teachergaming does with KerbalEdu.

Anyway, I've basically said the exact same thing multiple times now across both of the recent threads on this topic, so I'll just go back to lurking.

[juanml82]

This is very true, but it cuts *all* ways. For that reason, it seems it is not a useful argument on any side. We simply don't have information, and we should never assume there is a Silent Majority on anyone's side.

Absolutely, I've never claimed otherwise

[Levelord]

Now I've got a direct quote that HarvesteR was kind enough to rattle off regarding ISP. This is all that will be said on the matter:

"We are aware that the Isp maths are incorrect for the engines, but that is an issue of low priority at the moment, because gameplay-wise, it would change very little to have that corrected. As for the argument about this being 'too small to not be corrected', that is a kind of inside-out notion. Every issue takes up development time and effort, and we're constantly having to prioritize. If you ask us why we wouldn't fix an issue that small, ask instead why an issue so small would be prioritized over more important ones in order to be fixed."

Basically everything I've said before was dead on correct. I can't believe I went through several pages frustratingly trying to explain this to everyone.

[tater]

Basically everything I've said before was dead on correct. I can't believe I went through several pages frustratingly trying to explain this to everyone.

Huh? Many of us essentially said it was a bug, or if not technically a "bug," an error that they would want to correct if they were aware of it. Everyone wanting it fixed is effectively right as well. Devs want it fixed, but it sorta works after a fashion, so they will hit it on another pass, later.

There were actually people arguing that it would be bad to fix it, period.

[tater]

Or crew numbers. Kerbal Donner Party...

LOL. This would be hilarious.

So when Kerbals are out of LS, it becomes impossible to see IVA view… when your rescue ship docks, only then is IVA again possible...

and they are floating there with their faces smeared with blood, holding parts of their dead companion who drew the short straw (or their own leg if they are alone or stupid enough ).

[Green Baron]

The foreword: i do not mean any offence to anyone, i just want to post a different view.

"Realism"

Microsoft tried 15 years to make a flight simulior and when they finally got it ... no one wanted it anymore (it was the best (most realistic) that ever existed). Too complicated and ... too boring. KSP is a game. It's not reality and not a simulator. Make a pilote licence or charter a pilot with plane and try it yourself. I mean, i flew single engined airplanes some 15 yeras ago and i must say KSP is FAR away from reality and not even NEAR the way a plane behaves in (subsonic) flight, even with mods. But thats exactly what makes it a game for fun, for playing. Adding mor realism in aerodramatics would make it boring, believe me. I would build a plane that starts, flies level, and lands. And i would just sit there and stare at the screen (that's the reason why i quit that hobby). I know of some nerds who still after years do that with a flight simultor ... i would not want to end up like that.

Ok. And ... that fighter stuff is not aerodynamics, it's computers, flaps, vectoring at all that, no humen actually flies that, they give commands to a computer. In case of a bug they have to get out (revert so to say, but no money back). As far as i read the current generation of fighter aircrafts shall be the last one with human pilots (corrections welcome). I can imagine that it takes dozens of man-years to develop a simulator for that behaviour and even that would be type-specific.

So, concerning aerodramatics, please Squad concentrate on more pressing business and to those hardliners: if you can afford it make a pilot license, if not play flight simulator. But ecpect that you need a few weeks of "playing" just to master a for example the Piper PA 28 (which is one of the easiest).

"Behave like you expect"

Just 1 example: I would expect that an aircraft does not gain speed when i throttle up (given i leave the configuration as it is, i. e. do not change any attitude, flaps, gears, etc.). It gains altitude. Other peolple might expect something else, i am content with the way it is now because it's a game.

KSP is a "space program", and aerodramatics are only for the first 30-40km. The rest is the reason why i play the game. Would it not be better to concentrate on more "flesh" in space like places to explore, stations to build, eatser eggs to dig out. My vote: please, Squad, concenrate on more pressing tasks as aerodynamics.

"Life support"

I don't want life support. Snacks is ok, but the rest ... it would keep me from playing because i would be afraid of killing those cute little greenlings. Leave it out, the ease of the game would suffer imo. Real life is complicated enough. He/She who want's shall use the appropriate (and as far as i read excellent working) mods.

"Universe Scale"

Well ... if Squad adjusts the warp-factos they can make it any scale they want. Whats wrong with the situation as it is ? Again, realism ? I mean, under the background of superstringtheory, that Squad universe is absolutely realistic. It's just one of tentothepowerofeightynine (giveortake). Again: it's a game and i love to play it. Would play it as well with a different scale though, no problem for me :-) But i am shure there is more pressing business than the size of the balls.

"Isp"

Not shure about that. Would not change that much ...

"Re-entry Danger"

See "Life support". No. KSP would change from play to killing kerbals. I want to play. There are mods and so absolutely no urge to build it in the game.

But ... how about more places to discover, you call them "easter eggs". For me these are far stronger attractions to play KSP than "realism". Does anyone except me like that ?

Klaus

[NathanKell]

Nope. Not hilarious.

People are scarily cavalier with their kerbals as it is; making KSP into more of a blood sport does not fit with the notionally family-friendly aspect.

Levelord: um, no. Unless what you were really arguing was "it's a major bug, but Harv et al have bigger fish to fry right now" which...does not seem at all to be what you were arguing.

[tater]

Nope. Not hilarious.

People are scarily cavalier with their kerbals as it is; making KSP into more of a blood sport does not fit with the notionally family-friendly aspect.

Levelord: um, no. Unless what you were really arguing was "it's a major bug, but Harv et al have bigger fish to fry right now" which...does not seem at all to be what you were arguing.

That was in no way meant to imply it should be actually done in game (nor his post with a wink, which I quoted). The Donner party reference was hilarious (it could have been an Alfred Packer reference for anyone from Colorado ).

"Realism"

Microsoft tried 15 years to make a flight simulior and when they finally got it ... no one wanted it anymore (it was the best (most realistic) that ever existed). Too complicated and ... too boring. KSP is a game. It's not reality and not a simulator. Make a pilote licence or charter a pilot with plane and try it yourself. I mean, i flew single engined airplanes some 15 yeras ago and i must say KSP is FAR away from reality and not even NEAR the way a plane behaves in (subsonic) flight, even with mods. But thats exactly what makes it a game for fun, for playing. Adding mor realism in aerodramatics would make it boring, believe me. I would build a plane that starts, flies level, and lands. And i would just sit there and stare at the screen (that's the reason why i quit that hobby). I know of some nerds who still after years do that with a flight simultor ... i would not want to end up like that.

MSFS had realism in many ways, but point and click in the cockpit is boring in a game. No one is suggesting anything close to that. If it had had combat, it would have been more popular, I imagine. You can drive to the airport, and fly, you can't do that, then shoot at other airplanes, the FAA frowns on that.

MSFS was not unpopular because the aerodynamics were realistic, though. In combat flight sims, people want as much realism in performance/outcomes/scenery/damage models/etc as possible in my experience. They don;t want more complexity in UI, as they are limited to a keyboard and stick set, they are not in a real cockpit. Realistic outcomes, not realistic interfaces.

"Behave like you expect"

Just 1 example: I would expect that an aircraft does not gain speed when i throttle up (given i leave the configuration as it is, i. e. do not change any attitude, flaps, gears, etc.). It gains altitude. Other peolple might expect something else, i am content with the way it is now because it's a game.

KSP is a "space program", and aerodramatics are only for the first 30-40km. The rest is the reason why i play the game. Would it not be better to concentrate on more "flesh" in space like places to explore, stations to build, eatser eggs to dig out. My vote: please, Squad, concenrate on more pressing tasks as aerodynamics.

Reentry is critical. Their very part descriptions say as much. That's "aero, " too. As are ridiculous pancake rockets.

"Life support"

I don't want life support. Snacks is ok, but the rest ... it would keep me from playing because i would be afraid of killing those cute little greenlings. Leave it out, the ease of the game would suffer imo. Real life is complicated enough. He/She who want's shall use the appropriate (and as far as i read excellent working) mods.

So you'd set your difficulty level WRT life support to "easy." Why would you want to prevent others from having the same ease of picking how they like to play as you do? Note that the realism fans for most everything are in favor of difficulty settings---we want it as realistic as possible "under the hood," while not forcing our own game preferences on anyone. Suggesting they not work on it forces everyone to play as you do, or have to mod their install. Perhaps they'd like an unmodded experience that is fun for them, too.

"Re-entry Danger"

See "Life support". No. KSP would change from play to killing kerbals. I want to play. There are mods and so absolutely no urge to build it in the game.

Spaceplane + is a mod, so absolutely no urge to put it in the game… oh, wait.

Again, a difficulty option. It is also explicitly suggested by their own part descriptions. Also, it's not any worse for them to die of hypoxia than slam into the Mun at 500 m/s.

But ... how about more places to discover, you call them "easter eggs". For me these are far stronger attractions to play KSP than "realism". Does anyone except me like that ?

I've yet to find any. It will be amusing for a few seconds if I do, I'm sure.

Maybe they should add Gateway...

Edited September 10, 2014 by tater

[Wanderfound]

That was in no way meant to imply it should be actually done in game (nor his post with a wink, which I quoted). The Donner party reference was hilarious (it could have been an Alfred Packer reference for anyone from Colorado ).

Alexander Pearce down here: http://youtu.be/OnNqxI5EdiI

And, yes, not intended as a serious suggestion. Hence the wink.

[Renegrade]

Basically everything I've said before was dead on correct. I can't believe I went through several pages frustratingly trying to explain this to everyone.

My main beef is that some people assuming it's an easy fix, which is questionable at best and that if Isp scaling was one of SQUADs goals they would have implemented it a long time ago during their lunch breaks if it were so easy.

Threads on it have been around for ages and I assume that they didn't want to implement it because it was either too difficult to add, not important enough or rejected for gameplay reasons.

Well, you did mention it as ONE possible explanation.

I wouldn't qualify that as 'dead on correct' though.

Personally though, if I were Harv, I would have not bothered responding at all and just thrown a corrector in to the next update. It would have taken less time, and given me an opening to make a snarky remark in the update notes.

I'd get to make a snarky remark, and there'd be a thrust corrector. How is that not win/win?