Good news everyone! KSP enters Beta version. What you like the most, what you don't?

[r4pt0r]

it was emphasised that kerbal experience would lead to passive benefits, I read that as not effecting the physics or things like isp. idk what it might be, but i hope rocket A isn't faster then another A-model only because "dunlop kerman" is the pilot. that makes no sense. parts should keep the same stats regardless of pilot.

[Astronomer]

Possibly things like higher maneuverability or higher science output.

[NathanKell]

Higher maneuverability *is* physics.

[Parkaboy]

it was emphasised that kerbal experience would lead to passive benefits, I read that as not effecting the physics or things like isp. idk what it might be, but i hope rocket A isn't faster then another A-model only because "dunlop kerman" is the pilot. that makes no sense. parts should keep the same stats regardless of pilot.

There's one thing I don't understand about this argument: different engines have different ISP values. Does this mean than by switching engines I'm changing the laws of physics? Couldn't a pilot with a high ISP bonus be seen as a mechanic that can tweak an engine and get a better performance from it?

[Wallygator]

not unless he gets out and retrofits the combustion chamber, nozzel and various turbo pumps, etc. not to mention probably changing the propellents.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Wallygator
sphelling

[Parkaboy]

not unless he gets out and retrofits the combustion chamber, nozzel and various turbo pumps, etc. not to mention the intermix ratios and probably changing the propellents.

Sure, for a boost of 300% to the ISP. Would a 5% bonus be that unrealistic - or at least, that more unrealistic than the other not-fully realistic mechanisms that we already have in the stock game? It's a bit of video game logic, but KSP is a video game.

[Wallygator]

I would expect a 5% bonus would probably apply to the experienced pilot following the programmed flight profile more accurately than an inexperienced pilot (assuming they are not using an onboard guidance computer). A rocket engine is a very precisely engineered device. I would expect a pilot would NEVER be allowed to modify it.

[Parkaboy]

I would expect a 5% bonus would probably apply to the experienced pilot following the programmed flight profile more accurately than an inexperienced pilot (assuming they are not using an onboard guidance computer). A rocket engine is a very precisely engineered device. I would expect a pilot would NEVER be allowed to modify it.

Yes, but again: video game logic. And we're talking about Kerbals here. They don't exactly follow the same procedures as NASA.

"Hey, we have a bit of fuel to spare after reaching Mun orbit. Why don't we try to land?"

"That wasn't in the mission profile, we haven't trained for that and the ship doesn't even have landing gear... So sure, why not?"

While a player certainly can roleplay, I think gameplay experience is much improved by the fact that we players aren't limited by the same constraints real astronauts are.

[Wallygator]

Yes, but again: video game logic. And we're talking about Kerbals here. They don't exactly follow the same procedures as NASA.

"Hey, we have a bit of fuel to spare after reaching Mun orbit. Why don't we try to land?"

"That wasn't in the mission profile, we haven't trained for that and the ship doesn't even have landing gear... So sure, why not?"

While a player certainly can roleplay, I think gameplay experience is much improved by the fact that we players aren't limited by the same constraints real astronauts are.

Your are correct. Its a game. But it is based on a detailed physics engine. The role play aspects are something I also enjoy, however, they would make no sense to me in absence of the physics as a foundation. In the real world and also in this game system I expect (and demand) that the rules of physics shall not be broken.

However, I respect your perspective - just disagree concerning the experience of a pilot changing an engines ISP.

[timsfitz]

If their experience does not effect physics, what else could these passive benefits do?

[Red Iron Crown]

If their experience does not effect physics, what else could these passive benefits do?

Financial advantage, science benefits, better reputation, better contracts available, etc. Basically improve all the career-mode-only mechanics.

[Parkaboy]

Your are correct. Its a game. But it is based on a detailed physics engine. The role play aspects are something I also enjoy, however, they would make no sense to me in absence of the physics as a foundation. In the real world and also in this game system I expect (and demand) that the rules of physics shall not be broken.

However, I respect your perspective - just disagree concerning the experience of a pilot changing an engines ISP.

Sure, but my argument is that a mechanic/engineer kerbal (not a pilot) could tweak an engine to add a little bit of extra ISP without breaking any "laws" that the game doesn't already break.

Financial advantage, science benefits, better reputation, better contracts available, etc. Basically improve all the career-mode-only mechanics.

Honestly, I think having only bonuses for science, reputation and funds would make the experience system redundant and unnecessary, since the current strategy system already deals on those. To make it really add something to the game, the devs have to think of other "perks".

[timsfitz]

Personally I think if the Kerbals could earn certain perks like better ISP or better handling I would certainly try to keep them alive and treasure them. I think any Kerbal bonuses should only apply if the guy is in the cockpit though. Filling 10 hitchhikers with kerbal bonuses could result in missions requiring no fuel or other silly things.

One thing squad should consider is that maybe to do certain things, or certain experiments, or resource mining, you would need to bring a specialist. This idea needs some work, but it is grounded in reality. Nasa launched a lot of sciencetist and specialists in the shuttle over the years. The game could use special 1 time use experiments that need assigned guys.

[Wallygator]

Sure, but my argument is that a mechanic/engineer kerbal (not a pilot) could tweak an engine to add a little bit of extra ISP without breaking any "laws" that the game doesn't already break.

Honestly, I think having only bonuses for science, reputation and funds would make the experience system redundant and unnecessary, since the current strategy system already deals on those. To make it really add something to the game, the devs have to think of other "perks".

Well, then perhaps you might suggest a difficulty/easiness option with would allow such an ISP increase based on a level of kerbal experience. Seems reasonable, as long as its not required for all players. Since Quicksave/Quickload allows reverse time travel and is optional in the difficulty screen - so therefore your ISP idea can be considered a valid suggestion.

But you still have not convinced me that it is a logical deduction based on how spaceflight, mission planning and propulsion system design actually operate. That said, I am not asking to be convinced

My final input to this topic: A pilot can change the thrust amount and the thrust direction and duration, but not the ISP as that is a physical constraint of the propulsion system design. IF a propulsion system allows for any adjustment to its ISP such adjustment would be available to ALL kerb pilots. Now whether or not all pilots were trained or qualified to operate such a propulsion system is something we can debate. Although why he/she would fail to choose the high ISP as part of the original mission design escapes me.

So to take this back to the OP theme...

I like: the idea of a verbal training/qualification system which EXCEPT if it changes the laws of physics in the game

I dislike: the current aerodynamics model, Limited EVA options

[Renegrade]

Lots of interesting news in the latest posts, and I'm gratified that the souposphere is being looked at.

A lot of people here are mentioning deadly re-entry; I'd just like to point out that in a stock-scale world, it wouldn't have much effect if it were implemented realistically. Typical re-entry speeds in stock scale are around Mach 6 - that's not fast enough for a screaming plasma corona of murderous heat. We're talking X-15 speeds, not Apollo speeds.

[NathanKell]

And X-15 needed one whole heck of a lot of heat shielding, for the record.

[tater]

Personally I think if the Kerbals could earn certain perks like better ISP or better handling I would certainly try to keep them alive and treasure them. I think any Kerbal bonuses should only apply if the guy is in the cockpit though. Filling 10 hitchhikers with kerbal bonuses could result in missions requiring no fuel or other silly things.

One thing squad should consider is that maybe to do certain things, or certain experiments, or resource mining, you would need to bring a specialist. This idea needs some work, but it is grounded in reality. Nasa launched a lot of sciencetist and specialists in the shuttle over the years. The game could use special 1 time use experiments that need assigned guys.

If kerbal skill increased Isp or "handling" I'd only play with a mod that disabled it.

[swiftgates24]

If kerbal skill increased Isp or "handling" I'd only play with a mod that disabled it.

Agreed. Pilot skills have nothing to do with the quality of the ship's hardware.

[Parkaboy]

Agreed. Pilot skills have nothing to do with the quality of the ship's hardware.

I'm going to repeat this for the third and last time, then I'm dropping out of the tread, because I feel people are either skimming over what I write or just plainly ignoring it: a pilot skill is not what I'm talking about, but a mechanic/engineering skill - a mechanic kerbal could tweak an engine's physical characteristics, even if only to get a small increase in efficiency (at least in a video game, following a video game logic).

But anyway, I agree that the whole skill/passive bonus system should be toggleable in the difficulty panel, like many other game features.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm going to repeat this for the third and last time, then I'm dropping out of the tread, because I feel people are either skimming over what I write or just plainly ignoring it: a pilot skill is not what I'm talking about, but a mechanic/engineering skill - a mechanic kerbal could tweak an engine's physical characteristics, even if only to get a small increase in efficiency (at least in a video game, following a video game logic).

But anyway, I agree that the whole skill/passive bonus system should be toggleable in the difficulty panel, like many other game features.

Spacecraft are not some Honda Civic with a bunch of performance waiting to be unlocked through tuning. They're already tuned for maximum efficiency and performance by teams of very smart engineers and rocket scientists. An astronaut is no more likely to tune a spacecraft for better performance than a Formula 1 driver is likely to tweak his car for better performance himself, such changes are made in consultation with a team of engineers and designers.

[henryrasia]

Oh my god, people, that's what he means!!!

If you have skilled engineers they'll be able to improve the hardware. Remember KSP is technically a haphazard space program, so it makes sense that engineers could improve upon basic specs. The only thing is that er don't have an "engineering" or "part building" department. Hell, we don't even have proper "research" or "development" departments yet, only tech tree placeholder system (I hope it's a placeholder...). I think the devs should look more into tycoon style games. Including the sim-city (yes, even the new one) and xenonauts ways of tackling those mechanics (or Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager, both old and new versions). KSP claims to be a tycoon style game when finished, but it barely even resembles one.

I have a vision for this game that I think many people want but don't know how to voice it, all I need is any skill with computer animation...

Finally, if we're not getting a "part development" or "engineering department" mechanic then kerbonauts are the ones that will have to have the perks. So there's that.

[Wallygator]

Sorry... Can't... help... myself...

Ummm... I just checked, and I don't think you can change the ISP of an engine in mid flight in Buzz Adrian's Space Program Manager. In fact you can't even fly a mission in SPM, but rather you can only watch an animation sequence. So, basically it's like comparing apples and chainsaws.

More on the OP Theme...

I like: Being able to actually have detailed control over every manoeuvre of my KSP space flights.

[bonyetty]

Perhaps once a Kerbal gains sufficient skill they can execute a manover node. The planned manover could possibly have an error cone displayed around the planned trajectory. The more skillfull the Kerbal the narrower the cone. Landing and take off I've got nothing.

[henryrasia]

No I was making two separate points:

#1) Kerbal experience is a good idea to make kerbals useful. However a better (more realistic) integration of that would be #2.

#2) KSP should have more tycoon-style mechanics it claims it is going to have. In this case have an "research department" separated from a "part development department" and add a "part building department" and a "engineering team" to the VAB.

I really should learn animation in order to get this vision across... If only :'(

[Renegrade]

And X-15 needed one whole heck of a lot of heat shielding, for the record.

I wouldn't call a simple nickel-chrome skin 'one whole heck of a lot of heat shielding'... (the ablative applique didn't come until the A-2 refit) It's certainly not the huge disc of ablative-y blunt-shaped goodness that protects the Apollo CM.

Softball-sized Kerbin introduces a fair number of issues if you want to replicate historical space programs