Will KSP get realistic in the Future?

[MGCJerry]

Didn't read whole thread. My opinion.

I hope not. I play games to escape reality, especially KSP. Seems the more realistic games become the less and less interest I have. If it gets to the point in which I have to plot numbers before playing, that will mark the end of my gaming on newer versions. I have plenty of real-world work, I don't want to play/work. However, Squad (Harvester) has already said the plans are to keep the game fun. However before people freak, I'm not against "realistic" options in the game because they may be fun to play around with.

IMO, you have to remove all Kerbal elements from the game entirely to make it ultra-realistic, else you will always be flying little green men around the solar system. This is "Kerbal Space Program" not "K-Space Program Simulator Tycoon".

[klgraham1013]

Let's be careful throwing the word "fun" around. Some people think Microsoft Flight Simulator is fun. How about Euro Truck Simulator or Farm Simulator? I like horror games. "Fun" is not a universal term. So, let's be careful saying realism wouldn't be fun.

As for the general question of the post; I no longer believe Squad wants to make the realistic space flight simulator I thought I was buying. Thankfully, mods do what Squad won't. Praise be the modders.

To be slightly more evocative, I feel too many people fail to appreciate the value of strong realistic physics. Keeping things too simplistic will ultimately lead to KSP being relegated to a lower standing in the long term. There is no reason this game cannot combine a fun comical flare with a solid real physics backbone. No excuses.

Well put, good sir.

Edited December 29, 2014 by sal_vager

[_Aramchek_]

Let's be careful throwing the word "fun" around. Some people think Microsoft Flight Simulator is fun. How about Euro Truck Simulator or Farm Simulator? I like horror games. "Fun" is not a universal term. So, let's be careful saying realism wouldn't be fun.

Well then, you also have to be careful saying that realism would be fun.

I don't ever recall the game being marketed as a hard-core realistic simulator either.

[Red Iron Crown]

Well then, you also have to be careful saying that realism would be fun.

I don't ever recall the game being marketed as a hard-core realistic simulator either.

"Hard-core", no. "Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should", yes. Part of the brilliance of KSP IMO is that it has a fairly realistic space simulator game hidden beneath the goofy-green-men-blowing-things-up game. Makes the steep part of the learning curve less painful when failures are funny rather than disastrous.

[Felsmak]

Speaking about realism, I thought I'd just share a little reminder about how small our favorite planets really are. Just for the fun of it.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Felsmak

[foamyesque]

If it gets to the point in which I have to plot numbers before playing, that will mark the end of my gaming on newer versions.

A stock deltaV and TWR calculator, along the lines of KER or MechJeb, would go a long way to reducing that kind of frustration and drudgery. Honestly, most of the realism changes people want wouldn't increase the number crunching people already need to do (either analytically or intuition from learned experience); with a calc tool for the most fundamental numbers you'd wind up reducing the overall load. Like what happens with manouver nodes.

[Pecan]

Speaking about realism, I thought I'd just share a little reminder about how small our favorite planets really are. Just for the fun of it.

http://i.imgur.com/7eiPFVh.jpg

... And are the Earth and Moon the only 'real' celestial bodies? *wink*

Is Sol-system rock the only 'real' material, ours the only 'real' atmosphere? I agree it's pretty unlikely there's anywhere real the size of Kerbin but with such high mass and an oxygen atmosphere, I'm just making the point that there is a danger with conflating 'real' physics with anthropocentric "It has to be like Earth".

[Felsmak]

... And are the Earth and Moon the only 'real' celestial bodies?

No. But alas, there wasn't enough space to fit all of them in one picture. For with great surface area comes great lag.

[Guest]

Unless SQUAD employees stop playing farmer and goat simulators on the job, we should not hope for science overhaul, or physics overhaul, or beautiful realistic planets, or more realistic craft construction. Instead, they will just add more barns. May be even with goats inside.

[klgraham1013]

Unless SQUAD employees stop playing farmer and goat simulators on the job, we should not hope for science overhaul, or physics overhaul, or beautiful realistic planets, or more realistic craft construction. Instead, they will just add more barns. May be even with goats inside.

I'd put money down that they are playing games during their free time and not during work time. It's their job. I'd also wager, all that crunch time they talk about in dev notes, that it really happens. I may not like the direction they're headed, but I won't ever say that they're not doing their jobs.

Speaking about realism, I thought I'd just share a little reminder about how small our favorite planets really are. Just for the fun of it.

http://i.imgur.com/7eiPFVh.jpg

Well, we're playing in the Kerbol system. It's not our solar system. Yes, there are similarities, and the size of the system may be a matter of game play, but I'm not sure if this is a valid argument against realism. If that's the point you were trying to make.

Edited December 29, 2014 by sal_vager

[Slam_Jones]

Unless SQUAD employees stop playing farmer and goat simulators on the job, we should not hope for science overhaul, or physics overhaul, or beautiful realistic planets, or more realistic craft construction. Instead, they will just add more barns. May be even with goats inside.

Because, since they make video games, they clearly shouldn't be allowed free time or the ability to play other video games. If you work on video games, then that's your LIFE. THAT'S ALL YOU DO! WHY AREN'T YOU MAKING MY VIDEO GAME BETTER RAAAAAWR!

*cough* Yep.

[Felsmak]

Well, we're playing in the Kerbol system. It's not our solar system. Yes, there are similarities, and the size of the system may be a matter of game play, but I'm not sure if this is a valid argument against realism. If that's the point you were trying to make.

No point was made. It was just for fun.

[klgraham1013]

No point was made. It was just for fun.

It's a great reminder how big the planets in our system actually are. It's kind of mind blowing.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Real Solar System for the win.

[klgraham1013]

Real Solar System for the win.

Despite my love of some of the realism mods, I still think the decision to go smaller with the planets may have been a good one. Allowing us to traverse the universe, living our dreams, much easier than RSS would allow I find to be a good thing.

RSS is still kind of awesome, though.

[Vanamonde]

Some aspects of the game will become more realistic as development fills in details, but not enough to please everyone. So let's please not make argument about it, okay?

[Higgs]

Wikipedia claims trained humans can survive 50+ Gs for a brief period, so I don't see why kerbals dying of excessive g forces (and you aren't going to subject them to more than 20-30 Gs anyways) would count as realistic.

the HIGHEST ever recorded G-Force WITH SURVIVAL happened in Ft Worth Texas in 2003 with an Indy Race Car Driver surviving 214G's of deceleration. Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Br%C3%A4ck

[11of10]

Just make it so that various difficulty levels complicate the game further.

Say, start with easy being current stock game, maybe with added KER, medium being realism overhaul kerbol 6.4x (or 3.2x) and hard, or very hard being Full RSS + RO.

[Nathair]

I feel too many people fail to appreciate the value of strong realistic physics. Keeping things too simplistic will ultimately lead to KSP being relegated to a lower standing in the long term. There is no reason this game cannot combine a fun comical flare with a solid real physics backbone. No excuses.

This; all day long and twice on Thursdays.

[tntristan12]

Can we stop using the strawman argument that any realistic features are somehow "hard-core" or "hyper-realistic"? Fun does not conflate with unrealistic nor does realism mean it can't be fun. I'd wager that watching a space station burn up on re-entry is more fun than watching it slow down before half-heartedly colliding in the middle of the ocean somewhere. Lots of realistic features being suggested would actually make the game easier for many players.

[Traches]

the HIGHEST ever recorded G-Force WITH SURVIVAL happened in Ft Worth Texas in 2003 with an Indy Race Car Driver surviving 214G's of deceleration. Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Br%C3%A4ck

You're missing the crucial factor, which is time. 214 Gs for a split second is no problem. 9 Gs for an hour is a problem.

[EtherDragon]

For my part, I prefer the current toy / sandbox look and style of Kerbal Space Program. There are mods for those that prefer to have more realism available.

Also, you want realism? Go check out Orbiter Space Flight Simulator it's FREE, and still has an active vibrant mod community with all sorts of extremely realistic things to do. (You better get your Orbital Mechanics Maths down, though!)

EDIT: Update! Apparently, the latest version, three years in development, is in Beta, coming out Soon!

Edited December 29, 2014 by EtherDragon

[Red Iron Crown]

For my part, I prefer the current toy / sandbox look and style of Kerbal Space Program. There are mods for those that prefer to have more realism available.

Also, you want realism? Go check out Orbiter Space Flight Simulator it's FREE, and still has an active vibrant mod community with all sorts of extremely realistic things to do. (You better get your Orbital Mechanics Maths down, though!)

EDIT: Update! Apparently, the latest version, three years in development, is in Beta, coming out Soon!

Be sure to let us know when Orbiter allows you to construct your own vessels.

Seriously though, I think very few players want Orbiter-level realism, or at least Orbiter-level complexity. Part of what makes the realism in KSP's orbital mechanics palatable is the easilyy accessible interfaces for them, like map view or maneuver nodes.

[linuxgurugamer]

The only thing that NEEDS to happen imo is better aero ( for proper.. REAL gravity turns ), reentry heating and thrust scaling. Those three are very important rocketry fundamentals that even KSP should abide by. The rest can always be modded in to whatever extent of realism you desire as Red Iron Crown just said.

FAR & Deadly Re-entry will take care of most of what you want.

Exactly what do you mean by "thrust scaling"?

[Red Iron Crown]

Exactly what do you mean by "thrust scaling"?

In KSP, when Isp varies with atmospheric pressure fuel flow rate changes while thrust remains constant.

In real life, when Isp varies with atmospheric pressure thrust changes while fuel flow rate remains constant.