Will KSP get realistic in the Future?

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I´m asking because I look for a realistic Space Program Simulation. But I don´t think that KSP is as realistic as it could be.

My big Problems are ... building a rocket is way too easy in KSP, physics have not much influence.

The Kerbals don´t die when under high g!

This are my first observations on KSP when looking over Youtube-Videos.

I thought this would be more serious ... more realistic. But it don´t look so. Or ist there a way to get is really realistic?

From what I have seen in the past here on the forum and from how the game has developed, KSP will never be super realistic.

The devs are obviously aiming for a funny, yet educational game. The learning-curve is , was and ever will be very steep.

[cantab]

would assume that Harvister feels that all the aspects of KSP that differ from reality are acceptable breaks from reality in order for KSP to work as a good fun game.

I would not assume that for a game that by its own developers' admission is still well in development. The aerodynamics is not unrealistic because Squad think that's fun, it's unrealistic because Squad haven't got round to making it more realistic yet. They're finally working on it now and .91 is expected to bring new aero.

I would also not assume that Squad's ideas for KSP are unchanging. They should, can, and will review and reconsider things right up to the 1.0 release. We've seen this with resources - they had an idea way back, decided it wasn't fun so abandoned it, now we know they have a new idea and are working on that for .91.

[klgraham1013]

The devs are obviously aiming for a funny, yet educational game. The learning-curve is , was and ever will be very steep.

Sit anyone down with KSP with no prior knowledge and they will learn nothing. The learning curve is only steep because of the lack of in game tutorials of any substantial value. I have taught new players the basics of getting into orbit in less than half an hour. I would even wager less than 10 minutes for one person I have in mind.

The perceived difficulty of KSP comes from an underestimation of our own intelligence. We can be smarter than we give ourselves credit for. If we'd only attempt something that appears difficult, we'd see how easily we can overcome it. There seems to be an inherent fear of realism in KSP that I think is unfounded, and stems from the idea that "I can't do that", or it would take so much brain effort, it would no longer be fun.

I'm not purposing full scale realism, I'm saying that adding life support or re-entry heat is not as difficult as some perceive it to be.

[livefree75]

This is kind of off-topic, but I really think there should be stock clouds. Of course, if you don't have a higher-end graphics card, they could be toggled.

[Wallygator]

If this is what you want, then install either NEAR or FAR.

This is what I love about the game. It can be as cartoony as you like, or, if you want more (whatever), just install a mod. NEAR and/or FAR both install a new level of realism. If you want the solar system, there is a mod for that as well.

What?

The OP asks the question... will KSP get more realistic?

My response supports that it will not unless some basic physics elements are fixed.

This is not about an individual player making choices about what mod(s) to install.

[ArmchairGravy]

KSP is Need for Speed, Orbiter is Forza. Arcade vs. simulator is one of core design decisions across all games. I think KSP will always be on the arcade side of the spectrum. The good thing about KSP is the mods that will shift it toward the simulator side if that's your cup of tea.

[Frida Space]

But KSP could well become a bit more realistic without ruining the fun. I mean, adding a stock version of Deadly Reentry? Fairings? A bit more aerodynamics? That doesn't sound like a ruiner.

[Pecan]

What?

The OP asks the question... will KSP get more realistic?

My response supports that it will not unless some basic physics elements are fixed.

This is not about an individual player making choices about what mod(s) to install.

Yes, sorry if I misunderstood in my previous post. Anyway - we know that better aerodynamices are planned for the next release.

[cantab]

KSP is Need for Speed, Orbiter is Forza.

On that scale, though, just about every other space game is Mario Kart.

[bonyetty]

I would not assume that for a game that by its own developers' admission is still well in development. The aerodynamics is not unrealistic because Squad think that's fun, it's unrealistic because Squad haven't got round to making it more realistic yet. They're finally working on it now and .91 is expected to bring new aero.

I would also not assume that Squad's ideas for KSP are unchanging. They should, can, and will review and reconsider things right up to the 1.0 release. We've seen this with resources - they had an idea way back, decided it wasn't fun so abandoned it, now we know they have a new idea and are working on that for .91.

I hadn't assumed SQUADS ideas are unchanging or that the game is finished, nor did I state it. Who is assuming who's assumptions here? Other than that I agree with you. I did however make some assumptions due to my real world constraints. Maybe I should have added, for each update with the Devs real world constraints of making a game.

- - - Updated - - -

Simulations are technical constructs that are often used as components of a game. Games are structured playing, and they can have at least as diverse goals as other forms of enterntainment and art can. Probably even more diverse, because games often include other forms of entertainment and art as their components.

When we're talking about realism in games, the goal is usually not to make the game as difficult, tedious, and annoying to the player as possible, but about trying to make it isomorphic with reality. Time warping, reverts, and saves don't change the isomorphism at all, as they only allow jumping to a world state that has already existed or would anyway exist in the future. As a result, they're orthogonal to how realistic the game is.

Ha ha this got me thinking and definition looking up. So are playing (structured or not) and fun isomorphic? Also art and entatainment I don't think are orthogonal to subjectivity.

[Norpo]

Really, I think SOME level of realism should be expected, but not going whole hog. I don't think it should be TOO strict about it, though.

Or rather, you CAN try to break the laws of physics... But that doesn't necessarially mean you'll succeed. Sometimes, a questionable idea should work. Maybe. If you're lucky. A giant pancake trying to go to orbit? Probably not. Nosecones are in the game for a reason, use them. Same goes for "slamming a giant space station into the atmosphere to slow it down", you can only slow down so much before friction makes too much heat, and then things go boom.

Better aerodynamics, and a Deadly Reentry clone would be acceptable improvements, and perhaps some Life support. Really, these are basic principles. Shorter distances and smaller Delta-V requirements are okay, since for new players it's hard enough to get to orbit as is. (Veteran players can always download difficulty enhancing mods.)

Aerodynamics and "if you go really fast through air you explode" are really common sense. Really, if you throw a brick at the air, do you expect it to go to space? If you slam an unprotected brick into the atmosphere at orbital sphere, should it survive?

I don't think so. I imagine aerodynamics is as simple as "make a lawn dart, not a brick", deadly reentries are as simple as "make the heatshield face where you're going", and life support is "kerbals need food". Some great acts of anti-physicness should be possible, but if you outright disrespect the laws of physics, physics should break the rocket into a dozen little pieces.

And then eat them, because physics needs sustenance.

[numerobis]

During development, the question isn't just "will implementing this bit of improved realism increase fun". Rather, it is more like "will implementing, testing, and dealing with fallout and bugs related to the changes caused by implementing this bit of increased realism increase fun as much as working on some other priority."

That's why the aerodynamics are still a bit weird, why thrust scaling isn't implemented (it could have been done easily at the start but it wasn't; changing it could cause bugs so why bother?), and various other items.

The solar system size is one of the few places where there was a clear decision that a smaller, denser system would be more fun than a realistic one. Everywhere else, what I see is that squad gets to "good enough" and moves on -- which has been a quite successful strategy for them and many others before them.

[MarvinKitFox]

Core KSP is a game. Made to be easy, made to be fun.

If you want a more challenging game, just switch of Kerbal immortality and timetravel ability. (i.e. no quicksave/load, no reverts, permadeath)

Just this one action shifts KSP from 99% game to 90% simulation.

If you want a lot more realistic simulation, but still easy enough to play as a game, add Deadly Reentry + FAR + TAC life support.

This turns the souposphere safetynet into an actual atmosphere. That needs to be breathed, allows your wings to fly not just slosh around, and that hurts if you slam into it too hard.

If you want an actually realistic simulation, add RSS real solar system or similar scaling mod. Add RemoteTech.

This sets the effort level for spacecraft at about the same as on Earth, and removes (some) of the godlike omniscient abilities that ignore lightspeed delay.

Quite frankly, this is the highest realism level where I can cope. There are also mods that further improve the simulation quality, with simple but essential roles such as:

*Things can break. This is rather a *big deal* in any real space program.

*Time. It takes **years, even decades** to develop a new engine design. Months or years to make an individual instance of the engine, hope some worker doesn't ram it with a forklift by accident!

Also needed for true realism, but no-one even writes a mod for it because it is no fun:

*Money. Realistic money. Needing to negotiate contracts, source funding etc. Pay interest on bank loans. This is a serious pain!

*Political support. Lobbying, promising and lying to get your project approved by government.

*EPA impact study. This has torpedoed many an enterprising venture! Do you want it simmed? NO!!

Note how the ever-increasing realism level that is attainable also inherently includes an ever-increasing difficulty level, and ever-increasing effort burden to achieve the same thing.

At some point, it changes from being fun to being just work.

You need to choose your own comfort level in the very wide spectrum between pure game, and pure simulation.

Fortunately, KSP's very accessible modability allows you cherry-pick the exact level of game vs. sim you want.

Edited January 2, 2015 by MarvinKitFox

[Elington]

On that scale, though, just about every other space game is Mario Kart.

Thanks for the much needed reminder! Speaking about "Citizen Mario's Dangerous Space Kart"... oops sorry wrong forum

[magnemoe]

But KSP could well become a bit more realistic without ruining the fun. I mean, adding a stock version of Deadly Reentry? Fairings? A bit more aerodynamics? That doesn't sound like a ruiner.

Better aerodynamic is coming, for deadly reentry its an lack of parts as in heat shields, also more otter parts who helps here like engines and landing legs who can either have their own shields or opperate trough ports in the heatshield.

Parts who can fold up more like in robotic whould also be nice with better aerodynamic.

[klgraham1013]

KSP is Need for Speed, Orbiter is Forza.

I always assumed Elite: Dangerous was Need for Speed and KSP was Forza. Of course I made that assumption when I bought the game in 0.17. Things change.

[jandcando]

If you want total, cruel realism then use Realism Overhaul. It is great! Geosynchronous satellites need about 15000 m/s of delta-v to set up, you need to take limited engine ignitions and ullage into consideration. I had lots of fun with it, recreating real world rockets.