Let's Pick on KSP!

[CalMacDa]

KSP is a great game, but I think we can all agree that there are lots of unrealistic things. This thread is to pick apart KSP and find everything wrong with it we can.

NOTE: KSP is an awesome game... This is just to find things wrong. I think a lot off can agree though that KSP is the best space simulator in the world.

Vote in the poll!

[Bill Phil]

What poll?

Bas aerodynamics. It's in the works though.

[xcorps]

I voted. But the results aren't showing. Did you rig the polling booths? Is identification required? Poll tests? Thugs with baseball bats? What's the dealio?

[CalMacDa]

Sorry... Was making the poll after I had already submitted the thread

- - - Updated - - -

What I find the most unrealistic is the planets masses cleared to their size. Kerbin is smaller than the moon, but has 1/3 the gravity of earth... The density of the planet is higher than the density of the most dense known substance... I wish they would increase planet size, but that itself could cause issues

[boxman]

My biggest problems are the planets/moons themselves. How does it make sense that for example minimus has ice when it is in the same distance from sun as kerbin?? Since it has no atmosphere that surface would be very hot in the sunlit regions and would vaporize in no time. Then you also have laythe.. Yes you can indeed have water oceans on a planet this far away from sun thanks gravitational effects/core heat, but not without being covered in a thick layer of insulating ice ontop. Then yet another issue is how no planets have any axial tilt...

[sal_vager]

It's not ice apparently, the surface samples say it's more like a salt.

But we all know that's a lie, and it's really mint ice cream

[cantab]

Well, I voted aero, but actually the hydrodynamics are even worse. Eve and Laythe have oceans, they ought to act properly!

[The Destroyer]

Aerodynamics. Get a middle man between FAR/NEAR and current aero and you've got yourself a perfect game. Want more realism? Go play RSS. I love the style of KSP.

[Renegrade]

I'm actually happy with the insane densities. While extremely unlikely, there's nothing to say that the planets don't have degenerate matter (ex. fragments of a neutron star) in their cores for whatever bizarro reason. It's physically possible, just .. extremely..extremely..unlikely.

The aero and thrust calculations on the other hand, are actually violating the laws of physics. And it's time someone wrote them a ticket. For 50 funds.

(And the thrust calculation is a simple, five line fix, and may even result in a slight performance improvement)

[Nemrav]

KSP is totally realistic !

I mean who hasn't been seeing little green men, who in the world hasn't noticed the atmosphere become goup !

But I actually did put, for the sake of it, that KSP was perfectly realistic

[Steambirds]

To be honest, the most unrealistic part is that space vessels have no need to vent excess heat, and that the in-game solar panels are hugely efficient.

[CalculusWarrior]

The only two things which I feel should be changed are the aerodynamics, as well as the fact that vessels don't take time to build. While Harvester has made clear that he doesn't like the time-based mechanics (since you can just time warp your way through it), I've found that the Kerbal Construction Time mod really adds a lot to gameplay, as it forces you to be mindful of time, such as not building your Duna spacecraft two days before the transfer window opens, or making sure that you have enough time to complete a contract before it expires.

As for the rest of the features, KSP is stil a game, and most of those features are simply concessions made to enhance gameplay. (the physically inaccurate engine code bugs me a bit, though.)

[boxman]

To be honest, the most unrealistic part is that space vessels have no need to vent excess heat, and that the in-game solar panels are hugely efficient.

I agree about solar panels, but with venting i just assume that to be built in. It would be tedious to play if they added all the little things like that.

[Thomas988]

I chose aerodynamics. It seems that impossible planes fly beautifully and perfectly realistic planes don't even takeoff. Plus, there's the nose cone problem. Why are they even in KSP if they're nothing but dry mass? They need use!

[Wallygator]

Aero.

But I hope KSP will never become "totally realistic", but rather "less unrealistic". Better aero and hydro dynamics would probably go a very long way.

Oh... And revamp kerbal experience :-)

[Reactordrone]

The only thing I don't like are surface science contracts on Kerbin. In a world where, at the push of a button, a recovery team can return a spacecraft from anywhere on the planet for a fraction of the cost of the returned hardware, why would you get the people in the space program to go and get soil samples.

[Captain Vlad]

I voted for the aerodynamics, which I know they're changing, though I don't give too much thought to the current air densities. Anything that improves the in-atmosphere experience for me is great since I spend a lot of time just making planes, though. If I had to pick any one thing annoying enough that it HAD to change...

...I'd be able to start my guys in an external command seat.

[Sof]

I voted for life support.

Sure, the aerodynamic model is a bit sucky, but you only really notice that on a few planets and 1 moon. FAR/NEAR fixes that completely in one easy to install mod anyway.

The fact that Kerbals can last forever just floating around in a tiny pod (or even just their spacesuit) is silly. The difficulty in keeping astronauts alive in space is the reason we haven't been to Mars yet. Only a few mods come close to fixing that issue in KSP.

[xcorps]

<snip> why would you get the people in the space program to go and get soil samples.

Practice. IRL the Apollo astronauts did a lot (months) of geology schooling, including field work gathering samples for NASA in space suits. Some of them got to be rather good geologists.

[SorryDave]

I'd like better rover physics, balanced engines, limited Eva refueling, more planets and Kerbal training in science mode.

As there are good MODs and strong support for them, SQUAD should include a way to install/uninstall mods from the main menu (CIV4 style).

My biggest criticism is that career mode does not have a way to "win" and "lose". If it is meant to end as a sandbox, which I would like, it should have a way for a player to generate funds from resources collected in space, late game. I execute elaborate missions in sandbox/science mode that would burn through 20 million funds quickly if I had to pay for them.

[iFlyAllTheTime]

Haha!

i love how no one has selected the kerbals themselves being unrealistic!

[dryer_lint]

Planet Densities: I like a bit of realism, but I quite honestly couldn't care less about this. Sorry

Propulsion Systems: Hey, at least it's not a warp-drive.

The Aerodynamics: There it is. This is probably the biggest one, even though I don't have FAR installed, the aero still bugs me.

The Kerbals: You monster! How could you speak to our Kerbals in that way!?

The Atmospheres: Is this the same as aerodynamics or do you mean re-entry heat, environment damage, etc.?

Life Support: While it is a bit weird that we can duct-tape ten chairs to the rocket and have our Kerbals survive a trip to Eeloo, I'm okay with it.

KSP is Realistic: *snort* Well, still, at least there's no warp-drives and artificial gravity, I guess.

Stay That Way: I agree with this. Come on, guys, the initial versions were just about strapping on boosters and trying to fly as high as you could, and people liked it that way! Realism is good but it shouldn't choke the game.

[Wallygator]

Haha!

i love how no one has selected the kerbals themselves being unrealistic!

I think it is because the poll asks what is the most "bothersome" unrealistic feature. I agree Kerbals are unreal, but they do not bother me. I did not vote for them.

I wonder what the Kerbals would vote for...

[MGCJerry]

Stability... I've met crack addicts who are more stable.

[eddiew]

I honestly think the stock game should stay unrealistic. With the exception of better aerodynamics, very little 'realism' can be added that also makes the game more fun. Right now, stock is quirky and comical, but very accessible. You can do weird and wacky things, and yet the launch will work and somehow your ship will get where it's going. That's a great entry point

Adding life support requirements, or higher gravity, or weather than can rain off your launch - these things are perfect as mods. If you want them, the community has provided them, but you can pick and choose which feature you prefer. Example, I use FAR and TAC, but not RSS or DRE. I also 'cheat' and turn off FAR's disintegration under stress. Why? Because I've not yet been to another planet (except Gilly which hardly counts) and I'd prefer to just get the missions done, rather than being repeatedly rebuffed by increasing levels of realism.

Don't really want KSP to actually​ be rocket science