Let's Pick on KSP!

[Wjolcz]

Aero, of course. Good thing its being redone. The rest is fine. Maybe life support could be added, too. Would be cool.

[Joonatan1998]

I voted for life support. Adding it would bring much more planning to missions, and create a choise between slower, efficient transfer or faster transfer that uses more fuel. (Should probably be configurable with the difficulty settings.)

Aerodynamics, massless parts and infinite EVA fuel in capsules are also things I think should be changed.

I don't really care about the planets being small, I just assume alternate universe with higher gravitational constant,, but the sun is too large.

[CalMacDa]

I agree. You should have to take the EVA fuel from monopropellent tanks

[prophet_01]

I voted aerodynamics, but since those get fixed soon (rly hope they get it right) the next thing are massless parts. Massless mono prop engines are an absolute no-go imo. Some balance tweaks would be nice aswell

[Tank Buddy]

KSP is supposed to be a game first, and a simulator second. While I do believe that the game should be more realistic than not, it shouldn't be to the point where it is not fun. I don't consider the aerodynamics bothersome, but rather inadequate.

[KrazyKrl]

KSP is supposed to be a game first, and a simulator second. While I do believe that the game should be more realistic than not, it shouldn't be to the point where it is not fun. I don't consider the aerodynamics bothersome, but rather inadequate.

Realistic Aero should be close to what should be implemented. Anything less, and there would be problems with weird rules that make no sense for aircraft.

With something as complex as aerodynamics, you cannot use a simple approximation and get anywhere near reasonable results. A large part of aerodynamics can be ignored, or otherwise made a negligible factor, for a rocket pad launch vehicle built taller that it is wide; and using things like nose cones with cargo bays for aerodynamics.

Aerodynamics is, of course, much more complex for aircraft; than a flying hot dog. But the orbital mechanics in KSP are largely realistic, with some performance shortcuts used. And Orbital mechanics is much more foreign to learn, than flying a paper Kerbal airplane.

[CalMacDa]

I just realized something very bothersome while trying to construct a Mk3 spaceplane... The gears pop while you try to take off! They need to add larger gear like the ones in B9 Aerospace

[razark]

KSP is supposed to be a game first, and a simulator second. While I do believe that the game should be more realistic than not, it shouldn't be to the point where it is not fun.

That can be hard to judge. Some parts of the community might find more realistic to be more fun.

For example, in a game centered around flight, I'd expect that airplanes would act like airplanes, and spacecraft will act like spacecraft. If the devs decided that airplanes should act like racecars, because it's more fun that way, then even if it's more fun, the game would lose some of what makes it what it is.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Aside from the listed options, crappy modeling, lots of bugs, broken 64 bit, no art direction at Squad, was in alpha for five years, no clouds, no delta-v readout (just use KER like a normal person), magic reaction wheels, and a bunch more.

[Rabada]

I think that KSP biggest weakness is not any of the things in your post or anything that anyone has mentioned in this thread. I think that the problem is that right now, KSP feels more like a "Space Flight" game than a "Space Program" game. There is barely any depth at all to the "career" aspect of career mode. The way the contract system is set up, I don't feel like I am managing a space program, I feel like I am being managed. I think that the biggest problem with KSP right now is that the only way to acquire funds and improve your space program is to fulfill contracts. I would like to see new facets added to career mode that would give me alternatives to getting money from contracts.

[Whovian]

I think I'm going to jump on the aero bandwagon; I'm fine with everything else.

[InterCity]

I think I'm going to jump on the aero bandwagon; I'm fine with everything else.

I think it's getting overcrowded. Guys, time to settle down, make some cities and conquer some lowly nations!

OT: The sloppydynamics really bother me. If a pancake rocket makes almost the same drag as a 100m tall needle, and if fairings actually make the craft aerodynamically worse, something is really wrong. So FAR, NEAR is a must have

[SmashBrown]

I would like to see axial tilt and environmental hazards and happenings. Other than that, I'm fine with it. Oh, aerodynamics I suppose.

[prophet_01]

I think that even with the aerodynamics released in the next game the usual "realism" (/masochism) folks including myself will still prefer FAR. To be honest, I doubt that squad is going to add adequate hypersonic mechanics and will settle somewhere near NEAR (no pun intended). They also won't give us the data readouts and simulations package that FAR enlights and confuses us with I personally think that I will try it out and will return to FAR sooner or later. But lets see

[cantab]

I think that KSP biggest weakness is not any of the things in your post or anything that anyone has mentioned in this thread. I think that the problem is that right now, KSP feels more like a "Space Flight" game than a "Space Program" game. There is barely any depth at all to the "career" aspect of career mode. The way the contract system is set up, I don't feel like I am managing a space program, I feel like I am being managed. I think that the biggest problem with KSP right now is that the only way to acquire funds and improve your space program is to fulfill contracts. I would like to see new facets added to career mode that would give me alternatives to getting money from contracts.

Personally this was and is one of my concerns about KSP's direction. The game grew up as a flight simulator where you build your own vehicles, and the flight side of it has a steep learning curve, partly because there's little guidance but mostly because orbital mechanics is just plain counter-intuitive. I'm just not sure that bolting on an increasingly complex business simulation game to that is a good idea, especially as success in such a game is liable to come from understanding game mechanics that don't really relate to reality.

[SpenSpaceCorp]

While I agree it should not be super realistic (real sizes, real fuels, real engines, etc.) I would enjoy some real features such as improved aerodynamics, or some sort of life support system.

[buddertroll]

I hear the developers are improving the aerodynamics in the next update

[Dirty Bob]

I've always found it funny how people think the stock game needs to fit their vision of what they want it to be when the game is so renown for it's mods. Never mind that Squad had their own vision for the game.

Aerodynamics are the only thing I won't mind seeing being changed. It's been known since the beginning that what we have now was merely a placeholder. Other than that, leave it up to the modding community to make major game changes toward realism.

Making the game ultra-realistic will only limit the overall player base. There are realistic space simulators already out there. They're not nearly as popular as KSP for a reason. KSP already has a learning curve that keeps some players from ever going deep into the game because they get frustrated and give up. There's no reason to push that to another harder level.

[Cirocco]

like so many of my fellow players, pretty much the only "unrealistic" feature that I wouldn't mind seeing changed is the aerodynamics model. And I hear that's getting an overhaul in the next update

Other features that I wouldn't mind, but could certainly find with mods are life support and beter long range communication (relay sattelites and commsat constellations are cool), though I probably would only get frustrated with signal lag.

[gmiddlemass]

I've always found it funny how people think the stock game needs to fit their vision of what they want it to be when the game is so renown for it's mods. Never mind that Squad had their own vision for the game.

Aerodynamics are the only thing I won't mind seeing being changed. It's been known since the beginning that what we have now was merely a placeholder. Other than that, leave it up to the modding community to make major game changes toward realism.

Making the game ultra-realistic will only limit the overall player base. There are realistic space simulators already out there. They're not nearly as popular as KSP for a reason. KSP already has a learning curve that keeps some players from ever going deep into the game because they get frustrated and give up. There's no reason to push that to another harder level.

What he said...

I tend to agree that making it too realistic would limit the player base as some of my friends already complain that the game is too difficult. If some "more realistic" options could be toggled on and off when you start a new game though I suppose that would be OK.

[Scarecrow88]

I didn't vote as I feel that KSP is a game and not a space simulator, so there are bound to be parts of it that aren't particularly realistic.

[Sigma88]

Voted for Life support, but I would have voted the comunication system above that (basically what RemoteTech does)

[Nitrous Oxide]

Technical problems plague this game... and the devs assume everyone plays the game on a toaster or something, so it doesn't even make use of my high-end hardware. And every patch seems to take out some open, creative gameplay aspect and replace it with something rigid and fixed (new SAS for example, worst idea ever, no more customization when building satellites, have to pick the most useful core now... meaning Stayputnik is a garbage part, never use it in Beta). So they don't even fix the technical problems and instead focus on chopping up gameplay aspects that people liked, and thus slowly murdering mods in the process.

But sweet, Beta means we have 3-tier buildings now!

I really didn't want to develop a love-hate relationship with this game... but goddamn Squad makes me shake my head. WHY UNITY?

You gimp the game so that it runs on every PC in the world... except the modern PCs trying to un-gimp the game. Space isn't simple, yet this is looking more and more like some casual-kiddy NERF sim every day. But alas, what the hell should I expect? The money is in all those 12-year olds' parents' wallets, after all. So instead of seeing "real" progress, we'll just get a bunch of filler content (seriously, look at the Duna biomes and tell me someone worked real effing hard on those) while Squad rakes in millions.

Any dev team that wasn't running the long scam would have finished the game in a reasonable timespan and focused on critical technical issues instead of pumping out fluff. Heck, I've seen things announced and gone gold in the time KSP was in Alpha. Instead this game doesn't even work properly on DirectX11 (6 YEARS OLD)... Draw your own conclusions people, but personally, Squad is going to need to haul ass to convince me this game isn't dying before gold (or being severely obsolete in relation to hardware when it is finally released in like four years).

Edited January 9, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[cantab]

the devs assume everyone plays the game on a toaster or something, so it doesn't even make use of my high-end hardware

Well it does and it doesn't. On the CPU side it makes heavy use of one core and it absolutely benefits from a modern fast Intel CPU. It doesn't benefit from four cores rather than two but that's not something Squad can fix quickly anyway since they use an off-the-shelf game engine - their options are wait for it to improve, switch to a better one, or write their own, and all of those would take a lot of time.

On the GPU side, sure it doesn't tax the GPU much, but then nor do many other indie games. Ultra-flashy graphics require a big and experienced studio with a big budget, which Squad are not.

seriously, look at the Duna biomes and tell me someone worked real effing hard on those

Tanuki Chau, regular streamer on KSPTV and her own channel, who was working on the KSP biomes at the same time she was waiting for test results for cancer. Why don't you ask her if she worked "real effing hard" on the Duna biomes?

Any dev team that wasn't running the long scam

And now you're yet another person spouting the whole "Squad are scam artists" nonsense. I don't know why I even bother replying. Edited January 9, 2015 by cantab

[Nitrous Oxide]

Well it does and it doesn't. On the CPU side it makes heavy use of one core and it absolutely benefits from a modern fast Intel CPU. It doesn't benefit from four cores rather than two but that's not something Squad can fix quickly anyway since they use an off-the-shelf game engine - their options are wait for it to improve, switch to a better one, or write their own, and all of those would take a lot of time.

Good thing Quad Cores are brand new and not five years old... oh...

On the GPU side, sure it doesn't tax the GPU much, but then nor do many other indie games. Ultra-flashy graphics require a big and experienced studio with a big budget, which Squad are not.

This is one thing they do right, actually. Even with EVE, I can play the game in non-slideshow format, which is always nice compared to some AAA games *coughWolfensteincough*

Tanuki Chau, regular streamer on KSPTV and her own channel, who was working on the KSP biomes at the same time she was waiting for test results for cancer. Why don't you ask her if she worked "real effing hard" on the Duna biomes?

Seriously? A professional company is going to resort to the "personal pity" level as to why they did something in a half-assed manner? If that was the case, why not simply wait until the biomes were actually done before releasing them? Oh right, because it's a casual indie company with no work ethic but all the excuses. I love how with kids on the internet, the sense of professionalism has all but evaporated. It's fine that they charge us $20 for something unfinished because they promise promise promise they'll finish it someday.

Game devs used to have to pay people to play their unfinished work.

And now you're yet another person spouting the whole "Squad are scam artists" nonsense. I don't know why I even bother replying.

Well, you honestly can't tell me they're working as fast and as hard as they can... I've had the game for around a year now, and the changes have hardly been substantial. They added the base for career mode, which took almost 12 months to add science, money, upgradeable buildings, and EXP. An entire year for that. No aerodynamics, no re-entry, no clouds, no auroras, no probe LOS, no life support, no n-body physics, all of which have mods that were developed in a shorter timespan than Squad implementing a few basic changes. Squad are less than impressive with their technical prowess. They're on par with the worst of Early Access devs, and that's the unfortunate truth. The only games with slower progress and as much hype are Godus and DayZ (which comparatively, KSP is at least a fun game, hardly a simulator, but definitely a game).

I guess where people just want to kill a few hours launching their silly little green guys to the moon and playing a game, I look for a realistically-modelled simulation not unlike a model train set (but of course, in this case, a model space agency!). KSP is failing at that.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide