Why is there a conflict of interest at all between realistic and unrealistic aerodynamics?

[Scoundrel]

If I may weigh in with my worthless opinion...

I don't see it as a conflict of interest so much as it is a conflict in general, because people who are biased one way or the other will insist their bias is more rational or more beneficial. This is why we have so many treadmill threads created by people who want to create some form of consensus with others who share similar opinions in order to validate that bias. People will always disagree with each other over something, and it will always be distorted and polarized to the point of absurdity (from a deconstructionist's point of view anyways).

In the case of KSP, players sometimes set their expectations a little too high and forget that the devs have a "flavour to taste" attitude towards their own game. I mean it's not like Squad is made up of scientists... they're programmers who superficially educate themselves on a subject so that when you play the game it behaves in a (hopefully) analogous and consistent (if unrealistic) fashion. They also have to make hard decisions that prioritize game performance and player accessibility, while keeping the framework open so people can add more realism in the areas that they feel need to be more realistic.

But for some players it simply isn't enough.

Consider aerodynamics: it is a high priority for some players because they spend a large portion of the playtime in Kerbin's atmosphere, or focus primarily on lofting payloads. For those who spend most of their time messing around on Duna or the Mun, aerodynamics isn't relevant because it only affects the first 5 minutes of their game experience, which results in these players typically wanting the devs to spend less time messing around with Kerbin-oriented stuff and focus on off-world stuff. And then there are those who are afraid that changes to fundamental aspects of the game will ruin everything in some fashion.

Each position has valid points.

Unfortunately these "discussions" usually devolve into conflicts as the participants eventually overinvest in the argument and convince themselves that they are influencing the devs to prioritize whatever particular bias is being pushed (one way or the other) when the reality is that the devs mostly insulate themselves from these discussions and make their decisions based on a combination of their own judgement - which has been honed through trial and error - and budget restrictions (not just monetary).

So we do influence things... but only a little, and with great effort.

Anyhow, that's just my insight into the issue. I'm probably wrong anyways.

[metl]

I guess it has been discussed millions of times, but:

The only reason why anyone could find playing without FAR/NEAR less enjoyable than with FAR/NEAR is that their usual rocket do not work anymore. People got use to ludicrous rocket design, and they don't want to get rid of them. If you make a rocket which look like a rocket, FAR/NEAR does not increase difficulty at all, I don't see how it could be "less fun".

Reentry and aerobraking should be stressfull and sometimes epic (you should watch Gravity :-) ). And currently they are just boring. That is a massive issue.

I have to say I love KSP but I have been disappointed by it due to the aerodynamics model the first hour I played it.

Reasons I do not care for FAR/NEAR: It makes building easier while severely punishing an over-correction in flight. Once you start to lose control of the rocket, there is no saving it. I would compare it to frustrations with perma-death in other games (Revert flight is not the same as having a chance to salvage the flight.) Extreme punishments are rarely considered fun in games by all but a small percentage. You see reentry as an issue, I see it as not punishing new players by destroying their craft the first time they finally make orbit. I've played with DE. After almost 500 hours of it, I stopped using it because it became tedious and easily overcome. Once the initial "thrill" wore off, it lost all fun. That being said, I do think some form should be in stock that at least forces me to point my craft the right way. Aerobraking works now (if you know how to do it.) I don't see these as major issues from an overall gameplay perspective. Yes the current aerodynamics model is a placeholder and will be getting some needed love to fix the drag model. But at the end of the day, changing these things will not make an astronomical difference in what this game is about, unless they go overboard with the realism and turn it into a realism simulator. Then they will alienate a huge portion of gamers that just love the lighthearted game for what it is.

[Levelord]

-snip-

Exactly my sentiment. You described my position in better words than I can. This is why SQUAD mostly insulates itself from the forums and why I feel comfortable letting them do their thing unless they specifically ask for suggestions from us.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Levelord

[Kegereneku]

I hesitated before answering, but with 2 persons who missed the point...

I don't think anyone is arguing for unendingly increasing complexity. So to be honest, Sal, I would say that Jouni was right, and this is a strawman. -SNIP-

-Snip-

I read Jouni accused me of making a strawman, sorry Jouni but this is your entire post that I find to be made of fallacy. I didn't misrepresented anyone's argument, my post here was expressed in a neutral way and the bias I presented only target those who recognize themselves in.

Now, I think you have both an incorrect view of the nature of "realism" in a design process.

First, Realism in video-game is absolutely linked to difficulty,

Saying otherwise is amongst the double standard I tend to hear a lot to "defend realism" (it doesn't need).

Don't take that personally but there is players who do so because they fear that if they don't defend vehemently something that look "to be what they want" (see what I said on bias) ...SQUAD might not do what they want. Don't go confusing that with a Strawman distorting what you said, this is a neutral affirmation.

This attitude was pointed out a lot in this very topic.

Back on subject : How is Realism directly linked to difficulty ?

A game is made of game-logic that are abstraction of real or made up fictional process and sub-process (like walking with one button in FPS)

Adding feature is not realism (you can add a button to run ...or to fly by magic)

Realism is a reverse-abstraction process. Making factual a sub-process that was implied/abstracted or not taken into account. (like taking ground surface into account)

Subdividing is complexity.

So to be short :

Realism lead to complexity -> complexity lead to precisely ordered/interlocked sub-process -> sub-process require knowledge/time/skills to get/take advantage of -> and finally, requiring knowledge/time/skills is what considered making thing difficult.

Now there is such a concept as "fake difficulty", fictional logic can be made ridiculously hard and you can lessen (not negate) realism-linked-difficulty by focusing on things that are intuitive. (don't make me explain you that what's realistic is not necessarily intuitive, yes many would do that jump of logic to serve their interest).

Worse, what's intuitive is subject to discussion.

That's there's the Dunning-Kruger effect come into play a lot.

Ex : Someone once described realistic as "If I make my plane roll, I want it to turn without action from me".

I can tell you as a Aeronautic technicians that this case of "controlled flight" (google it) require a precise design like flaps that don't rotate the same above/below the wing, or even aerobrake, It also don't work the same with different plane design, even if they look to have the right number of lift-surface positioned the same way.

Second, Realism doesn't come free. It's a trade off.

Childish example : The more subtlety there is to take into account, the more time/organization/test your design-process will take.

More seriously : The more sub-effect influence a plane the less likely it is going to be stable by itself, there's thing called "deep stall" for example that is unforgiving. Many players would mistake it for a bug.

Another example : An aircraft/rocket that act realistically beyond mach 5 have in return extreme forces/drag force acting on it, which require in turn to build a dart you can barely steer. From what I heard from FAR : this is the cause of many impromptu disassembly.

Rules of thumb: Realism will ask for more than the right stuff : default autopilot, but then you'd lose the feeling of piloting directly.

More fundamentally, if you want RSS-mod it come with the longer time to get orbit, higher precision requirement, lesser allowance for error.

If you tell me again "Nobody is asking for infinite realism" you missed my point. Regardless of where you put yourself on it realism is a INFINITE SCALE ! And at any point : Realism require trade-off.

The error (or logical fallacy made by biased desperate realism-proponent, your choice) would be to believe that not going toward realism mean not making the game better. This is false, you can stop around a level of realism (including 1970-2050s rocketpunk tech-level) then polish it through game-mechanism meant to make the game fun.

Myself, I am confident that SQUAD know how to do that, even if it took them years to decide when to revamp it.

To finish,

I really believe FAR filled a void for many.

The old stock aero definitely had counter-intuitive aspect and needed a revamp. However realism isn't the epitome of fun and FAR isn't either.

Important note here : Nobody is denying that (amount of) realism made KSP attractive in the eyes of other. However everybody don't want YOUR idea of fun.

There ARE / WILL be player who will not reinstall FAR and they will be just as entitled to their reasons.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Kegereneku
inverted accidentally realistic=/=intuitive, big oops

[Jouni]

First, Realism in video-game is absolutely linked to difficulty,

This is obviously false.

Realism is about using game mechanics that are rooted in the reality, instead of arbitrary mechanics. It's the design philosophy, not the end result. The patched conics used in KSP are realistic (because they approximate the reality), while the economic system isn't (because it's arbitrary). The existence of unbelievably dense planets in KSP isn't realistic, but the game still handles the planets in a realistic way.

Difficulty and complexity are separate dimensions that are independent of realism. They can be used to make a realistic game approximate the reality better, just as they can be used to make an abstract game more challenging.

When I'm advocating for increased realism in KSP, I'm asking for replacing an arbitrary mechanism with one that's based on the reality, or for implementing a new feature in a way that's based on the reality. What I'm definitely not asking for is making something more difficult or more complicated (unless the trade-off is good).

Second, Realism doesn't come free. It's a trade off.

Everything is a trade-off. As I said in my previous post, the art of game design is in finding the good trade-offs. HarvesteR wasn't originally sure about including orbital mechanics in KSP, but then he eventually found patched conics as a good trade-off for implementing then. FAR and DRE are similarly good trade-offs for implementing the atmospheres in a realistic way without increasing the complexity or the difficulty too much. Mods like RealFuels, RealChutes, and Engine Ignitor also increase realism, but I haven't found the trade-offs they offer good, because they either makes things too complicated or change the casual playstyle too much. Larger planets make the game more realistic and more difficult without increasing the complexity of the game.

[KerikBalm]

You call it a strawman, then you circle around again to dictate how other players should design their planes.

Doubling down on the Strawman?... quote where I "dictate how other players should design their planes"

[Levelord]

Doubling down on the Strawman?... quote where I "dictate how other players should design their planes"

The game's not stopping you from building planes which fits your preference of what a plane should look like, since they will fly regardless. So there's no real purpose to have the game force that design via aerodynamics to give you a 'reason' to do so. For the same reason why we don't actually need contracts to give us a 'reason' to go to space, we'd just do it anyway while contracts are an optional feature to provide flavor. (At least other players have the option to ignore contracts, they don't have the option to ignore aerodynamics).

You're so determined to go down the spacecraft design route of the argument, especially since there's nothing stopping you from building those designs yourself and where you need to be given a 'reason' to build a particular design in a game that gives zero reasons to do anything at all, is a flimsy and unconvincing argument.

I'd be more convinced if you said that the stock aero made your planes feel like they're flying in soup or if the infiniglide was interfering with your craft performance, but no, you went down the spacecraft design route because you wanted a 'reason' for your planes to look a certain way in a game that doesn't stop you from doing it in the first place. You KNOW that your aero suggestions will force other players to design planes to your personal aesthetic standards but you don't want to say it directly to avoid being quoted on it. I hope it's because you simply lack the foresight to see how it will affect other players.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Levelord
Spelling

[Darnok]

The game's not stopping you from building planes which fits your preference...

You KNOW that your aero suggestions will force other players to design planes to your personal aesthetic standards but you don't want to say it directly to avoid being quoted on it.

Game is stopping people from building close to real rockets and planes because unreal crafts have better performance.

Also suggestions to add more realism are good, because realism can encourage people to learn and explore issues that later can be used, or at least show off in front of friends

While the lack of realism does not teach anything it works opposite it can harm if game is played by person without knowledge about aero and physics.

I am not saying that every game should teach you physics, math and lots of things like simulators... IMHO game shouldn't harm you, and KSP is advertised as "game with very close to real orbital mechanic" and most people can think that "real" also applies to other parts of game including aero.

I am here because of this "almost real orbital physics", I wanted to learn something and I don't understand why people are saying that learning close to real aero or physics in games is something bad and can't be fun.

I prefer to learn almost real physics in some imaginary world with green, funny creatures instead of learning imaginary physics with real looking humans.

[tater]

It's disingenuous to make the claim that "realism in video-game is absolutely linked to difficulty" if that link is only when taken to an extreme that we will never get to, or also if lack of realism can also be linked to bad gameplay. Heck, we have not even characterized where on some imaginary scale of realism KSP lies, or what the target point would be for "realism" advocates. Sure, realism at some level might have negative gameplay trade offs, but I don't think you can possibly link them to realism in direction. "Low" realism can refer to any arbitrary rules of physics added that are contrary to reality. If some force were added to KSP that ships would hit like a wall, but only in some narrow regime frequently passed by players, that would be entirely "unrealistic," but would also result in a game experience that players would rightfully perceive as constant, random destruction. Say any time the player is moving exactly 101m/s at some atmospheric pressure greater than X, the rocket explodes. You would learn to throttle down at so many meters above the pad or explode every time. Very unrealistic, 100% predictable, very difficult (few tools) obviously un-fun.

It is possible to construct virtually infinite examples where such arbitrary game design WRT reality results in unambiguously difficult/crappy gameplay.

So a general characterization of difficulty in games scaling to "realism" is entirely unjustified unless you can demonstrate that the finite increases in difficulty due to realism exceed arbitrarily large increases in difficulty possible by randomly changing physics. I realize that this would not be the goal of any sensible game designer, but we are dealing with a blanket statement, "absolutely linked to difficulty."

At best you could say that at some point in a continuum of less to more realistic in terms of simulation, gameplay likely suffers as difficulty increases.

I'd not disagree with such a statement. Where that line is, OTOH, I am entirely unsure. Fundamentally in KSP, we are talking about what to most players is a "black box." As a new player in August, I absolutely expected my rockets to blow up if I did something idiotic design wise, and I only unlearned adding nosecones after reading this forum (I didn't learn they were pointless from experience, as I ALWAYS added them because it seemed insane not to). The same applies to reentry. I only reentered capsules, alone. I now have FAR and DRE added and I notice almost no difference in gameplay whatsoever.

I said someplace in here that if 0.91 came out and the devs did an experiment and threw in FAR with KJR added (rockets have always been too wobbly, IMO), I'd wager no new players would notice, and existing players would just say, "yeah, they changed the soup, alright." It would be different, particularly for aircraft, but I'm unsure how those players would characterize "difficulty." Many might observe lower dv to orbit and actually report the game got easier, don't you think?

TL, DR: Perceived gameplay difficulty might be related to "realism," but it is difficult to impossible to make a broad statement that as "realism" goes up, so does difficulty.

Edited January 19, 2015 by tater

[SAI Peregrinus]

As an example of unrealism not being easier:

Imagine a basketball game where the gravitational acceleration on the ball is selected randomly (direction and magnitude) every few seconds. It would be impossibly difficult to play, and terribly unrealistic.

Now imagine one where every last aspect of the game is modeled, and you have to have controls for all of it. QWOP style. It would be impossibly difficult to play.

Realism can be used to increase or decrease difficulty, but it's far from the only factor and it's not a linear relationship.

[Levelord]

Game is stopping people from building close to real rockets and planes because unreal crafts have better performance.

Also suggestions to add more realism are good, because realism can encourage people to learn and explore issues that later can be used, or at least show off in front of friends

While the lack of realism does not teach anything it works opposite it can harm if game is played by person without knowledge about aero and physics.

I am not saying that every game should teach you physics, math and lots of things like simulators... IMHO game shouldn't harm you, and KSP is advertised as "game with very close to real orbital mechanic" and most people can think that "real" also applies to other parts of game including aero.

I am here because of this "almost real orbital physics", I wanted to learn something and I don't understand why people are saying that learning close to real aero or physics in games is something bad and can't be fun.

I prefer to learn almost real physics in some imaginary world with green, funny creatures instead of learning imaginary physics with real looking humans.

Adding more realism is always good everyone! Let's add life support, re-entry damage, lower ion engine thrust, bring up the planet scaling to real life, bring solar system up to realistic scales, remove time warp, give reaction wheels angular momentum storage limits, remove maneuver nodes.... etc etc.

Realism is only good up to a point and SQUAD is better qualified to decide those parameters for a videogame, not you. It's the same argument over the ion engine buff again, where realism junkies were trying to fear monger people into not supporting the idea for the sake of realistic gameplay, citing that people will only build ion craft from now on. Turns out that SQUAD had the right idea and the ion engine has found a comfortable place within the KSP universe. The reason why it worked was because the changes to the ion engine (buff) has always come with the option to opt in/out. If you didn't like how powerful the ion engines were because you didn't find it challenging, you'd simply throttle down the engine or didn't use it at all.

Now I'm finding the same realism junkies making these same treadmill threads trying to validate another bias towards realism with complete disregard to how it will affect the gameplay as a whole. KSP is is a game built around features that were left intentionally unrealistic for the sake of gameplay, so I'd prefer that SQUAD decides how the next aero update should proceed and not to the realism junkies narrow ideals of realism possibly making the game inaccessible to everyone else.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Levelord

[klgraham1013]

Adding more realism is always good everyone! Let's add life support, re-entry damage, lower ion engine thrust, bring up the planet scaling to real life, bring solar system up to realistic scales, remove time warp, give reaction wheels angular momentum storage limits, remove maneuver nodes.... etc etc.

You're overreaching. Nice try though.

- - - Updated - - -

How is Squad better qualified? This is Harvesters first game, yes? Is he not allowed to learn, to grow as a developer? Is by merely having the profession the only way to be qualified to comment on the said profession? Do football commentators need to have played the game professionally to be able to commentate it?

- - - Updated - - -

You're acting as though realism advocates have a one track mind. That we don't understand realism must, at a point, be limited for the game to remain fun. We could just as easily turn it around back on you, but I'm getting kind of tired of this topic.

[tater]

Adding more "realism" is neither 100% good, nor 100% bad for gameplay. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it might be bad.

Ion engine thrust should be lower, for example. The reason it is not is not dumbing down realism for gameplay, it's that the game engine will not allow them to model constant-thrust trajectories, which is the entire point/reality of ion engines. If they could, you'd stretch a maneuver node for an ion rocket, and it would create for you a spiral instead of an ellipse. Gameplay difficulty change? ZERO. You'd have a novel way to maneuver. Yipee! (they'd just need a good interface. Check a box for "constant thrust" trajectory, and have a slider for how you have it throttled---it would probably need to check that spiral vs total fuel, and downgrade the throttling such that the spiral ends with a normal coning when fuel is exhausted (if you stretch too far))

Reentry damage is implied by the game, read the lander can descriptions. I've turned a couple people on to KSP, and they all assume reentry damage is a thing. They have to be told otherwise by me.

Take life support. That is a difficulty increase, IMO, and far more than either FAR or DRE to use mod examples. It is more of a legitimate difficulty change than anything in the current career sliders, frankly---which is where life support should be if added, as a difficulty option, because it puts a time limit on everything.

Edited January 19, 2015 by tater

[Darnok]

Adding more realism is always good everyone! Let's add life support, re-entry damage, lower ion engine thrust, bring up the planet scaling to real life, bring solar system up to realistic scales, remove time warp, give reaction wheels angular momentum storage limits, remove maneuver nodes.... etc etc.

Please read my post again... I've said

"I am not saying that every game should teach you physics, math and lots of things like simulators"

It's the same argument over the ion engine buff again, where realism junkies were trying to fear monger people into not supporting the idea for the sake of realistic gameplay, citing that people will only build ion craft from now on. Turns out that SQUAD had the right idea and the ion engine has found a comfortable place within the KSP universe. The reason why it worked was because the changes to the ion engine (buff) has always come with the option to opt in/out. If you didn't like how powerful the ion engines were because you didn't find it challenging, you'd simply throttle down the engine or didn't use it at all.

Ion engines were too weak for people that doesn't want to waste their time in 20-30 minutes burns.

Solution suggested by SQUAD is good, but not perfect... perfect solution would be to decrease engine power like people supporting realism suggested and improve time warp mechanic, so you could use more than 4x time warp during acceleration and your craft wouldn't be disintegrated.

Realism is only good up to a point and SQUAD is better qualified to decide those parameters for a videogame, not you.

They will do whatever they like it is their game, but that doesn't make them all knowing

And how do you know what I know? How can you tell what are my qualifications? Maybe I am person that could teach SQUAD new things about game design?

Also calling people "realism junkies" is close to insult imho.

As for realism IMHO realism is neutral ground, so stock game should be close to real and fun of course.

And for people like you... well you got mods, you are advanced enough to use mod with any imaginary aero you want to. While close to real aero should be for new people that doesn't know how to use mods.

It is also strange for me that modders are creating real aero not their own imaginary-worlds like in most games, I think we can blame early access for that.

In KSP for quite a long time stock aero was imaginary (not real) and people started to create mods with "close to real aero" while they should do opposite. Devs should create almost real world and modders should add their own fantasy, imaginary addons to make game fun as they see it.

After reading blog I think that Devs are afraid of lack of diversity, because without diversity in crafts designs KSP may be boring, all rockets would be almost same with almost real aero. Solution for this is imho give us lots of parts that can be tweaked in many ways.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Darnok

[Hannu]

Realism is only good up to a point and SQUAD is better qualified to decide those parameters for a videogame, not you.

I disagree. What is good videogame is pure opinion. Squad have its own opinion and every other people too. Squad's opinion is also a compromise between popularity (income) and their personal opinions. But I really disagree thought, that the most popular and best selling things are always the best things. Probably, if SQUAD wanted to make KSP really popular and maybe sell it to some huge gaming company it should add more violent and competitive elements to the game. I am absolutely sure, that KSP would sell much more, if there was enemies, weapons and multiplayer mechanism to fight against other players and easy to achieve dv of hundreds of kilometers per second so that you can make a bombing flight to Jool without caring about launch windows. Would you then think that what SQUAD do is the best? Fortunately Squad have kept their own ideas against commercial pressure, but is it totally impossible that some larger gaming company would see the possibility and buy the game. Do you think, that more specialized people of the larger company would know even better than SQUAD what is the best for all?

so I'd prefer that SQUAD decides how the next aero update should proceed and not to the realism junkies narrow ideals of realism possibly making the game inaccessible to everyone else.

I can not understand whining of inaccessibility. I learned to make FAR compatible rockets in couple of hours. I do not know what all they derivatives or other tehcnical stuff are and I do not need them. If I make a rocket which looks like a rocket it probably flies even I do not know why. What is the problem? Is it really so scary thing, if you have a button, which opens a window and shows something you not understand? And it may even have "advanced" -button which opens some really nerdy stuff. In any case you can just put parts togerher and fly easier and more intutive way than by using stock aerodynamics.

[Norpo]

I'd like to weigh in here; people are treating FAR as though it's some arcane system similar to Dwarf Fortress. It's not. It's literally the way things work normally, and really, it's not that hard. Just strap a jet onto a plane with wings, and it'll fly. Make a streamlined rocket, and it'll fly. Make an asparagus pancake, and it'll flop over on itself. Logic, eh? I would say the learning curve is no different than it is now, in fact it's more intuitive to new players probably than "yeah you can make a brick and it'll fly through the air like a javelin", intuitive is "a javelin will fly like a javelin and a brick will fly like a brick"

There's a reason archers in battle used arrows instead of bricks with a holder device to attach them to the bows.

Here's some examples.

Archer with a bow and arrow. As you can see, it is about to be propelled by a bow (force). Obscured by the flames is an aerodynamic arrowhead. (aerodynamic implement) When fired, it travels and strikes it's target true. (archery target, battlements, people, etc.)

The saturn V rocket. As you can see, being propelled by rocket engines, it goes up (force), and it has an aerodynamic design, with a nosecone (aerodynamic implement), and it strikes it's target true. (moon)

In a sense, they're the same, basic aerodynamics isn't rocket science, people figured this out millenia ago. Heck, cavemen threw spears, which are essentially rockets propelled by throwing them using an arm instead of a rocket engine. Spears are better for travelling a distance while retaining speed than a random rock.

Sure, advanced aerodynamics may be complicated, but you don't need to know that. Sure, if you want to make an extremely hi-performance aircraft, then you probably should know what you're doing to an extent, but the point is, you don't HAVE to. It's not required. If you use common sense, you'll probably be able to fly.

[goldenpsp]

I will start off by stating I have not read all 17 pages of this thread, but it won't stop me from posting my 2 funds.

I'm not really going to try arguing either side per se, but just some random points that popped into my head as I was perusing this thread. Take them as you will

While I like FAR, I also appreciate the simplified stock aero. One of the big reasons I bought KSP was to play with my son. I like to find games we can play together, especially if they have some level of education. He is only 8, so it is enough of a challenge to teach him the fundamentals of Delta-V, oribts, transfers etc, without having to also learn how to deal with some of the complexities of a more complicated aerodynamic model. This is part of IMO what needs to be taken into account when talking about a "wide" audience. IMO I think the game does well by keeping things simpler in stock, while having the ability for that to be extended via mods. I don't see how having FAR and NEAR as mods is a detriment to KSP.

A second, very important aspect is that you need to remember when a mod, or a mods functionality gets integrated into the stock game, that code becomes the responsibility of the developers. So if for example they sucked FAR into the stock game, then the code becomes their responsibility. Either they would have to update and troubleshoot the code, or by some financial agreement have Ferram do it. I think we could all agree that while Squad has done a good job on this game so far, their plate is still quite full getting the game from beta to release. Adding code such as FAR with its complexities into the stock game would, in my opinion, not benefit the development of the game as a whole at this time. By keeping it as a mod gives the players a realistic aero model at no additional cost to squad (why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free).

[Alshain]

Ok, curiosity compels me to jump in here. Prior to the aero announcement I never once saw this term in this context and since I've seen in dozens of times.

Can someone give me an example of what a "pancake rocket" references? I'm serious, I have no idea what that means.

[Norpo]

Ok, curiosity compels me to jump in here. Prior to the aero announcement I never once saw this term in this context and since I've seen in dozens of times.

Can someone give me an example of what a "pancake rocket" references? I'm serious, I have no idea what that means.

Taken to extremes? I've always imagined it like this (old picture)

[Levelord]

You're overreaching. Nice try though.

Because that's exactly what is happening. It's a long line of realism demands going through since before the ion engine thread until this thread we have now. None of the 'demands' put forwards by the realism crowd were reasonable even though they claim they were and for good reason, which is why SQUAD never implemented them in the first place. It was too extreme.

- - - Updated - - -

How is Squad better qualified? This is Harvesters first game, yes? Is he not allowed to learn, to grow as a developer? Is by merely having the profession the only way to be qualified to comment on the said profession? Do football commentators need to have played the game professionally to be able to commentate it?

Because SQUAD made a videogame that made you pick KSP over Orbiter (which was the more obvious choice if you truly wanted realism). So SQUAD had to be doing something correct by balancing realism and un-realistic gameplay.

- - - Updated - - -

You're acting as though realism advocates have a one track mind. That we don't understand realism must, at a point, be limited for the game to remain fun. We could just as easily turn it around back on you, but I'm getting kind of tired of this topic.

Because that is exactly what the realism crowd are, a one track mind. Even for some of us, who take the middle ground of supporting realism while encouraging liberties with the physics to not interfere with the gameplay for players, it is always vehemently argued against by the realism crowd in every single thread, they simply can't take compromise or recognize that this is first and foremost a game and not a physics simulator. Absolute binary thinking that is a complete hassle to talk to. They won't listen to others, they won't compromise, and they don't think SQUAD is competent enough because SQUAD looks for a middle ground like everyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Please read my post again... I've said

"I am not saying that every game should teach you physics, math and lots of things like simulators"

I wasn't referring to games being educational material. I was referring to your statement that realism is good all the time every time in every game. As if all games should aspire towards some realism singularity and that games that are not realistic can cause harm. Because players are too stupid to intuitively know that the aerodynamics is soupy compared to real life, that players are too stupid to know that people don't have health meters that allow them to take several bullet shots, that players are too stupid to know that steel girders should not be floating on water.

Ion engines were too weak for people that doesn't want to waste their time in 20-30 minutes burns.

Solution suggested by SQUAD is good, but not perfect... perfect solution would be to decrease engine power like people supporting realism suggested and improve time warp mechanic, so you could use more than 4x time warp during acceleration and your craft wouldn't be disintegrated.

Solution suggested by SQUAD was because the game engine didn't allow for higher levels of time warp and would likely cause crashes and ruin your game. It's been repeated over and over again, but the realism crowd unrealistically (how ironic) expect the unity engine to work miracles. Either way, the ion engine was balanced in such a way that at the end of the burn you would have the exact same delta V as the original, just that the burn times have been reduced to simulate a time warp. I can't understand why the realism people think that's overpowered when the delta V remains the same. They just want the feel of realism for the sake of realism which in a hypothetical situation they'd simply time warp through it anyway, it makes me want to bang my head on the table out of sheer frustration with that line of thinking.

They will do whatever they like it is their game, but that doesn't make them all knowing

And how do you know what I know? How can you tell what are my qualifications? Maybe I am person that could teach SQUAD new things about game design?

Also calling people "realism junkies" is close to insult imho.

As for realism IMHO realism is neutral ground, so stock game should be close to real and fun of course.

And for people like you... well you got mods, you are advanced enough to use mod with any imaginary aero you want to. While close to real aero should be for new people that doesn't know how to use mods.

It is also strange for me that modders are creating real aero not their own imaginary-worlds like in most games, I think we can blame early access for that.

In KSP for quite a long time stock aero was imaginary (not real) and people started to create mods with "close to real aero" while they should do opposite. Devs should create almost real world and modders should add their own fantasy, imaginary addons to make game fun as they see it.

After reading blog I think that Devs are afraid of lack of diversity, because without diversity in crafts designs KSP may be boring, all rockets would be almost same with almost real aero. Solution for this is imho give us lots of parts that can be tweaked in many ways.

They aren't all knowing, but I'm willing to bet my snacks that they at least know more than what the average person on where they want to take the game and make it successful. Realism is NOT the neutral ground in games, it's an extreme that caters to a very specific niche of players.

Much like how the ARMA series is a combat simulator based on realism for a very niche audience, or how F22 Lightning is a flight simulator for a niche audience or how Orbiter is a space flight simulator that caters to a niche space crowd. Games that are often more accessible to people tend to be a bit liberal with their realism and try to balance them with gameplay

I'll be blunt, but I don't think you are able to teach SQUAD new things about game design when you can't consider how the changes you're suggesting affects players other than yourself. When a suggestion comes from self interest then I'm not inclined to consider that a genuine care for the game experience of others.

It's strange to me that you'd note that mods are made to improve aero, but you can't figure out that if everyone wanted FAR then FAR would have been installed by everybody. It's clear that a significant number of KSP players don't use FAR out of choice and it's not like they've never heard of FAR either because it's impossible to go through the forums or Youtube videos related to KSP without having it mentioned once.

The problem here is that apart from one person, I've not seen anyone say that they liked the stock aero, most of them are like me who want the aero changed, but not to the extreme extend the realism crowd wants. The realism crowd aren't open to gameplay compromises and are utterly convinced that their way is the correct 'logical' way to making the game 'fun', like how they think the old ion engine was 'fun.

[Hannu]

A second, very important aspect is that you need to remember when a mod, or a mods functionality gets integrated into the stock game, that code becomes the responsibility of the developers. So if for example they sucked FAR into the stock game, then the code becomes their responsibility. Either they would have to update and troubleshoot the code, or by some financial agreement have Ferram do it. I think we could all agree that while Squad has done a good job on this game so far, their plate is still quite full getting the game from beta to release. Adding code such as FAR with its complexities into the stock game would, in my opinion, not benefit the development of the game as a whole at this time. By keeping it as a mod gives the players a realistic aero model at no additional cost to squad (why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free).

This is very good point. Especially aerodynamics is difficult technical thing which is very difficult to program from hobby level. It may be good idea to keep FAR as a mod. Then I have to hope that Squad keeps moddability and do not break FAR too badly.

[tater]

Given the nature of KSP, that it is "realistic" rockets, not Star Wars "airplanes in space," I think it is fair to want as much realism as possible as long as gameplay/fun is not compromised. "Different" doesn't mean "un-fun," BTW. Where that line resides is clearly debatable by reasonable people, but I think the goal---as much realism as possible within the limits of good gameplay is a good one.

Its also, I think, easier to limit realism after the fact than it is to add it on after unrealistic modeling is done in the first place.

[Alshain]

Taken to extremes? I've always imagined it like this (old picture)

Oh! So it's called a pancake because it's flat then. Every time I've seen it I thought the were talking about staging (like a stack of pancakes), and I thought to my self "what is wrong with that?"

[Darnok]

Solution suggested by SQUAD was because the game engine didn't allow for higher levels of time warp and would likely cause crashes and ruin your game. It's been repeated over and over again, but the realism crowd unrealistically (how ironic) expect the unity engine to work miracles. Either way, the ion engine was balanced in such a way that at the end of the burn you would have the exact same delta V as the original, just that the burn times have been reduced to simulate a time warp. I can't understand why the realism people think that's overpowered when the delta V remains the same. They just want the feel of realism for the sake of realism which in a hypothetical situation they'd simply time warp through it anyway, it makes me want to bang my head on the table out of sheer frustration with that line of thinking.

Well that solution killed realism of low TWR engines, because you can do transfer in one go (single burn), while real ion engines would force you to

1. first make burn to put AP before escape from kerbin SOI,

2. wait one orbit or even repeat those steps few times

3. and burn again to reach target.

Of course it wouldn't be fun from player perspective

As for realism niche, try to imagine angry birds with imaginary trajectory physics I am sure it would be very fun (sarcasm)

People in here are not only here to build, fly, orbit, land, we also like explosions and for most of the time I want to test my ideas in almost real environment and situations for example re-entry.

As for orbiter vs KSP, well KSP gives you more freedom in building your crafts, I haven't seen any other game allowing for so many uses of single part, you can just flip part and it is something else. That is incredible and real aero won't stop people from doing that, they would just have to pick proper fairing for their creation

[tater]

Have to disagree on ions, darnok. More warping would not help, ion engines might operate for periods of time well in excess of warp times in KSP. NASA ran an ion for 48,000+ hours continuously. Ions would require an out of focus treatment of some sort (either physics on, or faked via an on-rails spiral orbit).

Edited January 19, 2015 by tater