Engineers will calculate delta-V?

[r_rolo1]

Have people completely forgotten that these are Kerbals and not NASA? I thought part of the point of the game - and part of what made it fun - is that they are recklessly going to space, whether they are prepared to go or not.

I suppose that is up to each person's interpretation of how Kerbals do things. But then the disagreement is about a matter of opinion (Kerbals are smart and do things like NASA vs. being reckless space explorers) in which case there is no particular "wrong" way for Squad to implement the game. The people who are on the side that Squad chooses NOT to follow, I suppose, would be upset that their side of the argument wasn't chosen.

I can concede that is probably what is behind the mind of the devs ( and what some people probably don't agree that has to be that way ). But that doesn't make sense in the terms of this particular change ... We have needed dV and burn time readouts on the nodes as it is today and those only appear in game with KSC building upgrades ( that actually makes some sense ). Those use the same exact maths that you need to calculate the dV a rocket has, either in the VAB or in flight. But suddently those maths are too much for the battalion of engineers in the ground and have to be dealt by the engineer on board ? :/

In other words, the kerbals are reckless and launch stuff to space with no consideration for maths, but hire a bunch of engineers to calcualte burn time in nodes . But really , just for that , because dV calculations are too hard unless you are inside a capsule even if the math is exactly the same :/

Edited February 10, 2015 by r_rolo1
addendum

[Alshain]

I find it curious that there are so many realism mods, but very few, if any, mods aimed at people who like to play recklessly. If people are willing to devote their time and effort to a mod because they feel the game should be like real life, I think that Squad should respect that.

Playing devil's advocate now, that isn't a fair statement. There plenty of mods for being reckless. I mean, there is a mod for giving you missiles and bombs. You can't get much more reckless.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Playing devil's advocate now, that isn't a fair statement. There plenty of mods for being reckless. I mean, there is a mod for giving you missiles and bombs. You can't get much more reckless.

There's still many more mods that focus on realism.

[Red Iron Crown]

There's still many more mods that focus on realism.

I think that's more of a reflection of the interests of some of the playerbase, in particular modders, than anything else.

[godefroi]

Remember docking? That was when Squad actually kept adding features. Those days are over. Squad might as well hand over the development of this game to the modders, they would probably do a better job.

Maybe it's got all the features Squad wanted, now?

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Maybe it's got all the features Squad wanted, now?

But even before this game was "scope complete" they were adding features that had already been implemented by modders.

[Robotengineer]

Playing devil's advocate now, that isn't a fair statement. There plenty of mods for being reckless. I mean, there is a mod for giving you missiles and bombs. You can't get much more reckless.

That's more for playing with guns. What I meant by reckless is throw a rocket together and see if you can do a Jool-5. Squad/KSP needs to decide whether KSP is a Space Physics Sandbox, a tycoon style Space Program Simulator, or a pseudo-Realistic Space Simulator. It doesn't even have to be just one, I enjoy the sandbox-iness of messing around in stock, but also playing RSS.

[hoojiwana]

I think that's more of a reflection of the interests of some of the playerbase, in particular modders, than anything else.

The only thing separating a modder from a normal user is that they've made a mod. There is nothing at all from stopping a person wanting more "reckless" gameplay and implementing mods to create that, but there are very few who have.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Since it is the player that is controlling the Kerbals, I prefer to think of myself and the way I play as 'Smart like NASA'. If you like to play recklessly, you can.

So here's my thing with that: where is the harm? If Engineers can show you remaining dV left in flight, how does that impact your ability to play "smart like NASA"? At worst, you just continue to use KER and that's that. On the flip side, if one likes to play recklessly, but the game essentially gives you dV info whether you want it or not, they're shoehorning you into a way to play, at least unless they give an option to turn it off. Would I be angry if they gave us KER default in game? Not really. I understand why they might not want to, however.

And one more thing about this: this is on top of the fact that even having dV information doesn't mean much unless you actually have a number or target to compare it to. That's where having an Engineer giving you that data in space is actually useful: you can compare the dV required for a burn vs. how much you have left. However, even if they gave us a KER display in the VAB, it's rather meaningless unless they also tell us how much dV we need to get places. Are they going to give us a dV map in game too?

I find it curious that there are so many realism mods, but very few, if any, mods aimed at people who like to play recklessly. If people are willing to devote their time and effort to a mod because they feel the game should be like real life, I think that Squad should respect that.

Well, given that the stock game mode is essentially "Reckless Kerbal Space Program" mods aren't really needed to accomplish that. There is DangIt, I suppose, which one could argue is in the pro-reckless camp as one could argue it simulates Kerbals launching with shoddy equipment. But generally the game has more realism mods vs. "recklessness" mods mainly because the game, at this point, is premised on them essentially running a reckless, ill-informed space program.

But speaking of realism mods, KER and KAC notwithstanding, I would argue many have little to do with playing "NASA style" vs. playing reckless, and here is why:

Let's take five of the biggest "realism" mods: FAR, TAC Life Support, Deadly Re-entry, RemoteTech, and Kethane/Karbonite

Two of those: FAR and Deadly Re-entry, are what I would call environmental mods. They change the environment kerbals fly in but otherwise don't impact HOW one runs your space program (other than making it easier to die if you run it recklessly, perhaps)

The other three - TAC, RemoteTech, and the general resource mods - add functionality and realism, but I would argue are agnostic on affecting the way one plays. You can play just as recklessly with TAC installed as without (though you obviously add more ways to kill your kerbals by doing so).

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

But Kethane/Karbonite are as unrealistic as you can get.

[m4v]

I love the basic idea of this game, and very much enjoy playing it, but Squad/Harv has shown a consistent lack of planning, vision, and has always, since the very first post on the Orbiter forums about KSP as an idea, underestimated the general intelligence of the people who may play this game, and the design shows it. There are numerous examples in many, many threads all over the internet to provide examples and I am certainly not even close to the harshest critic.

But you're not critiquing, or there's some critique but with a lot of Squad bashing on top, like when you explained that nukes in the game use two propellants because Squad are a bunch of ignorants, despite the .cfg explaining exactly why nukes are the way they're. Every time I see one of your posts, I expect some gratuitous Squad bashing, and honestly, that kind of "critique" is the most easy to ignore.

Also, I don't think you're being fair with Harvester, I believe that the fact that this game has realistic orbital mechanics, instead of the starships-fly-like-planes mechanic like every other game has, shows that he isn't quite underestimating everybody's intelligence, there's also his xkcd's thread from 2011 asking why there's so few games with realistic space flight

Edited February 10, 2015 by m4v

[FleetAdmiralJ]

The thing is, we haven't got any actually game changing features from squad in the last six updates. The only people that continue to add actual features to the game are the modders. What original content have we got from Squad since career mode? Destructible buildings? Nope, most people will use it once and move on. SPP+ and Karbonite? Nuh-uh, they were already mods that you could add to your game. There's no point in integrating them if they already exist, and are up for download. Upgradeable buildings? KCT did it before Squad. All they did was add some crappy models. Asteroids? Plenty of asteroid mods were available before .23. Bigger 3.75 rocket parts? KW already did it. Squad just keeps recycling the communities ideas and calling them their own. We haven't gotten any original content from Squad in forever. Remember docking? That was when Squad actually kept adding features. Those days are over. Squad might as well hand over the development of this game to the modders, they would probably do a better job.

OK, what new feature would you like that isn't modded?

Or to put it another way, is there anything squad could possibly add to the game which a mod hasn't already done?

But Kethane/Karbonite are as unrealistic as you can get.

I actually haven't really used either so I can't speak to that point, but I also put "realism" in quotes for a reason. I'm not all too sure how realistic TAC is either to be told (which I AM currently playing with).

But the point is that: unless you are essentially using MechJeb to fly your ship for you, you aren't playing Kerbal like NASA. You may be further down that continuum than other people, but people play the game with varying degrees of precision and recklessness. While the people who play on the precision side can fix their needs by adding mods, if you add too much of that functionality to the base game, you perhaps cut off people who want to play the other way.

Edited February 10, 2015 by FleetAdmiralJ

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

OK, what new feature would you like that isn't modded?

Or to put it another way, is there anything squad could possibly add to the game which a mod hasn't already done?

Fix career mode, GP2, full DDS conversion, stable 64 bit, the original resources we were told we would be getting from Squad, an engine that isn't Unity, modding API, the list goes on.

[dryer_lint]

It probably means they will calculate in-flight dV, in addition to the Engineer's Report in the VAB

[Robotengineer]

So here's my thing with that: where is the harm? If Engineers can show you remaining dV left in flight, how does that impact your ability to play "smart like NASA"? At worst, you just continue to use KER and that's that. On the flip side, if one likes to play recklessly, but the game essentially gives you dV info whether you want it or not, they're shoehorning you into a way to play, at least unless they give an option to turn it off. Would I be angry if they gave us KER default in game? Not really. I understand why they might not want to, however.

And one more thing about this: this is on top of the fact that even having dV information doesn't mean much unless you actually have a number or target to compare it to. That's where having an Engineer giving you that data in space is actually useful: you can compare the dV required for a burn vs. how much you have left. However, even if they gave us a KER display in the VAB, it's rather meaningless unless they also tell us how much dV we need to get places. Are they going to give us a dV map in game too?

They should give us a ∆V map as well. I thought reckless players wouldn't want to know whether their designs would work before they launched? That way you can still have the excruciating sense of failure when you crash into the Mun because your lander has to little TWR. KER is not just ∆V, it has orbital info, surface info, vessel, rendezvous, tons of extremely useful info.

Well, given that the stock game mode is essentially "Reckless Kerbal Space Program" mods aren't really needed to accomplish that. There is DangIt, I suppose, which one could argue is in the pro-reckless camp as one could argue it simulates Kerbals launching with shoddy equipment. But generally the game has more realism mods vs. "recklessness" mods mainly because the game, at this point, is premised on them essentially running a reckless, ill-informed space program.

But speaking of realism mods, KER and KAC notwithstanding, I would argue many have little to do with playing "NASA style" vs. playing reckless, and here is why:

Let's take five of the biggest "realism" mods: FAR, TAC Life Support, Deadly Re-entry, RemoteTech, and Kethane/Karbonite

Two of those: FAR and Deadly Re-entry, are what I would call environmental mods. They change the environment kerbals fly in but otherwise don't impact HOW one runs your space program (other than making it easier to die if you run it recklessly, perhaps)

The other three - TAC, RemoteTech, and the general resource mods - add functionality and realism, but I would argue are agnostic on affecting the way one plays. You can play just as recklessly with TAC installed as without (though you obviously add more ways to kill your kerbals by doing so).

You left out Realism Overhaul. RSS, Real Fuels, and Actual Jet Engine are in RO. I am not saying that people should be forced to play RO, but that some of those types of things make the stock game richer, we're getting reentry and new aero after all. I wouldn't say Kethane/Karbonite are realism mods, as it is one magic resource.

[TMS]

The thing is, we haven't got any actually game changing features from squad in the last six updates. The only people that continue to add actual features to the game are the modders. What original content have we got from Squad since career mode? Destructible buildings? Nope, most people will use it once and move on. SPP+ and Karbonite? Nuh-uh, they were already mods that you could add to your game. There's no point in integrating them if they already exist, and are up for download. Upgradeable buildings? KCT did it before Squad. All they did was add some crappy models. Asteroids? Plenty of asteroid mods were available before .23. Bigger 3.75 rocket parts? KW already did it. Squad just keeps recycling the communities ideas and calling them their own. We haven't gotten any original content from Squad in forever. Remember docking? That was when Squad actually kept adding features. Those days are over. Squad might as well hand over the development of this game to the modders, they would probably do a better job.

There were mods for docking before Squad implemented them.

Point being, that the game has always been open to modders and it was inevitable that those modders would fill gaps in the base game at a faster pace than the game's development. Criticising Squad for being unoriginal for the implementation of similar features (or integration of mods directly) is therefor a little unfair.

I do agree, however, that it's a shame that so much time has been invested in developing a very grindy set of game mechanics for career.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Fix career mode, GP2, full DDS conversion, stable 64 bit, the original resources we were told we would be getting from Squad, an engine that isn't Unity, modding API, the list goes on.

OK, I'll bite

1) Fix career mode - how? Other than rebalancing (which they say they are doing). Also, which I haven't checked, there is probably decent chance there are mods for this, I would guess?

2) GP2 - there are already multiple mods that add new planets, no?

3) Resources - I probably don't have to say this has been modded already in probably just about any conceivable way it could be implemented.

4) The rest appear to be more improvements to how the game runs than actual features of the game (such as docking, which was your example)

The point of this being, there is very little they could implement that hasn't already been modded to some extent. I mean, heck, even multiplayer has been modded (though I wouldn't call it very stable). In a way, you're punishing squad for having such a good modding community because they come out with features faster than squad can put them into the game themselves.

[r_rolo1]

Also, I don't think you're being fair with Harvester, I believe that the fact that this game has realistic orbital mechanics, instead of the starships-fly-like-planes mechanic like every other game has, shows that he isn't quite underestimating everybody's intelligence, there's also his xkcd's thread from 2011 asking why there's so few games with realistic space flight

Really, your own link anwsers the question harv does there. He asks why there is so little interest in space based games with real orbital mechanics and the fourth reply starts with pretty much "There are any of them nowadays?" . And given the KSP success ( and others, like Take on Mars ), I guess that the answer to harv question there is pretty much that: there are very few space flight games with real orbital mechanics because no one does them

And why don't they do them ? Maybe Harv own post in the orbiter forums answers that. Look at the game he describes: a simple rocket fighting with the atmosphere and when you got to out of atmosphere, bam, only 2 degrees of liberty because 3D is too hard for the average player. In other words, little more than a facebook flash game. In plain english, harv says there that he believed people can't cope with the orbital mechanics in a 3D enviroment.

So in resume, dev believes that people can't cope with orbital mechanics, so it proposes to make a game with no actual orbital mechanics. And then he muses elsewhere why there aren't any games with orbital mechanics ... :/

[FleetAdmiralJ]

They should give us a ∆V map as well. I thought reckless players wouldn't want to know whether their designs would work before they launched? That way you can still have the excruciating sense of failure when you crash into the Mun because your lander has to little TWR. KER is not just ∆V, it has orbital info, surface info, vessel, rendezvous, tons of extremely useful info.

I would say they wouldn't, which is why I wouldn't have a problem if that information was left out of the game. I wouldn't necessarily have an issue if it were there personally, but I don't have a problem with it NOT being there either.

You left out Realism Overhaul. RSS, Real Fuels, and Actual Jet Engine are in RO. I am not saying that people should be forced to play RO, but that some of those types of things make the stock game richer, we're getting reentry and new aero after all. I wouldn't say Kethane/Karbonite are realism mods, as it is one magic resource.

These are mods that i'm not as familiar with, but I think for most of them my point would still stand: they're about adding features or functionality, not about how you run your space program, per se.

[cpast]

Fix career mode, GP2, full DDS conversion, stable 64 bit, the original resources we were told we would be getting from Squad, an engine that isn't Unity, modding API, the list goes on.

1. But other mods also tweak career mode, so this would be "something a mod's done."

2. Why? What would it add that Jool doesn't?

3. No argument from me, but this isn't a feature - it's optimization. Important, but not actually a feature (plus, ATM does something like it, so wouldn't it count as a mod thing to you?)

4. How is it worse to have a system based on a popular mod than to have an entirely new thing?

5. Not really something Squad can do; depends on Unity.

6. Impossible. This is flat-out impossible without essentially scrapping the current codebase and starting over. A really, really, really bad idea for Squad to do.

7. Fair.

Saying "a mod's done it, so Squad doing it isn't adding anything" is wrong. A game needs to stand alone without mods. I know many here feel KSP doesn't stand alone particularly well, but saying "they shouldn't try to add stuff because a mod adds it" is shoddy product design. KSP is early access. While this superficially resembles games that get new updates to add things for current players, it's not the same. KSP updates are not designed to add something that veteran players can't get otherwise, they're designed to move the game closer to completion as a whole product. No, SPP didn't add something a veteran player couldn't have added, but it makes the game better because the parts were better than what stock had before.

There are some things that are best left to mods, and not included in the game. But saying that anything a mod does is therefore not something the dev team should spend time on is missing the point: something that Squad thinks improves the game should be added to stock, and not left to mods. Squad doesn't get to rely on mods to provide features, and doesn't get to count things mods add as features of KSP.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

OK, I'll bite

1) Fix career mode - how? Other than rebalancing (which they say they are doing). Also, which I haven't checked, there is probably decent chance there are mods for this, I would guess?

2) GP2 - there are already multiple mods that add new planets, no?

3) Resources - I probably don't have to say this has been modded already in probably just about any conceivable way it could be implemented.

4) The rest appear to be more improvements to how the game runs than actual features of the game (such as docking, which was your example)

The point of this being, there is very little they could implement that hasn't already been modded to some extent. I mean, heck, even multiplayer has been modded (though I wouldn't call it very stable). In a way, you're punishing squad for having such a good modding community because they come out with features faster than squad can put them into the game themselves.

1. Fixing the tech tree, reducing the grind by adding better contract system, and adding more variety to it.

2. No stable ones currently exist.

3. I'm talking about the original one that was presented to us by Squad

[FleetAdmiralJ]

I do agree, however, that it's a shame that so much time has been invested in developing a very grindy set of game mechanics for career.

I suppose my answer to the grindyness of career is either: don't do career or change difficulty to make it less grindy. Sure, there are some issues with career, but I think part of the point of career is that you have to work to get ahead. So unless they do some sort of story mode where essentially you are given a mission, you do it, then you are given the next mission, and it's told like a story rather than ad hoc contracts, I'm not sure there is a way to NOT have at least some amount of grindyness to career mode.

[Red Iron Crown]

We're drifting way, way offtopic here. This thread's about the new dV readout feature and it being tied to engineers (apparently?).

[kujuman]

yay, another in-game dV calculator that won't work with custom engine modules! It's really the only thing that's holding me back from finishing adding all the features i want to AdvSRBs.

Although, that's an edge case. I think dV in VAB will be great, but maybe not instantaneous updates in flight. Count how much dV you've used on maneuvers, I say

Edited February 10, 2015 by kujuman

[lincourtl]

People keep using Apollo 13 as the golden reference for some reason. I'd like to point out that the Space Shuttle was sophisticated enough to fly an entire mission by itself.

Sure, it can launch, orbit, de-orbit, and land on a runway with no engines at pinpoint accuracy, but it's computers apparently can't do math?

The space shuttle was not capable of deploying its landing gear remotely; needed a human to do that. Even after the Columbia breakup, it still needed a human to connect an umbilical between two patch bays before it could be done remotely.