Please remove the 1.0.5 added explosions when decoupling and ignite the next stage

[Tekener]

This is just too much and feels wrong, it never has been this way and should not be this way when decoupling stages:

[Motokid600]

They didn't patch this in the hotfix? Either way its fine the way is with the explosions, but they need splash damage so the upper stage is destroyed as well.

[Tekener]

Well, it's not fine.

You can decouple without the engine and everything is still fine. The moment you ignite the enginge just a little bit the empty structure will cause a giant explosion (luckily without doing any damage).

[Motokid600]

Oh so your arguing that the explosion is just too much? Well yea I guess. I thought you were arguing that it's a free way to decouple stages without a decoupler. Because it is afaik.

[Alshain]

it never has been this way

Incorrect, it was always this way and it was broken in 1.0 when they added heating.

[Snark]

I think the real issue isn't "they added explosions". I think the real issue is that KSP doesn't model "part explosiveness" well, and never has, and the new 1.0.5 is simply making that particular problem a lot more noticeable.

In KSP, any part that's destroyed will explode in a massive camera-shaking, screen-filling fireball. Doesn't matter if it's a fuel tank full of tons of explosive rocket fuel, or a lowly OX-STAT solar panel. (Or a spent decoupler on a discarded stage, in the current instance.)

This is immersion-breaking and a Bad Thing. I love that KSP is as immersive as it is, I love the little adrenaline rush I get on a risky re-entry. But when even small, inert components erupt in earth-shattering gouts of flame when they go to that Great Recycle Bin in the Sky, it ends up emotionally devaluing the explosions because they're crying wolf all the time. Pretty soon the explosions are just noise.

I really wish that KSP would add "graded explosiveness." You should only get the big fireball if something large and genuinely explosive goes kaboom. For something small and inert, it should just be a brief sizzle and a little puff of smoke.

Not only would that make the real explosions much more emotionally effective, but it would also reduce player confusion. For example, in the current instance, what's happening is that the stack decoupler on top of the jettisoned stage is getting destroyed. If that was just going pfft and emitting a small puff of smoke, it wouldn't be so off-putting. In fact, it might add some visual eye-candy to the staging operation.

[pandaman]

What Snark said ^^

[Motokid600]

Well I know how much people love hearing this, but... There is a mod to fix that. Forgot The name though. It made small objects just poof and larger ones filled with fuel exploded in a fireball.

[klgraham1013]

snip

Exactly.

[Alshain]

I think the real issue isn't "they added explosions". I think the real issue is that KSP doesn't model "part explosiveness" well, and never has, and the new 1.0.5 is simply making that particular problem a lot more noticeable.

In KSP, any part that's destroyed will explode in a massive camera-shaking, screen-filling fireball. Doesn't matter if it's a fuel tank full of tons of explosive rocket fuel, or a lowly OX-STAT solar panel. (Or a spent decoupler on a discarded stage, in the current instance.)

This is immersion-breaking and a Bad Thing. I love that KSP is as immersive as it is, I love the little adrenaline rush I get on a risky re-entry. But when even small, inert components erupt in earth-shattering gouts of flame when they go to that Great Recycle Bin in the Sky, it ends up emotionally devaluing the explosions because they're crying wolf all the time. Pretty soon the explosions are just noise.

I really wish that KSP would add "graded explosiveness." You should only get the big fireball if something large and genuinely explosive goes kaboom. For something small and inert, it should just be a brief sizzle and a little puff of smoke.

Not only would that make the real explosions much more emotionally effective, but it would also reduce player confusion. For example, in the current instance, what's happening is that the stack decoupler on top of the jettisoned stage is getting destroyed. If that was just going pfft and emitting a small puff of smoke, it wouldn't be so off-putting. In fact, it might add some visual eye-candy to the staging operation.

There used to be a mod called Blast Awesomeness Modifier (BAM). Sadly, someone angered the developer and it was abandoned. I think that is what you are referring to, it made varying degrees of destruction based on whether it was big or small or had fuel.

[Tekener]

Incorrect, it was always this way and it was broken in 1.0 when they added heating.

Maybe, then it never had an effect on my rockets. Any rocket I load which was working without explosions before (up from 0.25) was using decouple and instant engine starting of the next stage - and none of them ever showed an explosion when those explosions were added. Up to 1.0.4 it was perfectly working and with 1.0.5 it is suddenly playing a boom explosion when decouple and next engine is starting. I do not complain about the explosion in the first place, I do complain that it was not that way before that my rockets play an explosion when decoupling stages...

The explosion is caused by the starting engine, not the decouple - would be wrong anyway if a decouple would cause a giant explosion...

But any newcomer with limited parts will get that issue: they don't have large tanks to get to space in one stage, they will need to switch stages while ascending. When they decouple and wait for the craft to get away from the stage their are in trouble, as Kerbin will drag the craft back without it instantly firing the next stage (of course). But with 1.0.5 doing this a large explosion is the result - even though not causing damage it will shock any newcomer and leave them scratching head what it means.

Therefore I request that decouplers getting hit by an engine thrust must not explode - as it was in all versions up to 1.0.4!

Edited November 15, 2015 by Tekener

[Alshain]

Maybe, then it never had an effect on my rockets. Any rocket I load which was working without explosions before (up from 0.25) was using decouple and instant engine starting of the next stage - and none of them ever showed an explosion when those explosions were added. Up to 1.0.4 it was perfectly working and with 1.0.5 it is suddenly playing a boom explosion when decouple and next engine is starting. I do not complain about the explosion in the first place, I do complain that it was not that way before that my rockets play an explosion when decoupling stages...

The explosion is caused by the starting engine, not the decouple - would be wrong anyway if a decouple would cause a giant explosion...

But any newcomer with limited parts will get that issue: they don't have large tanks to get to space in one stage, they will need to switch stages while ascending. When they decouple and wait for the craft to get away from the stage their are in trouble, as Kerbin will drag the craft back without it instantly firing the next stage (of course). But with 1.0.5 doing this a large explosion is the result - even though not causing damage it will shock any newcomer and leave them scratching head what it means.

Therefore I request that decouplers getting hit by an engine thrust must not explode - as it was in all versions up to 1.0.4!

Yep, explosive decoupling was around before, it just broke in 1.0. In fact, I know you are quite wrong because explosive decoupling didn't exist at all in 1.0.4, if you lit an engine that wasn't decoupled it would just burn where it was without destroying anything or decoupling. If you didn't see it, you probably just don't remember, but it was there. This is intended behavior and I think newcomers understand that fire makes things burn, so I don't think there would be a lot of confusion. As for waiting for the stage to move away before staging the next engine, it will have very little impact on your ascent, I do it all the time on purpose, and so do real rockets.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Alshain

[ZooNamedGames]

In KSP, any part that's destroyed will explode in a massive camera-shaking, screen-filling fireball.

Wrong. Wings especially do not explode in a fancy explosion. They disappear in a poof and a cloud of smoke.

[klgraham1013]

Wrong. Wings especially do not explode in a fancy explosion. They disappear in a poof and a cloud of smoke.

Adding to the ridiculousness. Why one part bursts into flames and another doesn't is truly inexplicable!

[Snark]

Wrong. Wings especially do not explode in a fancy explosion. They disappear in a poof and a cloud of smoke.

Which is even worse. For Pete's sake, a 50-kilogram hunk of inert material (spent stack decoupler)-- or even a five-kilogram solar panel-- generates a huge fireball, whereas a gigantic Big-S airliner wing just goes gentle into that good night? It's ridiculous.

[ZooNamedGames]

I'm here to simply disprove your definite adjective. That is all.

[Murph]

I'm not sure exactly what the best fix is, whether it's to completely remove certain explosions, or just revisit the effects generated by each part and add some sanity. What I am sure of is that some work is needed, and what we currently have is not correct.

The example that is bugging me right now is very early career mode, putting a 1.25m stack decoupler and modular girder segment as launch supports below radially attached RT-10 SRBs (needed because the centre column of the stack extends below the bottom of the SRBs). Doing things that way because the launch clamps are too deep down the tech tree (another thing which is quite stupid). On launch, there's a HUGE screen filling explosion from the modular girders and/or decouplers being torched by the SRBs, and it's just plain stupid and quite annoying, as there's nothing about either the decouplers or girders to justify such a huge visual explosion. It just makes no sense, and detracts from the game.

[Azimech]

Explosive decoupling DID exist in 1.0.4, it was just very hard to do. You had to use the right engine (Skipper) with the right part (the new mini wing with yellow stripe).

[Tekener]

[quote name='Alshain']Yep, explosive decoupling was around before, it just broke in 1.0. In fact, I know you are quite wrong because explosive decoupling didn't exist at all in 1.0.4, if you lit an engine that wasn't decoupled it would just burn where it was without destroying anything or decoupling. If you didn't see it, you probably just don't remember, but it was there. This is intended behavior and I think newcomers understand that fire makes things burn, so I don't think there would be a lot of confusion. As for waiting for the stage to move away before staging the next engine, it will have very little impact on your ascent, I do it all the time on purpose, and so do real rockets.[/QUOTE]

Well, since 0.25 I'm using a decoupling staging with immediate start of the next engine. I play KSP every day and I know very well that for the last 2 years my rockets never exploded when I decoupled and started the next engine. Since 1.0.5 when decoupling and starting the next stage engine the previous stage goes up in a boom explosion. This just never happended before.

Please look at my screenshots, I'm not starting the engine to cause the old stage getting decoupled... ;) Edited November 16, 2015 by Tekener

[Thourion]

[quote name='Tekener']Please look at my screenshots, I'm not starting the engine to cause the old stage getting decoupled... ;)[/QUOTE]

If you stage exactly like you do, but keep the throttle at 0, then raise it gradually, then you will not have any explosion.
Especially if you do it in normal flying mode (aka during launch or during orbit), in which you normally get a bit distanced from the lower stage, and not while sitting on the pad.

[Arcwolf]

[quote name='Alshain']There used to be a mod called [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103114-DEV-HALTED-0-90-Blast-Awesomeness-Modifier-%28BAM%29-v1-1-1-2015-01-01"]Blast Awesomeness Modifier [/URL](BAM). Sadly, someone angered the developer and it was abandoned. I think that is what you are referring to, it made varying degrees of destruction based on whether it was big or small or had fuel.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I loved that mod, sadly it doesnt work with 1.0.5. However, I found a mod called [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116034-1-0-X-KerboKatz-SmallUtilities-V1-2-5-18-09-2015-Now-with-AutoBalancingLandingLeg!#ModifiedExplosionPotential"]ModifiedExplosionPotential[/URL] by KerboKatz that does the same thing. Needed a little tuning to make things explode the way I like. But yea, same thing as BAM.

[Tekener]

[quote name='Thourion']If you stage exactly like you do, but keep the throttle at 0, then raise it gradually, then you will not have any explosion.
Especially if you do it in normal flying mode (aka during launch or during orbit), in which you normally get a bit distanced from the lower stage, and not while sitting on the pad.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately that's not correct. When I do exactly as you described, throttle to 0 and decouple while sitting on the launch pad all is fine - that's true. But as soon as the smallest percentage of thrust is set for the engine you get the explosion. I tried several times, in 1.0.5 even a sneeze will let the stage explode.

[A_name]

[quote name='Snark']I think the real issue isn't "they added explosions". I think the real issue is that KSP doesn't model "part explosiveness" well, and never has, and the new 1.0.5 is simply making that particular problem a lot more noticeable.

In KSP, [I][U]any[/U][/I] part that's destroyed will explode in a massive camera-shaking, screen-filling fireball. Doesn't matter if it's a fuel tank full of tons of explosive rocket fuel, or a lowly OX-STAT solar panel. (Or a spent decoupler on a discarded stage, in the current instance.)

This is immersion-breaking and a Bad Thing. I love that KSP is as immersive as it is, I love the little adrenaline rush I get on a risky re-entry. But when even small, inert components erupt in earth-shattering gouts of flame when they go to that Great Recycle Bin in the Sky, it ends up emotionally devaluing the explosions because they're crying wolf all the time. Pretty soon the explosions are just noise.

I really wish that KSP would add "graded explosiveness." You should only get the big fireball if something large and genuinely explosive goes kaboom. For something small and inert, it should just be a brief sizzle and a little puff of smoke.

Not only would that make the [I][U]real[/U][/I] explosions much more emotionally effective, but it would also reduce player confusion. For example, in the current instance, what's happening is that the stack decoupler on top of the jettisoned stage is getting destroyed. If that was just going [SIZE=1]pfft[/SIZE] and emitting a small puff of smoke, it wouldn't be so off-putting. In fact, it might add some visual eye-candy to the staging operation.[/QUOTE]

I disagree, all the things you pointed out as being wrong in my view are part of the Kerbal-ness of the game.

[Just Jim]

Now that I know how it works, I've been playing around and blowing up stages on purpose. If you pop off a stage and wait just a second or two... not long enough for it to get to far, then gun the throttle, you can make the old stage blow up on command.... hehehe

[Majorjim!]

I couldn't agree more. The explosion for the tiny stack separator is way too big, and is immersion breaking and scarewy.