KSP Making History

[tater]

^^^^ Great idea, @Kerbart. This also provides a possible way to incorporate "randomness" and failure in a way that is entirely voluntary for any given mission/maneuver.

[Ten Key]

Or perhaps even turn the contract system around a bit, and let the player hire an NPC company to move stuff automagically from point A to point B once certain conditions have been met. 

[John FX]

33 minutes ago, Gorby1 said:

So you want a NASA simulator, simulated from the perspective of one of the managers who sits at a desk and never touches a rocket? 

Or a true to life NASA simulator from the perspective of the pilot because the pilots don't fly the craft, the craft flies itself?

No pilot has EVER launched a craft and guided it manually through ascent to orbit...

Currently we have the VAB, which is the perspective of the engineer building the rocket and we have flying the craft which is the pilots perspective. It would round out the game well to have a decent managers perspective.

Myself I bought the game because of the word `program`. If the game was called `kerbal spacecraft flying` I honestly do not think I would have jumped as quickly to buy.

I wanted to manage a space program, not just fly the craft. Career just does not cut it, it is a series of unconnected tasks that distract from, rather than enhance the feeling of, running a space program.

[KSK]

47 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

It's Kerbal Space Program, not Simulator. Maybe it's semantics, but certain flights do become routine and are no longer an exciting challenge.

What if you could "teach" pilots certain transfers? The expansion could feature a "logbook" for each pilot, which can open contract-like certificates. So you start a "Kerbin-Mun" certificate where you have to meet certain goals in the right order (kerbin low orbit, mun low orbit). Once completed (multiple times) you can activate the "mun transfer" task which will be executed mech-jeb style.

Pilot rank will affect accuracy, DV budget, etc.

This would be a great idea. It would go a long way to giving your crew a bit of personality and a reason to choose one pilot over another. You could do something similar for scientists too - after all Science! isn't some monolithic thing that all Scientists! are equally good at.

"Bob here is our astrophysicist. Give him a thermometer, a gravioli detector and an accelerometer and he'll tell you more about the solar wind than you care to imagine. He can't tell one end of a Mystery Goo canister from the other though. Whereas Geoffley is our materials kerb. Give him a Science Jr and a solar cell to power it, and he's happier than a klam."

Bob can use his instruments to best effect, either giving the player the current yield of science points for those experiments (or maybe a slight bonus) but a reduced science point yield for materials experiments. You want full Science! value out of that Goo canister though - better make sure Geoffley's on board. Just don't expect him to get much information out of those temperature readings.

Edited April 5, 2017 by KSK

[0111narwhalz]

I've had a mod idea for a few weeks.
Launch a rocket with a dummy payload of a particular form factor and mass. Maybe launch it twice to ensure consistency. From then on, however, you can launch anything to that orbit (plus or minus) with that mass (+||-) and that form factor (±) with a couple of simple clicks.

Boom! Launch tedium gone! Later iterations might include node execution and even landing (for reusable landers?)

[DiamondExcavater]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

It's Kerbal Space Program, not Simulator. Maybe it's semantics, but certain flights do become routine and are no longer an exciting challenge.

What if you could "teach" pilots certain transfers? The expansion could feature a "logbook" for each pilot, which can open contract-like certificates. So you start a "Kerbin-Mun" certificate where you have to meet certain goals in the right order (kerbin low orbit, mun low orbit). Once completed (multiple times) you can activate the "mun transfer" task which will be executed mech-jeb style.

Pilot rank will affect accuracy, DV budget, etc.

 

 

Can squad legit listen to this, the thought of having something like this would make me really happy, this should be number 1 priority...

also magico's mod like Kerbal construction time is also nice to add, adding building time to the game, there is still a simulate mode that is instant, but this just feels more realistic.

one more thing, the load screen (for those with good computers) can have a cut scene of the vessel being rolled out to runway/launch pad while the physics and what not loads, instead of a black screen

[theJesuit]

2 minutes ago, DiamondExcavater said:

Can squad legit listen to this, the thought of having something like this would make me really happy, this should be number 1 priority...

also magico's mod like Kerbal construction time is also nice to add, adding building time to the game, there is still a simulate mode that is instant, but this just feels more realistic.

one more thing, the load screen (for those with good computers) can have a cut scene of the vessel being rolled out to runway/launch pad while the physics and what not loads, instead of a black screen

We are playing a simulation of a space program .  I'd like a KCT that is stock.  And the load screen, your actual craft being transported to the launch pad, but even if it was just out of the VAB's doors!

Peace

[StrandedonEarth]

The way I see it, once a player has performed a mission that will be repeated, such as resupply or crew rotation, then (and only then) the player should be able to contract out that mission to be done automatically  Probably the key to it would be creating the destination waypoint, such as assigning a docking port on a station or building a landing pad on a surface, for the resuppy ship to be sent to.  

Once the player has done something once, the computer should be able to repeat many times, with the identical .craft

[theJesuit]

2 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

The way I see it, once a player has performed a mission that will be repeated, such as resupply or crew rotation, then (and only then) the player should be able to contract out that mission to be done automatically  Probably the key to it would be creating the destination waypoint, such as assigning a docking port on a station or building a landing pad on a surface, for the resuppy ship to be sent to.  

Once the player has done something once, the computer should be able to repeat many times, with the identical .craft

Funnily enough, there is a mod for that.

What would also be useful, is for the stock contracts such as satellites et al, there is a time factor in them appearing (perhaps to coincide with a stock KCT), rather than complete contract and get the similar straight away.

If it has been done before and uses a rocket within 10% of the original (replacing only science parts or something) then a separate 'launch' option to repeat would be.  Perhaps no reputation bonus, science or lesser funds received for the contract would be good as we have 'outsourced' the contract.  If the contracts only newly appear every ten days or so this would reduce spamming then as being a little OP - or if we completed ourselves then we would get higher bonuses.  It would save on the grind!

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, DiamondExcavater said:

Can squad legit listen to this, the thought of having something like this would make me really happy, this should be number 1 priority...

Not to toot my own horn, but yes, there are many potential benefits: ( @Badie are you paying attention? )

• High ranking pilots do have a purpose, even in late career. Surely you can add a hi-tech probe-core to your vessel for accurately holding retrograde etc, but only a true Pilot can figure out how to raise your orbit from 100km to 300km all by itself.
• Mechjeb-like functionality to create and execute waypoints (change orbit, rendez-vous, even docking) is no longer "cheating," as you only get that functionality after proper "training" the pilot for it.
• It now makes sense to have a pilot on board over a probe core! Even for boring refuel runs, standard rescue missions and whatnot.

New part: the Simulator. Put two Kerbals in there, and you can transfer a skill from one Kerbal to another. Gronkblib Kerman might be an experienced pilot but he has no experience landing a lander on Duna. However, during the 8 month trip he'll accumulate enough time in the Simulator together with Jeb, to land your lander flawlessly anyway. To transfer skills, the receiving pilot may need a minimum level (along the lines of: orbit transfers; 2 stars, rendez-vous, 3 stars, docking: 4 stars, landing 5 starts). So now we have a part to go with the expansion. Who'd want an expansion without any parts?

Skills increase accuracy. A 2 star pilot will get you to that 100x100km orbit with a 2km standard deviation, but a 5 star pilot will nail it with a 20m standard deviation. Are you sure you want your 1 star pilot perform the docking without your supervision? Because he might "dock" at 10 m/s! (hilarity WILL ensue)

 

And in similar fashion you could apply this to scientists and engineers. Scientists may automatically perform experiments or clear experiments, and I'm sure with some creativity we can add incentives for better engineers as well.

And the beauty is that it doesn't affect the base game; you don't have to buy the expansion. It just makes the game more fun to play.

[HebaruSan]

4 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

The way I see it, once a player has performed a mission that will be repeated, such as resupply or crew rotation, then (and only then) the player should be able to contract out that mission to be done automatically  Probably the key to it would be creating the destination waypoint, such as assigning a docking port on a station or building a landing pad on a surface, for the resuppy ship to be sent to.  

Once the player has done something once, the computer should be able to repeat many times, with the identical .craft

I guess the tricky part would be repeating complex missions. Either I'm allowed to use 3 gravity assists to get to Jool with minimal fuel and then repeat that even when the gravity assists (or even transfer windows!) aren't available, or SQUAD tries to write code to prevent that and risks blocking reasonable missions some of the time. I realize people are asking for this mainly for things like LKO station missions, but unless they hard-coded the system only to work in Kerbin's SOI, the game would have to be able to determine the difference programmatically. (And if they did hard-code it for Kerbin's SOI only, then maintaining a base anywhere else would remain just as tedious.)

Frankly, learning to cope with the dynamic nature of the solar system has been one of the more engaging gameplay elements for me, and that could be lost if you could just click "repeat" after your first haphazard arrival at a given destination.

[Darth Badie]

6 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Not to toot my own horn, but yes, there are many potential benefits: ( @Badie are you paying attention? )

• High ranking pilots do have a purpose, even in late career. Surely you can add a hi-tech probe-core to your vessel for accurately holding retrograde etc, but only a true Pilot can figure out how to raise your orbit from 100km to 300km all by itself.
• Mechjeb-like functionality to create and execute waypoints (change orbit, rendez-vous, even docking) is no longer "cheating," as you only get that functionality after proper "training" the pilot for it.
• It now makes sense to have a pilot on board over a probe core! Even for boring refuel runs, standard rescue missions and whatnot.

New part: the Simulator. Put two Kerbals in there, and you can transfer a skill from one Kerbal to another. Gronkblib Kerman might be an experienced pilot but he has no experience landing a lander on Duna. However, during the 8 month trip he'll accumulate enough time in the Simulator together with Jeb, to land your lander flawlessly anyway. To transfer skills, the receiving pilot may need a minimum level (along the lines of: orbit transfers; 2 stars, rendez-vous, 3 stars, docking: 4 stars, landing 5 starts). So now we have a part to go with the expansion. Who'd want an expansion without any parts?

Skills increase accuracy. A 2 star pilot will get you to that 100x100km orbit with a 2km standard deviation, but a 5 star pilot will nail it with a 20m standard deviation. Are you sure you want your 1 star pilot perform the docking without your supervision? Because he might "dock" at 10 m/s! (hilarity WILL ensue)

 

And in similar fashion you could apply this to scientists and engineers. Scientists may automatically perform experiments or clear experiments, and I'm sure with some creativity we can add incentives for better engineers as well.

And the beauty is that it doesn't affect the base game; you don't have to buy the expansion. It just makes the game more fun to play.

Yes I´m paying attention guys

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

I guess the tricky part would be repeating complex missions. Either I'm allowed to use 3 gravity assists to get to Jool with minimal fuel and then repeat that even when the gravity assists (or even transfer windows!) aren't available, or SQUAD tries to write code to prevent that and risks blocking reasonable missions some of the time. I realize people are asking for this mainly for things like LKO station missions, but unless they hard-coded the system only to work in Kerbin's SOI, the game would have to be able to determine the difference programmatically. (And if they did hard-code it for Kerbin's SOI only, then maintaining a base anywhere else would remain just as tedious.)

Frankly, learning to cope with the dynamic nature of the solar system has been one of the more engaging gameplay elements for me, and that could be lost if you could just click "repeat" after your first haphazard arrival at a given destination.

Good points, I'll admit I was mainly thinking about inside Kerbin's SOI. The main reason I never set up used a Minmus refuelling operation is because it seemed so tedious. I guess the trick would be allow this tool for shorter trips, from surface to an orbital station or reverse, to occur when the window is available (when the orbital plane passes over the vehicle/landing site. Surface-to-moon (Duna -> Ike for example) or back would also count. But going interplanetary is never routine, and moving between Jool's moons invites chaos.

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

I just came back to KSP (again) after a few months of inactivity... and I find paid DLC?

I'm kind of torn on this. On the one hand, paying for content  would help the company and kind of works on other games.

On the other hand, quite possibly the best part of KSP is the modding community. There are very few ideas Squad can come up with that isn't already a mod, and the openness allows a lot of variation. Introducing paid DLC is a problem for the modding community.

[theJesuit]

2 hours ago, Badie said:

Yes I´m paying attention guys

I'd really love a kerbal model reshaper to be able to replace a kerbal head with those of my children...

Then when we play KSP together they are in the craft with Val and Bill.

Couple of Christmases ago I turned a moon mission into a story book and got it printed in hardback as a present.  That required some bad mspaint-shopping of face photos into various scenes.

[Kerbart]

21 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

Introducing paid DLC is a problem for the modding community.

...because?

[0111narwhalz]

Launches: Routine (according to premise of mod/DLC)
Landings: Routine (or as routine as launches)
Transfers: Non-Routine, but why?
 Execution of Maneuver Nodes: Routine (just a burn at a particular time)
 Planning of Maneuver Nodes: Non-Routine, but why?
  Programming Node's Delta-V: Routine (just pick a place and some times, the optimum can be gotten)
  Choosing a Destination: Non-Routine
  Choosing Times: Semi-Routine (sometimes you want to go at a particular time, sometimes you just want the next window)

There. Player must pick destination, departure time, and either travel time or arrival time. An optimum with these characteristics can be found, even if it must be solved iteratively. All the complex dynamics are, at their heart, just simple burns in vacuum. Yes, this means you have to plan your gravity assists node-by-node, but there's only so much you can do there. It's really more of a "transfer to A with this trajectory, then to B" than "transfer to B via A."
The mod/DLC might ask to profile the ship by burning from start to finish. In this way, it can determine the acceleration with respect to time, the delta-V, and even staging. Again, profiling should be made with a known payload. Real payloads should be encapsulated to conform closely to expected behavior.

[Superfluous J]

6 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

I've had a mod idea for a few weeks.
Launch a rocket with a dummy payload of a particular form factor and mass. Maybe launch it twice to ensure consistency. From then on, however, you can launch anything to that orbit (plus or minus) with that mass (+||-) and that form factor (±) with a couple of simple clicks.

Boom! Launch tedium gone! Later iterations might include node execution and even landing (for reusable landers?)

Psst.

 

[HebaruSan]

6 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

All the complex dynamics are, at their heart, just simple burns in vacuum.

I guess I would encourage you to try programming it.   Write a C# function which, given an original route in terms of Array<CelestialBody> and a double time of original launch, and a double time of subsequent launch, returns bool, true if allowed (similar enough), false if not. The complexities may then become clearer.

[0111narwhalz]

2 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

I guess I would encourage you to try programming it.   Write a C# function which, given an original route in terms of Array<CelestialBody> and a double time of original launch, and a double time of subsequent launch, returns bool, true if allowed (similar enough), false if not. The complexities may then become clearer.

Alright, I'll have to go learn the math behind orbital mechanics. I've gotten as far as I have graphically, but trying to impress that upon a computer is probably way harder than just learning the math.

The point of the above was to show that almost everything can be math'd without simulation, once a profile is created. You don't need to know what the burn is for to execute it; just advance the profile by that much delta-v. You don't need to know what the craft is to create a node; there is almost certainly an optimum.

See you later, with either a working piece of code or an exploded brain!

[cantab]

It's straightforward enough to work out simple interplanetary transfers and the delta-V required. The Transfer Window Planner mod does it, NASA did it on pen-and-paper back in the day. That combined with a simple delta-V calculation on the craft would be enough to handle routine mission backgrounding. Will it do your complex gravity assists or crazy multi-sparagus engine-switching craft? No, but it doesn't need to to be useful.

[HebaruSan]

1 minute ago, 0111narwhalz said:

You don't need to know what the burn is for to execute it; just advance the profile by that much delta-v. You don't need to know what the craft is to create a node; there is almost certainly an optimum.

You definitely don't need to know anything about the craft, but you do need to whether that much delta V, applied to a craft at that time and place, could get you where you wanted to go. Keep in mind there will be correction burns, plane change burns, capture burns, and so on, and good luck. Do learn the math, though, it's fun beyond expectations.

[0111narwhalz]

Just now, HebaruSan said:

but you do need to whether that much delta V, applied to a craft at that time and place, could get you where you wanted to go.

Ah. I was thinking of a continuous (or keyframed + interpolation) profile that would let you subdivide the ship's delta-V in any number of ways, not "This is the burn I know how to make. Have fun."

[HebaruSan]

1 minute ago, 0111narwhalz said:

Ah. I was thinking of a continuous (or keyframed + interpolation) profile that would let you subdivide the ship's delta-V in any number of ways, not "This is the burn I know how to make. Have fun."

You could do it either way. The primary requirement is that the original route as flown by the player somehow needs to serve as the template. The total delta V expended would presumably also be a hard constraint, as we're not talking about allowing the player to tweak lifter designs for each launch.

[0111narwhalz]

3 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

The total delta V expended would presumably also be a hard constraint

Of course, but I was planning to run the lifter/tug dry to gain a full profile. Reusable vessels would, of course, desire a less-than-complete burn of fuel (so they can still return and be used), but that's on the player's shoulders.