Jump to content

Squad's accounced there will be Resources in Beta- how should they go about it?


Recommended Posts

SQUAD has announced that there actually should be a Resources (In Situ Resource Utilization) system of some kind in Beta:

"Deep Space Refueling - We’re aware there is one big end-game mechanic missing in the game: Being able to refuel a vessel once you’re out in Space. This is what we originally set out to achieve with the old Resource Mining plan and saw ourselves running into a very tedious dead-end. The Resources system was flawed because it overcomplicated accomplishing a basic need: To be able to find something out in space which can be used to fill up the tanks again. That’s the essence of it, and we don’t need 40+ single-purpose parts and 9 different resources to do it. In fact, all that complexity was going to be very effective at making sure most attempts to build a refueling outpost would fail. We are now planning a new, more elegant system, which hopefully will add a new, fun element of gameplay, as well as the massive boost to continuity this feature implies."

No news could make me happier (and although some of you may be less enthusiastic about it- remember that it still won't be coming for quite a while, and you don't have to ever use it if you don't want to)

Anyways, I'm ecstatic about the news, but I'm still slightly cautious/worried, considering how badly Squad lost sight of common sense last time they attempted Resorces. (if somebody could provide me a link to the flow-chart of the old attempt to place here, that would be wonderful)

So, I'm opening up a Discussion about how YOU, the player think that Resources should best be implemented.

Keep in mind that this is *NOT* a thread to say you think it shouldn't. It's not that I don't think that your opinion is valid- only that it would too badly de-rail the main topic. Any attempts at such discussion will be reprimanded, more than once if necessary, and if you keep persisting in trying to hijack the thread I will try to call in a Moderator to do something about it... You have been warned.

My Take on the Planned Feature:

Anyways, MY opinion on the matter is that, as much as I love realism and complexity, for the STOCK game, the best philosophy for Squad here is KISS (aka. "Keep It Simple Stupid"). Although I highly respect Squad's ability to interestingly model complex systems, I really want the system to survive and make it into the final game more than anything else. And we all know where things went the LAST TIME they let themselves get carried away with complexity...

I am of the opinion that the best use of Squad's time/effort in implementing a FUN Resource system would be to create just a single collectable resource (similar to Kethane, or better yet, Karbonite), and 2-4 types of collectors (1 or 2 different sizes of drill, an atmospheric collector, and maybe an oceanic collector as well) *that all collect this one resource*, and thus are 100% interchangeable (and added for slightly more immersion/believability than having a single do-all collector part) so there is absolutely no need for players to actually have to learn how to use multiple different parallel resource trees stemming from a thousand different collector parts like in the original system- and then a single type of refinery (perhaps available in 2 different sizes) that can refine this resources into most or all of the different in-game fuels.

This would also add interesting opportunities for Squad to add all sorts of fun part flavor text about how this resource works/ was discovered. And, of course, teachers in the classroom could do a whole segment on the real-life possibilities for In Situ Resource Utilization (Methane through Sabatier Process, Kerosene through Fischer-Tropsch, Oxygen from lunar regolith, etc.) as a means of teaching a bit of chemistry in a fun way when using the Kerbal.EDU version... But the Kerbal stock resource need not have any real-life name, and in fact it would probably be better if it did not.

I also think Squad should focus HEAVILY on creating a good system for detecting the resource in the first place (Kethane and especially Karbonite mods are somewhat lacking in this regard unless you also install the ScanSat mod), perhaps also including a potential mapping feature for advanced players if ti could be done in a performance-friendly way (newbies could rely on atmospheric filtration on planets with atmospheres- which wouldn't require any use of maps...) as well as on creating good cost/mass balance (for this, real life relative costs of some of the cheaper ISRU systems might be a good starting-point, tweaked a bit for FUN of course) and visuals/animations in relation to the rest of the game...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Another thought, in an entirely different direction than planet-based ISRU, that Squad could go in, is to make some asteroids mineable- to reflect some asteroid/comet compositions including not just water-ice, but also oxidized alumina and various simple organic ("organic" means carbon-based, NOT necessarily associated with life) compounds... Although, IMHO, I don't think asteroid-chasing would be NEARLY as fun (or practical) as, say, setting up a refueling base on Duna, and should only be added as a secondary method of obtaining the mineable resource(s), if at all

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple, fun, and useful, that's all I'm looking for in it. Probably done in such a way that it would allow expansion to a more complex system later, if desired. Beyond that, I don't particularly care how or what they do, I'm happy for Squad to just throw us their best effort at what they think should work. They clearly already have something planned.

Edit: Oh yeah, and ideally useful for both small and large craft, without it feeling like a horribly tedious grind for large craft.

Keep in mind that this is *NOT* a thread to say you think it shouldn't. It's not that I don't think that your opinion is valid- only that it would too badly de-rail the main topic. Any attempts at such discussion will be reprimanded, more than once if necessary, and if you keep persisting in trying to hijack the thread I will try to call in a Moderator to do something about it... You have been warned.

Starting a thread doesn't give you any special extra rights. If someone is breaking the official rules (which you don't get to supplement with your own additional rules), report them. If not, live with opinions that you'd prefer not to hear, that's how Internet forums generally work  you are required to take the rough with the smooth (as long as it's not pure trolling or similar). Frankly, that paragraph annoys me, and makes me dis-inclined to contribute.

Edited by Murph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, I was a huge fan of the original resources plan, so let's just get that out there to begin with.

I also wonder if "fun" was the exact word that should have been used in the context of resource-gathering. I never found scanning for resources (or mining them for that matter), particularly fun -- rather I found the experience deeply satisfying. I'd make the same statement about a lot of the gameplay in KSP to be honest. I derive enjoyment from KSP simply because it is a highly challenging experience, one in which you fail and fail again -- hopefully failing better each time. As I've progressed, I've happily re-done the same basic missions across multiple restarted careers, simply because I know I can do it better, more efficient this time around. This is fun indeed, but it's not the disneyland kind of fun that people normally associate with the term.

So that said, I agree that keeping the system as simple as possible is a good thing, at least at the front end. I don't see why you couldn't have a generic parts that will mine and refine a number of different resources, allowing you to build a system that 'just works' relatively easily, probably at the cost of conversion efficiency, but put a framework in place to allow modders to build the 40-piece monstrosities that some of us might like.

And seriously, scanning for resources. This needs to be a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the system as long as it isn't "add this light part to the ship to generate fuel"

Any fuel generation should require a base or the mission would have to be designed around resource collection.

(Basically, make the mining/processing equipment heavy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very excited about this, i really am. All i expect from SQUAD is an expandable system. They just have to put in 1 refueling resource as long as mods can change that to indefinite complexity later.

The basics would be to just put in an "extractor" of some kind, can be atmospheric or for soil. I would appreciate a way to combine resources so the system can be open ended. In the end the perfect system would include building stuff on other planets, basically a self sufficient colony as "end game goal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in your bolded quote says that we'll be gather any resources. All they said is they want a way to refuel your ships without having to carry full fuel tanks from Kerbin to wherever you are.

This could me something like Kethane and Karbonite. It could mean that there will be a "generate fuel" part that works only when splashed down somewhere. It could mean that you'll have the option to spend money for an outside contractor to show up with fuel - all done off camera so it's essentially "Spend X cash for Y liters of fuel to magically appear in your tank".

I personally would like to have several ways to gather the resources themselves. Say a drill to get rocket fuel from the larger worlds. A compressor/filter/whatchamawant to get oxidizer from any atmosphere, and another to get it from ice or certain airless worlds' rocks at a much slower rate. A Xenon collector that ... I don't know maybe looks like a big dish or solar sail. And monoprop can (for all I know) come from anywhere with mass around using some sort of monoprop generator.

Simple, easy, straightforward, takes lots of power and specific circumstances, but doesn't require pumping fuel backwards through fuel lines and testing crazy contraptions on Kerbin before you go to do the simplest mining jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not to enthused about a Kethane/Karbonite like approach. It just gets too boring/tedious too quickly. I'm not sure on how to implement the ISRU itself, but I think that two things are necessary first: new planets past Jool and some form of mechanic that forces people to build big spacecraft if they want to travel long distances. Without new planets, there's no real reason to do ISRU as for a fraction of the effort and close to the same cost, you can just send up an empty transfer stage and a refueler and have enough fuel to go to Jool. And people need to be rewarded for bringing larger crews, which need to have a certain amount of space or else they'll become worse at their job. If you can get the same amount of science from a 1-man capsule, then why put up anything else? Normal life support isn't the answer, as it forces constant monitoring or just a small pod with large oxygen tanks. A morale/living space combo would probably work much better.

Once you need to build bigger and need extra delta-V to get to the farthest planets, then ISRU becomes a feature that everyone will eventually have to tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever way Squad implements resources, it should encourage specialization instead of building general-purpose ships. I don't want to see a repetition of the Kethane Pack, where the same ship functions perfectly well as a fuel tanker, an interplanetary tug, a kethane scanner, a kethane miner, and a refinery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very grateful that we have Kethane, Karbonite, and the old Resources system to compare and contrast, since they all bring good ideas to the table:

[table=width: 500, class: grid]

[tr]

[td][/td]

[td]Old Resources[/td]

[td]Kethane[/td]

[td]Karbonite[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]New Resources[/td]

[td]Many (blutonium, water, etc.)[/td]

[td]One (Kethane)[/td]

[td]One (Karbonite)[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Resource Location[/td]

[td]Dependant on resource (Eve oceans, Duna ice, etc.)[/td]

[td]Land only, at deposits randomly distributed in each new game[/td]

[td]Land, oceans, atmospheres, orbital locations, with varying concentration[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Resource Amounts[/td]

[td]Infinite[/td]

[td]Finite[/td]

[td]Infinite, with variable extraction rate based on concentration[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Method of Discovery[/td]

[td]None, resources always exist in the area they are found in[/td]

[td]Scan reveals resource over time by an active vessel traversing[/td]

[td]Scan done instantly by an active vessel with scanner part[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Resource Visualization[/td]

[td]None, resources always exist in the area they are found in[/td]

[td]Map view overlay over celestial body toggled on/off through toolbar[/td]

[td]High concentration nodes in map or flight view, toggled by scanner part[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Conversion Method[/td]

[td]Various parts convert different resources[/td]

[td]One part type converts from Kethane to all other resources[/td]

[td]Two parts convert from Karbonite to other resources[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Let me know if I'm misrepresenting something, please.

[Minor Edit: Fixed the Conversion Method for Karbonite from one part to two, as per Northstar1989]

[i may have been ninja'd a little, since this took time to think and write, but here goes my own idea:]

My opinion is that Squad had the right idea on resources being tied to where you were extracting (and it being essentially infinite), but having so many different resources that do nothing on their own and each requiring a different collector, container, and converter parts was the complexity that killed the fun. Both Kethane and Karbonite implement only a single resource and single type of converter to remedy that problem.

I think that the ideal simplified system would not require all the added resources, special containers, collector parts, and converter parts. Instead, a single part could perform the act of creating a single, already existent resource when in the right conditions. This removes the need for new resource types, a range of tanks in every size category, and the need for converter parts.

Solar panels are already a resource collecting part with a requirement that the sun be shining on them. It's not too hard to envision a part that creates Liquid Fuel when active in Eve's ocean or Oxidizer when active over ice on any applicable planet or moon. There's some heavy hand-waving to be done regarding the chemistry involved, but I think this system would fill the need for NASA-style ISRU.

Travel to Duna, carrying only enough oxidizer to get there and land (saving weight on the vehicle), then use the ice cracker to restock oxidizer in order to go home. Balancing the generating part would be the trick (it has to be lighter than the oxidizer ordinarily needed to be worth bringing!).

You might think this system would preclude any need for processing plants, but if the collector parts were substantial enough, it would be beneficial to continually reuse them in place, leading to potential surface bases and/or orbital projects with dedicated landers making repeated trips up and down to restock their station or mothership. The useful fuel can then be transported to where it is needed with tanker vessels using all the parts we already have available.

This system would require careful planning of what fuels can be collected where (biome dependent?) and what the parts that do the collection would cost in terms of mass, bulkiness, their own fuel requirements (electriccharge?), funds, and tech tree progression. Ensuring multiple fuel types cannot be gathered from any one location would encourage the development of infrastructure. Oxidizer processed on Mun could be combined with LiquidFuel from Minmus at a mining station set up between their orbits where Rockets destined for interplanetary missions could fuel up.

Since monoprop thrusters/engines are generally the least efficient engines (except for the new massless, cheating one, hope that gets changed!) this fuel type could be more common than others, making some monoprop-dependent designs more desirable despite their inefficiency (creating a new niche for existing parts). Xenon could be interesting as a resource collected exclusively from atmospheres, but it might be tricky to balance with the huge dV capacity of ion vessels.

Just some ideas to contribute towards a solution to a proven-difficult problem. :)

Edited by JumpsterG
Edit Karbonite conversion part count
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My input is if they go the route of scansat then they need a way to place a landing target on a planetary surface. That the kethane and karbonite systems use the ingame map makes them easier to use as I can plan a landing with the map. I can't really easily plan a landing in scansat. If i could click and place a marker on the map for the location I want to land I can use the game's map to plot the landing.

I do like the challenge from kethane (and EPL's ore) of scanning for deposits over time. Before Karbonite I had to find a spot where kethane deposits and ore deposits intersected for building land bases. That is a real life challenge for a real base. You need to find water, oxygen, components of fuel. You need to find them in the same spot or you incur penalties transporting the resources either in time spent or fuel spent. The ideal location for a real base on Mars would be on the edge of the caps as you can melt the ice cap for water or (most likely) methane and still benefit from solar energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could mean that you'll have the option to spend money for an outside contractor to show up with fuel - all done off camera so it's essentially "Spend X cash for Y liters of fuel to magically appear in your tank".

I sincerely hope that it is not this. Given how easy it is to get funds right now, it would essentially turn into "Don't bother with big fuel tanks for your interplanetary transfer. Just spend some money when we run out of gas and keep on going." That, or refuels are so expensive that they're not worth making refueling stations for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that it is not this. Given how easy it is to get funds right now, it would essentially turn into "Don't bother with big fuel tanks for your interplanetary transfer. Just spend some money when we run out of gas and keep on going." That, or refuels are so expensive that they're not worth making refueling stations for.

I hope so (not?) as well, but I'm just warning everybody. Squad did NOT say you'll be deploying drills on the ice sheets of Duna. They didn't say you'll be gathering resources, converting resources, storing resources, making bases near resource concentrations, or anything like that. They said they want a way to refuel in space. Period. Done. If they come out with something that is NOT resources, everybody has only themselves to blame for blowing this out of proportion.

That all said, I'm totes jazzed to suck Minmus dry of fuel. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to proceed by analysis.

What do we need ISRU for ?

- Refueling because you CAN'T increase rocket size

- Refueling because you REUSE rocket

- Create a FUN gameplay with self-sufficient ship/mission.

What do we need to avoid ?

- Deadlock where using a resources require the use of another one

- Interdependent resources situated afar from each other

The minimal number of resources seem is 2 : Brute-thrust and Fine-Maneuvering

The number of way to gather is three : Drill (soil), Pump (liquid) and Scoop (gaz).

Edit : somehow it only came to me now that you could actually merge the pump/drill design into one parts, since you are unlikely to be able to extract in both environment anyway

Now from Northstar up there, 2 situation exist : small mission (one ship), big mission (worth an infrastructure)

What can we simplify ?

- Consider "Refining" done by the gathering parts, it just need energy.

- Scale extraction by 1)stacking the same parts 2) throwing in more energy (an use for giant solar panel !)

- Keep interdependent resources (LF/O) together (not fuse them).

- Consider adding engine which only need one resources. (potentially to supersede LF/O engine entirely)

- Pretend all planet have the same resources, just in different proportions.

My "EASY" proposal :

- 3 parts : Drill (rectangular to be put in parallel) / Pump(under liquid) / Scoop(reuse air-intake+energy, in motion or stationary)

- Easy to use :

Drill give access to "LF/O" and Xenon

Pump give access to "LF/O" and Monoprop

Scoop give access to Xenon and Monoprop

- Expected result :

An asteroid can give Xenon for light probes

An low-grav airless moon can give Xenon for light probes

An high-grav but airless planet is still worth LF/O for space project

A planet/moon with atmosphere but no liquid can still give ALL (through Drill/Scoop)

A planet/moon with liquid can give to ALL + easier landing (though the design must follow)

A Gaseous planet can give Xenon (while aerobreaking for example)

Something I forgot in my analysis is that "All-in-all we need but one efficient refuel point per zone of interest"

"EASIER" new proposal :

- 3 parts : Drill (rectangular to be put in parallel) / Pump(under liquid) / Scoop(reuse air-intake+energy, in motion or stationary)

- Balance according to biomes :

Drill can give access to LF, Oxidizer and/or monoprop

Pump can give access to LF and/or Monoprop

Scoop can give access to Xenon and Oxidizer

The objectives being :

- to be able to refuel 100% monoprop probes on low-gravity moon

- to be able to refuel both LF/O on Minmus, Valls, and at least one easily accessible moon at the next Gas planet.

- xenon being available for eternal-but-limited probe (or refueled by other)

Keep the potential of one-resources nuclear-engine never meant to land (because of size and maybe, let's dream : heat-radiator)

My "HARD" proposal :

- Nuclear engine using Xenon+energy (for maximum ISP for thrust) or Liquid Fuel (more thrust but lesser ISP).

- RCS thruster using Xenon+energy (LOW isp).

notes: Atomic fuel cannot be gathered, it just last long.

Drill give Liquid Fuel & Xenon

Pump give Liquid Fuel

Scoop give Xenon & Oxidizer

In short : you gain self-sufficiency but lose flexibility

My "insanity" proposal :

- On the last planet of the Kerbol system you can find asteroid made of antimatter (I said it was insane) and gather it with magnetic scoop staying 2 meter away.

Edited by Kegereneku
rewording, + keeping this post updated
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting a thread doesn't give you any special extra rights. If someone is breaking the official rules (which you don't get to supplement with your own additional rules), report them. If not, live with opinions that you'd prefer not to hear, that's how Internet forums generally work  you are required to take the rough with the smooth (as long as it's not pure trolling or similar). Frankly, that paragraph annoys me, and makes me dis-inclined to contribute.

I'm not inventing any extra rules- simply only stating that I intend to try and get the moderators to enforce the existing Forum Rules if necessary. Forum Rule 2.3d states the following are banned:

"Messages that purposefully change the subject of conversation in a thread without a natural tie to the topic at hand"

Anyways, do the right thing and you've got nothing to worry about. I'm not *trying* to be a jerk.

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not inventing any extra rules- simply only stating that I intend to try and get the moderators to enforce the existing Forum Rules if necessary. Forum Rule 2.3d states the following are banned:

"Messages that purposefully change the subject of conversation in a thread without a natural tie to the topic at hand"

Anyways, do the right thing and you've got nothing to worry about. I'm not *trying* to be a jerk.

Regards,

Northstar

Sorry, but that's complete and utter nonsense. Someone expressing an opinion that adding resources is not a good idea is entirely naturally tied to the topic of this thread. My gripe is that I despise attempts to bury opinions that are inconvenient or unwanted, but entirely relevant to the topic being discussed. Forums are supposed to be a level playing field, where any civilised opinion directly related to the topic of a thread should be reasonable. Please ponder for a moment the meaning of "natural tie to the topic at hand".

You clearly want a resources system. I have no objection to a resources system, as long as it doesn't turn KSP into a non-optional grind-fest, and overall think that KSP would be better with a simple and fun resources system. Others may think that it's not needed or even a bad thing to have. It's important for any reasoned and balanced discussion to include all viewpoints, and not appropriate to basically try to bully one group, with outright threats, from being able to state their opinions and reasons freely. Sometimes even the negative opinions have useful snippets included in their reasoning, which the supporters of the idea can benefit from, to address perceived issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do we need to avoid ?

- Deadlock where using a resources require the use of another one

- Interdependent resources situated afar from each other

Agreed- unless you're saying you don't want mining/refining to consume ElectricCharge (they should- and LOTS of it, to finally give a use for Gigantor solar panels...)

What can we simplify ?

- Consider "Refining" done by the gathering parts, it just need energy.

- Scale extraction by 1)stacking the same parts 2) throwing in more energy (an use for giant solar panel !)

- Consider interdependent resources (LF/O) as one.

- Consider adding engine which only need one resources. (potentially to supersede LF/O engine entirely)

- Pretend all planet have the same resources, just in different proportions.

Having Liquidfuel and Oxidizer generally (though not ALWAYS) found in the same place makes a lot of sense from a gaming perspective, and is realistic as well- as one of the most abundant/useful potential ISRU substrates in real life is water-ice (which is composed of a combustible ration of Hydrogen and Oxygen- one of the most common rocket fuel mixtures in use today).

However I am STRONGLY against *combining* Liquidfuel and Oxidizer into a single "fuel" resource, if that's what you're suggesting- not only would this FURTHER break realism and immersion from the (already broken/ over-simplistic) stock system of fuels, it would also break a number of mods and existing saves/player vessels based on there being two separate resources.

Keeping them separate also opens up the possibility for their being *some* places where you can find only one. For instance, Oxidizer but not Liquidfuel in the upper atmospheres of Kerbin and Laythe (Earth's atmosphere has plenty of Oxygen and Nitrogen- both of which can be used as oxidizer, as in N2O4, but very little free Hydrogen/Methane...), and Liquidfuel but not Oxidizer in Jool's atmosphere.

What the devs need to do is strike a good balance between ease/usability and maintaining some challenge here. And, as it so happens, reality presents an EXCELLENT model for this- the real solar system already has water-ice in quite a few places, and Hydrogen or Oxygen in others. So they can strike this balance while at the same time still preserving some realism/believability of they rely on the real-life distribution of resources as a starting point...

Drill give access to "LF/O" and Xenon

Pump give access to "LF/O" and Monoprop

Scoop give access to Xenon and Monoprop

That's a very silly arrangement. A *better* one (in terms of fun/balance) follows real life more closely, and also is more believable:

Drill gives LF/O (where you can find water-ice) or just Oxidizer (where you can only find oxidized rocks), and Xenon (found commonly in rocks on the moon, for instance). As a *special* bonus, I would like to see Aluminum/Oxidizer Hybrid Rockets added that can be refueled on the Mun or Ike to assist in heavy-lifting (assuming both moons are made of aluminum-oxide regolith). Al/Ox rockets are a lot like SRB's, with high thrust and density, except their ISP is a little better, and they have controllable throttle (this is controlled by changing Oxidizer flow- in fact Hybrid Rockets are often easier to throttle than liquid rockets...)

Pump gives LF/O and Monoprop.

Atmospheric Scoop gives *either* Liquidfuel or Oxidizer (depending on the planet- but the two can't both exist freely in the same atmosphere, or they would react), and Monopropellent.

Notice I made it significantly harder to obtain Xenon. This is because Xenon is an *exceptionally* valuable resource (both in terms of Funds cost and ISP), and having it freely floating in atmospheres (which doesn't really happen in real life) would be far to easy, as well as straying hugely from reality... It should only be available by drilling, and only on *some* planets/moons, not all of them, to reflect its value/rarity...

- Nuclear engine using Xenon+energy (for maximum ISP for thrust) or Liquid Fuel (more thrust but lesser ISP).

Apparently you mis-understand the relationship between molecular mass and ISP in real life, because you have it *precisely* reversed. Xenon, due to its very high moledular mass, would give TERRIBLE ISP in a nuclear rocket, but amazing thrust. Hydrogen (aka. LiquidFuel) gives great ISP but terrible thrust.

In real life, Methane and Ammonia have also been considered as potential Nuclear Rocket fuels, since they have better thrust (but inferior ISP) to Hydrogen, and are also much easier to store...

- RCS thruster using Xenon+energy (LOW isp).

The only way Xenon would ever be used in RCS is if it were electrically-driven, otherwise the ISP would be laughably low. I'm 100% for ignoring any suggestions to give Xenon more uses besides electric engines, as the stock ion engines are already OP'd enough as-is...

notes: Atomic fuel cannot be gathered, it just last long.

Currently there *is* no such resource as atomic fuel (I assume this would be used in LV-N's, like in RealFuels mod?) But if there *were*, there is no reason it shouldn't be extractable on other planets/moons- Uranium and Thorium exist throughout the solar system, not just here on Earth...

The rest I ignored for one reason or another, usually because I strongly disagree but don't want to write a long argument why right now...

Basically, in summary, though, I want to see the devs implement a system that is simple/ relatively light on parts (but expandable in mods), to help ensure the system survives, but also has enough realism/believability for players to try and re-create their favorite real-life space infrastructure ideas in-game: like atmospheric accumulators on Kerbin (skimming Oxygen off the edge of Earth's atmosphere is something that has really been suggested), which would work best if the atmospheric scoop worked *just above* the edge of the atmosphere like in Karbonite mod; atmospheric scoops skimming from Jool (like Hydrogen might be extractable from the edge of Jupiter's atmosphere in real life) ; regolith-extractors to refill Aluminum-Oxidizer Hybrid Rockets, or drills to provide LF/O from polar craters on the Mun (like could be done with the aluminum-oxide regolith, or water-ice near the poles, on Luna) ; or drills/ ground-based scoops on Duna to re-create something along the lines of the Mars Direct mission plan...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly want a resources system. I have no objection to a resources system, as long as it doesn't turn KSP into a non-optional grind-fest, and overall think that KSP would be better with a simple and fun resources system. Others may think that it's not needed or even a bad thing to have. It's important for any reasoned and balanced discussion to include all viewpoints, and not appropriate to basically try to bully one group, with outright threats, from being able to state their opinions and reasons freely. Sometimes even the negative opinions have useful snippets included in their reasoning, which the supporters of the idea can benefit from, to address perceived issues.

Absolutely. A variety of opinions is useful and productive. But the problem ism there are *certain topics*, of which Resources is definitely one, that get buried under piles of "No, I don't want that. That idea sucks!" posts with no valid point included.

*THAT* is the sort of thing that I will call the moderators in on, if people start trolling the post with that kind of thing. Luckily, it doesn't seem to have happened- so either my fears were overblown, or the warning actually worked.

Regards,

Northstar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me know if I'm misrepresenting something, please.

Your table is mostly right, but a minor correction- Karbonite has two converters (a "converter" and a "distiller"), one for the more "volatile" fuels such as LF/O, and one for the more "stable" fuels such as Xenon. Not a huge deal, but you asked, so I just though I'd point it out...

I think that the ideal simplified system would not require all the added resources, special containers, collector parts, and converter parts. Instead, a single part could perform the act of creating a single, already existent resource when in the right conditions. This removes the need for new resource types, a range of tanks in every size category, and the need for converter parts.

Actually, I rather *LIKE* there being the need for separate tanks for a single, unrefined resource- since this would allow players to do things like send a mining rig down to the surface of a planet (especially somewhere with high gravity, like Tylo or Eve), and leave the refining infrastructure in orbit. Since there could be mass-losses in the conversion process, this might be less efficient that refining the resources on-site in the LONG RUN, but might allow for massive mass-savings in setting up the mining/refining system in the first place (if you don't bring the converter all the way down to the surface).

I also don't think all the resources should be available everywhere on all the planets- the Mun should only have Oxidizer across most of its surface (representing aluminum-oxide regolith), but should have LiquidFuel deposits located in a few special craters near the poles (representing water ice)- forcing the player to go through a little extra effort of establishing a polar orbit and making a polar landing if they want to obtain both LiquidFuel and Oxidizer...

Note the difficulty factor is in the mission planning and rocketry, *not* in the actual resource extraction/conversion process here- getting to the Mun's polar craters may be a bit harder than getting to the equator- but the challenge is in the rocketry, the same kinds of challenges players normally face with difficult landings- not in any actual feature of the resource extraction system.

Solar panels are already a resource collecting part with a requirement that the sun be shining on them. It's not too hard to envision a part that creates Liquid Fuel when active in Eve's ocean or Oxidizer when active over ice on any applicable planet or moon. There's some heavy hand-waving to be done regarding the chemistry involved, but I think this system would fill the need for NASA-style ISRU.

However, my previous idea of having separate tanks for the ISRU resource(s) doesn't match well with having only certain resources in certain locations (without having a dozen or so collectible resources), trying to go in both directions at once only over-complicates things and leads to part-spam, so I'm inclined to agree with you here- maybe it *IS* just a better idea to produce the resources directly, with no special tanks (or even converter parts- assume the converters are built into the harvesters) needed.

Travel to Duna, carrying only enough oxidizer to get there and land (saving weight on the vehicle), then use the ice cracker to restock oxidizer in order to go home. Balancing the generating part would be the trick (it has to be lighter than the oxidizer ordinarily needed to be worth bringing!).

Agreed. If Squad just makes a handful of extractor parts, and abstracts the conversion process by assuming it's built into the extractors, then this opens up more of their time to focus on correctly balancing the cost/mass of the different extractor parts (of which there should only be 2 or 3- a single general "drill" part would suffice for Duna ice or Munar regolith alike...)

You might think this system would preclude any need for processing plants, but if the collector parts were substantial enough, it would be beneficial to continually reuse them in place, leading to potential surface bases and/or orbital projects with dedicated landers making repeated trips up and down to restock their station or mothership. The useful fuel can then be transported to where it is needed with tanker vessels using all the parts we already have available.

Agreed again. I'm really liking how you're knitting together a coherent system here.

This system would require careful planning of what fuels can be collected where (biome dependent?) and what the parts that do the collection would cost in terms of mass, bulkiness, their own fuel requirements (electriccharge?), funds, and tech tree progression. Ensuring multiple fuel types cannot be gathered from any one location would encourage the development of infrastructure. Oxidizer processed on Mun could be combined with LiquidFuel from Minmus at a mining station set up between their orbits where Rockets destined for interplanetary missions could fuel up.

I think we need to be VERY CAREFUL about suggesting resource-interdependence here. As already pointed out, it could lead directly to grid-lock. I'm all for Liquidfuel and Oxidizer being found together 99% of the time to simulate water-ice, with a couple exceptions: Oxidizer should be found all over the Mun, but Liquidfuel only on the poles; and Kerbin/Laythe' atmospheres should contain just Oxidizer, while Jool's should have just LiquidFuel. Xenon should be a particularly rare resource, that is only found in a handful of places.

But, I think the resources should be fairly abundant, like in Karbonite. The MAIN difficulty should be finding high-concentration deposits of them, with some planets/moons simply not containing any particularly great deposits- for instance the LiquidFuel at the Mun's polar craters should only be found in low concentrations. Of course, players could time-warp to get all they need (and I think the extractors NEED to operate while the vessel is unloaded- to make ISRU not feel like a grind), but Contracts, and possible some day life support, mean they would pay a price by doing this...

Since monoprop thrusters/engines are generally the least efficient engines (except for the new massless, cheating one, hope that gets changed!) this fuel type could be more common than others, making some monoprop-dependent designs more desirable despite their inefficiency (creating a new niche for existing parts). Xenon could be interesting as a resource collected exclusively from atmospheres, but it might be tricky to balance with the huge dV capacity of ion vessels.

I agree that Xenon should be rare- but for the sake of realism and balance/difficulty, it should be found in rocks through drilling, not in atmospheres (the main reservoirs of Xenon in the rest of the solar system are in rocks, and this would also allow it to be collected on airless planets/moons).

Monopropellant should also be more abundant, since it represents a *variety* of different real-life possible propellants (ranging from Hydrazine to compressed N2/CO2). This would also work well with balancing, if it were more common than any of the other resources, but also yielded lower ISP...

The monoprop engine isn't as broken as you think, by the way. While the fact that it currently has physics disabled is a problem, it would actually have a rather poor TWR if it used the mass stated on the part description. And it is QUITE expensive in Career Mode (both from a tech-tree and Funds perspective), so that's another balancing factor... More advanced engines SHOULD become available at higher tech levels- after all, otherwise what's the point in making technological progress? You need to reward players for their effort, and it also works with believability/realism to have better engines at better tech nodes (IIRC, the ISP of the Monoprop engine isn't all that outrageous compared to real-life engines based on LH2/LOX: the Space Shuttle Main Engines could attain ISP's of nearly 460s...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Northstar1989, I have reworded my post about it to clear out a misunderstanding.

I was not talking of really merging LF/O (things impossible since spaceplane exist)

I was talking of LF/O as keeping interdependent resources available on the very same spot so you don't need to travel in rover (at all) to get Oxidizer. Obvious limitation would be that some biomes are better than other for ISRU (supposing you must take sample and all), about rarity I never talked about Xenon being plentiful elsewhere than a gas planet (in fact I only suggested it being available at all because of my idea to LIMIT ion-probe to no-gravity zone)).

Now, I don't exactly care about what you think, is "silly" or "realistic", in the fictional universe of Kerbun (although your comment certainly derive from the misunderstanding). I know for granted that chemistry being complex there is such a things as non-reactive matter being separable in two highly reactives one if you have energy.

I had chose this arrangement to make an easier/harder Gameplay, yet you have a point that oxidizer is expected in any atmosphere and we are going to work with biomes anyway.

So in the end I can simplify even more...

Something I forgot in my analysis is that "All-in-all we need but one efficient refuel point per zone of interest"

"EASIER" new proposal :

- 3 parts : Drill (rectangular to be put in parallel) / Pump(under liquid) / Scoop(reuse air-intake+energy, in motion or stationary)

- Depending of biomes :

Drill can give access to LF, Oxidizer and/or monoprop

Pump can give access to LF and/or Monoprop

Scoop can give access to Xenon and Oxidizer

The objectives being :

- to be able to refuel 100% monoprop probes on low-gravity moon

- to be able to refuel both LF/O on Minmus, Valls, and at least one easily accessible moon at the next Gas planet.

- xenon being available for eternal-but-limited probe (or refueled by other)

Keep the potential of one-resources nuclear-engine never meant to land (because of size and maybe, let's dream : heat-radiator)

Last :

I also think Squad should focus HEAVILY on creating a good system for detecting the resource in the first place

If SQUAD intend to keep Manned-mission necessary (hopefully without curbing science) they could ask to analyze sample for that. Usually the best REFUEL-point are easy to reach and it would make a Rover-base a good investment. Some zone might be tricky but... Kerbun know how to swim right ?

Last thing, I partake in your interest for that propulsion "100% Munar" but the Mun is already easy to acceed and it's kind of a limited system anyway (best way to use it is to never go where you can't refuel).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Correct me if I'm wrong but Squad said nothing about mining resources. Golden rule in marketing: if a feature is there you advertise it. If you don't see a feature mentioned, it's because it's not there. Now of course, Squad is a software company with no background in marketing so... oh, wait...
  • Everything, everything about implemented features so far has been about “making the game fun for the general public†and there are good reasons for that. If you're a geek (nerd? science lover) you've already discovered KSP and are happily playing with it. Need some fuel in Eelo orbit? No biggie. I'll build a friggin' SSTO 5-orange tank fuel delivery system that will land on Eve AND take off just for the hell of it (or to deliver snacks to Jeb). That's the mindset of the average player on the forum. As much as it's disliked on the forum, for Squad the sweet spot to hit is the audience that is currently buying Minecraft. Deep space refueling will be intended as a way to make things easier, not as a reason to ship 12,000 parts all across the Kerbin system.
  • The mindset “if it's not realistic it's not fun†doesn't apply to everyone. In fact it's a fairly small group who will prefer features that make the game harder and require non-stop commitment to the game. And there are plug-ins to satisfy that group. On the other hand, for Squad it is very attractive to have a game that can be sold to everyone and why not? In the end everyone benefits from Squad having more resources available; as long as the game keeps selling in large numbers we'll see regular updates.
  • Remember we have difficulty settings now. Maybe at 'easy' level fuel generation only requires (large amounts of) sunlight, and at level 'hard' it requires Kethane and Karbonite and you'll also have to process the Kuranium waste that is a byproduct of fuel production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]Everything, everything about implemented features so far has been about “making the game fun for the general public†and there are good reasons for that. blabla

actually minecraft is a popular game cos u can do MILLION things in it. ksp isnt popular cos u can do just always the same and for other than geeks its boring like hell. just like the last patch with contracts... i would have to do the same missions, actually the same pointles and turd missions again and again. build rockets just to take a wheel to orbit to test it or build a specific rocket to test a huge engine on 23k height at 200 speed... actually exactly the casual playerbase is what needs a lot little things to do and to look far more realistic cos they are having problem immersing in the game if its not logical. they dont want to learn rocket science to launch a rocket, they want simplicity and that their kerbals to bring lunchbox to the sky. they will not understand why they cant strap back the broken solar panel or put a light up where there isnt or assign an actiongroup in the space or why their absolute flat rover can still roll over in a slight turn on the mun. they will say its boring to get that ship back and launch again just cos they cant open their solarpanels with 1 button or launch 20 testrovers and find that even the most logical rover will always fall on its side. geeks will do it, geeks will try again and again but casuals wont. with squad's general mentality ksp will always be just the game of the few fans. better get used to it. ksp is missing so much basic functions and have such showstopping glitches what will drive the casual players away always. casuals will not be satisfied with a list of "what science u've done", they would need a map showing where they have been what they explored... these are the basic problems.

Edited by Tuareg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm excited for ISRU to be added to the game (and I'm fairly sure that's what Squad means by in-flight refueling, if it's "pay money and your ship is refueled" I'll be sorely disappointed). From a gameplay perspective I'd like:

- Only one or two harvestable resources, I'd like to avoid a scavenger hunt if possible.

- Some mechanism for scanning bodies for resource deposits, ScanSat's implementation is a good starting point. Scanning while unfocused or timewarped is a must.

- Non-depletable resource deposits, for both realism reasons and to make self-sustaining bases possible.

- Separate parts for harvesting from atmosphere, solid surface, and bodies of liquid.

- Processing parts, one for LFO, one for monoprop, and one for life support resources (if ever implemented in stock).

- No production of rocket parts or ship assembly on other bodies.

- Either unfocused or timewarped harvesting and processing, or make the rates of those near-instantaneous. Watching a drill/refinery slowly fill is not good gameplay.

- Not profitable to make fuel in space and return it to recover on Kerbin.

- Not all bodies have the harvestable resource(s).

- Harvesting/processing parts massive enough to make them non-trivial, i.e. it's a real tradeoff to include ISRU and not a no-brainer to just throw it on every lander.

Chemically, I think this can probably be represented by harvesting water to produce H2 and O2 for LFO, H2O2 for monoprop. I'm aware that KSP's LFO is not all that analagous to LH2 and LOX, nor does the monoprop closely resemble H2O2; but this is such a simple, easy-to-grasp implementation that it is very tempting. Honestly though, I care less about the chemistry involved than about it meeting the gameplay goals above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...