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

[Kegereneku]

You know you have to provide valid premises before you say "So,..."

Where is the argument in that post? I'm having serious difficulty finding the logical connection between all of those statements. And besides, none of what I said makes a difference to you as I said. Could you stop being so needlessly contrarian? It's a little trollish and it's getting tedious.

My premise is as valid and logical as yours.

I'll rephrase it but I suspect you do not see it because you are a little wrapped up in the idea that any single step toward "realism" mean "better". And often pro-realism are being condescending because they think they are the educated one while other use guess word. But it's not they do not know science, but because fictional resources can be anything.

We are talking of game design here.

One entire aspect of game design is to make something that look like reality using code far simpler than reality. It mean using simplified model where the center of mass is a point, not calculating every particle down to Planck's scale, and if your universe depend on biasing value to make it playable -which is the case for KSP- it mean using standoff value as parameter.

You are arguing to introduce real chemical elements and value for ingame resources which aren't present. KSP's liquid fuel isn't one that exist, and oxidizer is called like that only because it serve the same roles. Those resources are based on fictional value because they needed to.

The Kerbol system needed to be smaller (both to make launch & navigation shorter and to go easier on the computer)

The Kerbol system needed to use custom mass/density to be playable.

And so rocket & plane engine needed to have way lower thrust.

What's important is that the equation work. Regardless if the value do not derive from real one.

Take for example the equation ruling the relation between Thrust, Isp & atmospheric pressure.

It is wrong. Varying atmospheric pressure do not increase fuel consumption, it decrease thrust.

Myself I would like for it to change to make Aerospike engine work, and if that change require to use fake value or biased equation, so be it.

To make a step in your direction and be less "contrarian" to you, IF the new aerodynamic system end up using an equation where some parameters are based over real one, like AIR density. Okay, why not ? But it will still not matter how much Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Radon, and Hydrogen is in the atmosphere, or what Liquid Fuel is made of.

Thus Air, Liquid Fuel, Monopropellant and Xenon are "game resources". Their chemistry don't matter unless you want a pseudo-chemistry minigame, which don't need to be realistic. Only fun an vaguely linked to the real concept.

I respectfully disagree.

Partly for the same reasons that Cpt Kipard brought up - using proper chemistry (or at least real-world analogous chemistry rather than Kethane/Karbonite style alchemy), won't make a lot of difference to the stock game but will make a considerable difference to the mods and modders. So if you can use real world chemistry, why bother inventing a bunch of made up resources.

The key word being "if you can use real world chemistry".

As said above, complexing game-logic only matter if the gameplay you are aiming for call for it, and if the system is compatible.

What you describe is basically a pseudo-chemistry minigame which, in my opinion isn' in the "Scope" of KSP.

What some people call "not terribly complicated" can still be seen as "terribly boring" by other, and pointless unless we where on a road to "realism" everything, which is not the case KSP isn't and will never be Orbiter 2.0.

Thus why I think we are better keeping the system simple. Some planet & asteroid have the resources, other don't, you need to design your rocket to make use of it without unbalancing the game or it looking unrealistic, that's all there is to it.

That was my humble opinion on the matter.

The developer have their plans, and right know they are seemingly thinking of "asteroid only" which don't sound satisfying for most.

[Nuke]

i dont mind some fudging in the chemistry as long as we dont do alchemy. i really dont care whether liquid fuel is hydrogen or kerosene or whether monoprop is hydrazine or peroxide and there is really only one thing xenon can be. i like location based resources with resource agnostic parts. i think it can be done with 3 maybe 4 parts tops (a drill for ground/asteroid, a pump for liquids, and intake for atmosphere, and possibly a scanner). if you stick a drill into the ground and if there is a particular resource there you get that resource. same for oceanic and atmospheric collectors, you get whatever its composition is. and you might need to power the thing differently based on what you find where.

[Capt Snuggler]

i think we should eliminate converters entirely. you drill for resources, what you get depends on where you drill.

I'm not so sure dude, that would make asteroids orbital gas stations or natural fuel tanks. I know I would have trouble suspending my disbelief.

I agree with KSK and Cpt. Kipard. Water and carbon would be my preferred raw base resources for LF/O production. the processing should be done in a separate "electrolyzer/processor" module with a sufficiently high mass to balance its high power. this way the heavy processor could be parked while the drilling craft (rover, probe whatever) can gather the raw resource. ether way, the its more versatile to have separate parts so the mass and energy consumption can be distributed as the player sees fit.

New Parts:

Core Sampler (Drill)* - collects soil/ice samples. I prefer "core sampler" to drill as it seems more science than industry

Sample Storage Unit/tanks* - stores raw resources. a kerbal could manually drop samples in (very time consuming). samples could also be converted in to science by processing in a lab or by returning them to Kerbin.

Atmospheric Collector - slowly collects gasses. I emphasize slowly.

Liquid Collector* collects liquid samples

Processor/Reactor/electrolyzer - Uses vast amounts of electricity to convert raw ingredient resources to fuel resources. This ONE part does all conversion. The output resource is selected as a tweakable.

*these parts have been requested for science gathering purposes for use on probes. these functions can already be performed by a Kerbal, just very slowly. the parts could also come in different sizes

Raw Resource Processing:

Water + electric charge = Hydrogen & Oxygen

CO2 + electric charge = Carbon & Oxygen

Secondary Processing:

Hydrogen + Carbon + electric charge = LF

Oxygen + electric charge = Oxidizer

Hydrogen + Oxygen + electric charge = Mono Propellant

Tertiary processing.

Oxygen/oxidizer + Hydrogen/LF* = electric charge/water/CO2*.

Oxidizer + electric charge = oxygen

the processor should have an auto setting as well so the player can set the order of priority for resource production. so your processor doesn't start converting all your oxygen in to oxidizer.

With the addition of life support you could also add a Botany Hab and atmosphere scrubber for additional processing:

Water + CO2 + electric charge = Snacks/Oxygen

Oxygen + Snacks + Kerbals + electric charge = Mission Days & CO2/Water/Carbon

Obviously the energy consumption rate is dependent on the conversion process being performed.

Just base it on reality because in this case its easier to understand. we know what water is. we know how electrolysis works. I didn't know that hydrogen peroxide can be used as mono propellant, but I converted electric charge + internet = knowledge!

I don't see the need in making funny names like "Oxium" and "propellium" just call it what it is.

*edit*

just wanted to add, ideas that look complex on paper are not always complex in practice. process can be explained visually to the player. also this process should be more complex as it is a late game feature.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Kegereneku]

Well, whether or not you want a pseudo-chemistry minigame, check the reason why the first resources system was scrapped to avoid the same error.

The resources being "more realist" wont necessarily solve the problem.

[CaptainKipard]

Yeah.... there's no chemistry minigames. It's all under the hood, as has been explained. I have no idea what you're reading, but it's not this thread. And I still have no idea what you're trying to say other than "I don't want it". You're providing rationalisations at best, not reasons. Please look into soundness and validity.

[Capt Snuggler]

Well, whether or not you want a pseudo-chemistry minigame, check the reason why the first resources system was scrapped to avoid the same error.

The resources being "more realist" wont necessarily solve the problem.

all I could find on the reason for scrapping it was "it wasn't fun". I would be very happy if some one could point me to a better explanation.

My main reason for pushing for realistically inspired resource systems is it just seems silly to do anything else. the player already has a foundation in these basics of chemistry. given the visuals in the game right now, its reasonable to assume that these same basic chemical processes are at play. why make the player start from scratch?

directly extracting fuel from space rocks implies that all space rocks are fuel. just drop one in the tank and off you go.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[KSK]

The key word being "if you can use real world chemistry".

As said above, complexing game-logic only matter if the gameplay you are aiming for call for it, and if the system is compatible.

What you describe is basically a pseudo-chemistry minigame which, in my opinion isn' in the "Scope" of KSP.

Uhh, not quite. What I described was a scheme for taking two harvestable materials and converting them into in-game resources via a system of black box parts. The chemistry, if you wanted to include it at all, would be entirely hidden. All the player needs to know is that if he/she harvests material x and dumps it into module y then Resource z comes out.

Gameplay wise it's merely a slightly more elaborate version of, for example, the kethane mod. One could call the harvestable materials anything at all; aqua and karbonite, Jeb's coffee and snackium - it wouldn't make any difference to stock gameplay. It's certainly not any sort of 'chemistry minigame'

However, using real world materials does give you the added bonus of a complete, self consistent chemistry framework that could be used to either build an expanded Stock resource system, if Squad saw fit (unlikely, since as you note, they scrapped their previous scheme for not being fun) or, more likely, implemented by mod. That mod would then hook neatly into a slew of other realism mods.

Edited November 21, 2014 by KSK

[Nuke]

I'm not so sure dude, that would make asteroids orbital gas stations or natural fuel tanks. I know I would have trouble suspending my disbelief.

I agree with KSK and Cpt. Kipard. Water and carbon would be my preferred raw base resources for LF/O production. the processing should be done in a separate "electrolyzer/processor" module with a sufficiently high mass to balance its high power. this way the heavy processor could be parked while the drilling craft (rover, probe whatever) can gather the raw resource. ether way, the its more versatile to have separate parts so the mass and energy consumption can be distributed as the player sees fit.

---snip---

this kind of makes me think of the downsides of kethane/karbonite/etc. half your ship needs to be mining hardware and intermediate resources require tankage. so you have a lot of dead weight to haul around, but you set it down in one spot and get everything you need there. my way of adding 4 parts and no new resources might seem a little too easy. i think it would be more fun to have to do a bunch of leg work on the planet's surface and integrating with science. on top of that i think it can be balanced out through resource distribution.

by limiting the availability of resources and force the player to go prospecting. you aren't told exactly where the resources are, you are only given an approximate location. and you might need to do science in that biome before your scanner can get a fix on resource zones located there. resource patches would be spawned in each zone, they would be of finite supply, but the more active planets/moons might respawn them. asteroids of course might only have a few patches on them, which are not replenished, so think of them more as a disposable fuel depot. also it would be rare to find resource patches that carry more than one resource, though you might find them on places like eve or tylo.

oceanic and atmospheric resources would be much more abundant (effectively infinite), but these are in areas which are much more difficult to get to. eve and kerbin would have the most abundant oceans, producing multiple resources (oxy/lf). laythe's should be a little less (perhaps being all hydrocarbons and no water to make oxygen). other planets may be introduced with ammonia lakes to make monopropellant. atmospheric resources would require flying around in an atmosphere. to collect xenon on duna might burn a lot of fuel. jool might be all lf and you can mine there by bringing oxidizer to maintain your speed.

the system would be easy to expand to do things like nuclear fuel, life support and off world bases. just add the resources to the system and they are spawned like the others in appropriate locations.

[Laie]

One could call the harvestable materials anything at all; [...]

However, using real world materials does give you the added bonus of a complete, self consistent chemistry framework that could be used

If you went with real-world chemistry, you don't have to think up your own numbers, but god forbid you make a mistake somewhere. I can already hear the clamor. Going with fantasy names gives squad (and everyone) the freedom do as they want, how things go together is merely a question good gameplay, and noone has any basis to raise an objection.

this kind of makes me think of the downsides of kethane/karbonite/etc. half your ship needs to be mining hardware and intermediate resources require tankage. so you have a lot of dead weight to haul around, but you set it down in one spot and get everything you need there. my way of adding 4 parts and no new resources might seem a little too easy.

Harverster that having a lot of things only provides the player with more opportunities to do it wrong. I heartily agree. If you want deadweight, just make your few parts heavier.

A problem that's still unresolved, IMO: how to balance the whole thing? Whether the mining equipment weighs three tons or thirty, there will always be an easy to determine point of breakeven when it's easier to load up on ISRU instead of bringing your own fuel.

[CaptainKipard]

If you went with real-world chemistry, you don't have to think up your own numbers, but god forbid you make a mistake somewhere. I can already hear the clamor.

You must be hearing things. Let's get something straight once and for all:

• Nobody seems to understand the current system. It's inconsistent. There is currently confusion.
  
• Many people here understand chemistry. It's all simple and logical, and if anyone has problems in the future it will be trivial to help them.
  

These are facts of the matter. There's nothing to debate here. All you can do with facts is draw conclusions from them, and the natural conclusion is that a minor redesign of the resources is in order. Let's move on.

Going with fantasy names gives squad (and everyone) the freedom do as they want,

Names have nothing to do with anything. They don't do anything. The underlying resources themselves is what needs fixing. Not in code. In the resource definitions, and engine (and other converters) consumption ratios.

You can call it unicornRainbowTears for all I care.

how things go together is merely a question good gameplay,

No there's more to it than that. It's clear if you've ever tried using custom resources in your mods side-by-side with stock resources. Getting modders together to use any kind standard is like herding cats. It will take Squad to fix things here.

and noone has any basis to raise an objection.

I deeeed it!

Edited November 22, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[pxi]

Yes I know time has moved on, but it is worth looking at the 'classic' KSP resource diagram for a second:

It's complicated for sure, contains debatable levels of fun, but it seems to be fairly well grounded in real-world chemistry.

Propellium - Hydrogen

Oxium - Oxygen

Nitronite - Nitrogen

Water

Blutonium - Plutonium

Intake Air

Hexagen - Carbon

Zeonium - Xenon

Although I can see logic in streamlining the original design, I still think there is huge merit in retaining the underlying process - at least in terms of the direction that we are handwaving.

Consider the idea of tangental learning: Would you prefer that KSP conveys the concept of ISRU in a way that is consistent with what is planned in the real world, or would you prefer alchemy?

[CaptainKipard]

According to this LiquidFuel is Liquid Hydrogen, and Oxidiser is Liquid Oxygen, which would be great, if it used correct numbers.

I worked out the volume ratios for a realistic reaction between LH2 and LO2 for the Skylon and if I did it right then the ratio is ~ 2.01:1, not 0.9:1.1, which you see in every engine.

The densities in ResourcesGeneric.cfg are also very wrong. E.g. LiqiuidFuel, Oxidiser and IntakeAir are all 0.005.

I don't see a whole lot wrong with that plan, except maybe it's a bit too complex. Some steps could be abstracted away, like the purifier, and some paths don't make a lot of sense like deriving purified water from nitrogen.

The dirt stuff is completely unnecessary.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Red Iron Crown]

I think it's a mistake to think of units of resources as volumes, things make more sense if they're masses. If you run the numbers that way, 9:11 is pretty close to correct for RP-1 and LO2.

[Brotoro]

The S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V (just to pick a LH₂/LOX stage at random) carried 252,750 liters of LH₂ and 73,280 liters of LOX... so a volume ratio of 3.45:1 (the mass ratio was 0.206:1). Liquid hydrogen is really bulky stuff. The volume ratio of the LH₂ to LOX tanks in the S-II second stage was more like 3.13:1 ...I assume because the S-IVB had to spend a few hours in orbit, so it needed more LH₂ because of the inevitable boil-off. Liquid Hydrogen is difficult to store for long periods.

The volume ratio of RP-1 to LOX used in the S-IC first stage was 0.59:1

[CaptainKipard]

I think it's a mistake to think of units of resources as volumes, things make more sense if they're masses.

Yes, maybe. As long as densities followed a real standard, mod makers would have little trouble working out the rough sizes for tanks.

The S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V ... carried

But to be clear, are you saying that those volumes were like this because of the difficulties of storing LH2?

Because I was talking about the ratio for engine consumption. If that's wrong then I must have gotten the densities wrong; I can't think where else I could have made a mistake.

You can check my calculations here.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Brotoro]

But to be clear, are you saying that those volumes were like this because of the difficulties of storing LH2?

Because I was talking about the ratio for engine consumption.

Yes, I am talking about volume ratios of fuel and oxidizer carried. Rocket engines do not necessarily use fuel and oxidizer at the ratios to result in 100% combustion -- they may run fuel- or oxidizer-rich for various reasons. I'm interested in realistic tank engineering here.

If we want to use liquid hydrogen as "liquid fuel," we are going to need MUCH larger tanks than we currently use in KSP.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Brotoro

[CaptainKipard]

Yes, I am talking about volume ratios of fuel and oxidizer carried. Rocket engines do not necessarily use fuel and oxidizer at the ratios to result in 100% combustion -- they may run fuel- or oxidizer-rich for various reasons. I'm interested in realistic tank engineering here.

Alright. What's the benefit for gameplay to have this simulated? As a modder and player I feel like that's going too far.

If we want to use liquid hydrogen as liquid fuel, we are going to need MUCH larger tanks than we currently use in KSP.

Some modders think LiquidFuel is something other than LH2. I can't remember what though. Kerosene?

[Brotoro]

If you want realistic chemistry, you should also keep in mind what that's going to do to our rocket engineering.

That's why I dislike the idea of "liquid fuel" being liquid hydrogen. Other fuels (kerosine, methane, UMDH/hydrazine) fit much better with the tanks we have been given... so any attempt to make realistic chemistry should be done with that in mind.

[Red Iron Crown]

Some modders think LiquidFuel is something other than LH2. I can't remember what though. Kerosene?

I believe the common thought is liquid fuel is close to RP-1 (which is pretty much kerosene), the small tank volumes, mass flow rates, and usability in jet engines implies it. The only evidence pointing to LH2 is the LV-N's high Isp when using it, but it mixes it with oxidizer so that number is inflated one way or the other.

[Brotoro]

Yes. But finding or manufacturing methane off-Kerbin is much more likely than finding or making kerosene, so I prefer to think in terms of methane. In the near future, Space-X will be using methane to fuel some of its rockets.

[CaptainKipard]

If you want realistic chemistry, you should also keep in mind what that's going to do to our rocket engineering.

Ok, that doesn't answer the question, and it's a slippery slope argument in addition to that.

[Brotoro]

Ok, that doesn't answer the question, and it's a slippery slope argument in addition to that.

Not slippery at all. My position is: Come up with the most "realistic" chemistry that fits what SQUAD has given to us in the game. Liquid Hydrogen as "liquid fuel" is NOT a good fit. Methane is better. Only mildly cryogenic...can be used in rocket engines...can be used in jet engines...and the high dead-weight of our tanks in KSP compared to real life makes holding methane/LOX for extended periods more reasonable. Given that, make the chemistry fit. DON'T start with 'Well, obviously, liquid fuel is liquid hydrogen'... because that won't fit what we see.

The order of importance of realism in KSP is (in my opinion)...

1) Orbital mechanics (patched conics is good enough)

2) Rocket engineering (realistic ISPs and engine performance)

3) Other Engineering (the sizes and masses and strengths of parts should be reasonable)

4) Space Science (realistic values for things we measure in SPAAAACE and on planets/moons)

5) Chemistry (build to fit the more important items)

[CaptainKipard]

You still haven't answered the question, and now you've moved on to other issues, so I guess you've changed your mind. That's fine.

I agree with your list, but I don't think it's meaningful to rank the items in it. It's all important in different ways.

[Brotoro]

I'm not sure what question you mean. Please re-ask your question.

I don't think I'm moving on to other issues. You were talking about liquid fuel being hydrogen (you certainly aren't the first one to do so, so I'm not picking on you in particular about this...but that's where I came into this today). I posted some information about real-life liquid hydrogen rockets (propellant volume and mass ratios) to point out that there is more to rocket engineering that calculating the ratio of propellant to oxidizer for complete combustion (such as extra fuel being needed to cool parts of the engine, or protect its surfaces with soot in low-chamber-pressure RP-1 engines, or decrease the atomic weight of the exhaust for better efficiency...so LH₂ engines are run fuel-rich, if I recall correctly).

I don't think it's a good idea to try to make liquid fuel be liquid hydrogen because it doesn't fit with the masses and sizes of the tanks in KSP. That is the point I'm trying to make. That's what all my posts today have been in aid of. Sorry if I'm not being clear here.

[Brotoro]

Oh... and Red Iron Crown has been pushing the idea that liquid fuel is RP-1 based upon in-game data ...and while that is TRUE (heck, the old Mk-1 liquid fuel tanks even said "kerosene" on them), I would prefer we use methane as our liquid fuel because it is more likely to be found in space than kerosene, and is possible to make on other planets (by techniques discussed in Zubrin's Mars Direct plan). It's a realistic fuel, and will make future real-world plans to exploit methane as a fuel made on Mars make more sense to the people who learn about it playing KSP.

So: GO METHANE!

Edited November 22, 2014 by Brotoro