Ore drilling/fuel refining in 1.0 : a built-in cheat, or not a cheat?

[Frozen_Heart]

Would it be considered "cheating" if NASA were to use the Mun to mine helium-3 and aluminium? Or perhaps the plan to mine a captured asteroid once we get one around the Earth is also cheating? Is the proposed Mars Direct mission cheating as well for using the atmosphere of Mars to produce methane-based fuel? Just because no space program has yet done something does not mean it's cheating. If that were the case, you'd have to toss the RAPIER engine in the pile too.

^This. ISRU is something that is regularly proposed and will probably one day happen in real life, even if its only a small scale test. Is it cheating if humans start mining other places for fuel?

[Renegrade]

So, I'm watching the livestream on KSPTV where they're showing off 1.0.

Roninpawn just demonstrated in-situ mining, using drill/refinery parts on minmus to generate fuel out of "ore" (basically, out of nothing if you're landed and have done a little prep work).

Am I the only one who sees this as basically cheating?

I mean, I can see it adding another element to the game and simplifying refueling out around Jool instead of sending tankers, but it just seems like cheating/nerfing to me. Dramatically reduces the difficulty of things like the "Jool 5 challenge" and so on.

Thoughts?

ISRU is a real-world thing, on the level of NTRs (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) like the LV-N. Nobody's ever flown an NTR on any sort of mission, they've only been ground tested (and only the first generation of NTRs in the US were ever tested, the later, more advanced units were not even built and existed soley on paper). Similarly, although people have made experimental ISRU (In-Situ Resource Usage) devices, they have also not flown.

We've been using on-Earth ISRU for millions of years (do you think proto-hominids flew in basic flint tools from a Mars-based space program's MSC?). It's a real thing.

Unlike reaction wheels and ion engines. Real life reaction wheels are about 20,000x weaker than the KSP version and have saturation issues (CMGs are about a thousand times stronger than a reaction wheel, but they have the same saturation issues and are still *20 times* weaker than KSP reaction wheels on a torque/mass basis. That's why I'm always laughing when I see someone put a tower of the 2.5m wheels on something). Real life ion engines are 8,500x weaker (for next-generation designs that have not yet flown, it's about four times worse for ones that have flown) in an absolute sense. A real life ion has the equivalent thrust of holding up 0.5 to 2 sheets of heavy-duty laser printer paper in Earth's gravity. Micronewtons, not KILOnetwons. Also solar panels should only be producing a tiny trickle at Jool, not 50%.

(Also note that no manned ship/capsule has reaction wheels or CMGs in real life. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Space Shuttle, Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, etc, all use various RCS systems for orientation in space(sometimes even just cold-gas RCS, like the early Russian pods or SpaceShipOne), and thrust vectoring/vernier engines/tailfins for orientation during ascent)

So really, I wouldn't worry about ISRU as cheating, considering all command pods have built-in, utterly fake, massive cheats automatically.

As for IRSU being massively simplified vs. real life systems, consider that the simplification is on the same level as the rest of KSP. LiquidFuel and Oxidizer? Unlimited current 100% efficient batteries? Unlimited life support endurance? No radiation?

Anyhow, any challenge that doesn't want ISRU (although they should really be prohibiting NTRs before ISRU) can simply say, "no ISRU". Not a big hurdle to overcome, just seven little characters..

[pandaman]

Is it cheating? IMO no.

It did look from some of the previews that ore is possibly over abundant, but the only frame of reference we have atm is the intensity of the colours on the images shown. Difficulty slider aside, it may be harder to extract and process than it appears.

Maybe the 'default' slider position should be lower, time will tell and that's an easy fix anyway.

I am looking forward to the extra game play options it gives me.

[Torham234]

Luckily, real life doesn't think of it as cheating.

[Dakota2063]

From my understanding of how the system works (I have been excited about it's inclusion for some time now.) Each Bio will randomly generate how dense the ore is in any area. This coupled with a slider for how common the resource is can leave many places with low to no ore. The lower the ore concentration, the higher the effort is to pull it out, as the energy requirements to pull it out from a 1% spot or an 8% will not change, just the amount pulled. The equipment is also heavy and needs a very energy rich system to work off of in order to keep running. That means lots of batteries and solar panels as well. The overall amount of investment into using the ISRU is equal to or greater then actually sending up a fuel tanker, or bringing that amount of extra fuel with you to begin with. (obviously more complex missions will actually profit from this in the long run.) Not to mention very time consuming (though time warp and background processing removes the tedium.)

Having used Kethane, and Karbonite, I can honestly say that circumstances will be the greatest determining factor in whether you will even use the system, as it's not going to be the infinite fuel source people think that it is. You are infact trading several resources for a different set. Is it a simple system? Yes, but making it needlessly complex adds nothing to the experience, and would put off most players to that experience. However, if you like complexity, there are mods that can add that complexity to the system, including making the deposited limited in amount that can be harvested. (Again, something Roverdude has mentioned about the openess of the system.) Is the name ore a little confusing and silly? Yes. Though given some of the other options, ore seems like a general enough name that most people will recognize. I simply look at it as I do kethane or Karbonite, It's an unrefined fuel source that needs a process to make it usable, so names don't really mater. (And again, the resource is easily modifiable via a .cfg edit if you must have a different name.)

I honestly think it is as difficult to utilize as Karbonite, with fewer pieces (only a 2.5m converter.) yet simple to use. I don't think this could have been implement in any other way and be satisfying. I like that I have to set up a specific orbit to get information, but don't have to timewarp and not play just to discover the resources. I also like the concept that as you get more narrow fields of scanners, you get more accurate information. I look forward to adding it to my bases and give them a real reason to exist as anything more then contract fodder.

[Temeter]

If one were to accept that cheating is only defined by each player by his or her self, then the question, "is this cheating?" is indeed not a valid one to begin with.

The fact that someone has asked "is this cheating?" implies that there is an objective way to measure it, that there is a standard against which to measure it, and I argue that the standard is the official ruleset, which is defined by the game developer.

IMO, that pretty much sums up every "cheating?" thread I've ever seen on this forum.

Of course, that is what I ment with sterile ruleset. The game mechanics clearly include ressources, so it's not a cheat by game rule definition. Strictly cheating would be a unlimited fuel hack, the ingame cheat menu, or an obvious exploit (most famously infiniglide).

That is a kinda obvious and bland explanation, though, nothing really to discuss about. I assume OP is asking if ressource mining means 'cheating yourself', e.g. making the game less fun, degrading the learning experience, which means actually judging the game mechanics on a personal level. Which is actually an interesting idea, while cheating threads usually go into the completely wrong direction and argue about the nature of cheating (i'm obviously not innocent).

As said, I don't see it as cheating. It takes effort, planning and specialized construction. Most notably, the incredibly eficient mothership/lander design won't really work with ISRU. Or you will need giant fuel depots/refineries capable of landing on low-grav worlds. Which is around as time consuming and slightly more complex than large refueling missions. There is already a way of getting 'unlimited fuel', during lategame you will have enough money to actually send lots of fuel ships around without any real limitation. And ISRU is, in my opinion, a much more fun way of refueling, aside from adding a completely new and versatile gameplay mechanic.

That's why I think ressource mining will clearly add to the game. It's on the 2nd last node in career, so it doesn't even save you doing conventional rocket stuff.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Temeter

[vfernandez84]

For some people the usage of atomic engines could be seen as cheating because, you know, double ISP than the other engines...

At the end I think this is a very personal thing.

If you don't like the current status of the system you could set the resource avaliability to 10% on the difficulty settings, forcing you to really pinpoint the landing area (not that easy unless you use certain mods).

Or maybe just don't use the ISRU at all.

I mean, how hard can be just create a subclass of the jool-5 thing banning the use of any resource extraction?

[Daze]

1) I don't think it's a cheat. It's a new feature, if you don't like it don't use it.

2) To make it more balanced i would love to see some kind of Life Support into the game, so mining for 3 months instead of 10 days has a cost

[m4inbrain]

That's what i think, too. It might be "strong", but if it turns out too strong and you don't like it - simply don't use it. The Alt F12 Menu is a "built in cheat" as well.

That's the beauty of singleplayer-games. Who cares.

edit: to point that out: the ISRU stuff is not implemented in a way that you actually need it. It's not a requirement for anything, it's just an addition. That's why i don't really understand the discussion.

[GoSlash27]

I don't think it's a cheat at all. It will just change the logistics of the game; trading one fuel distribution network for a different one. I'm looking forward to solving the problem.

I think I heard that the drilling sites never run out of fuel. Does anybody else know whether this is true or not?

Best,

-Slashy

[m4inbrain]

IIRC (don't quote me on it), i've read in this forum that asteroids have finite ressources, so i assume that goes for planetary bodies as well.

[Temeter]

I don't think it's a cheat at all. It will just change the logistics of the game; trading one fuel distribution network for a different one. I'm looking forward to solving the problem.

I think I heard that the drilling sites never run out of fuel. Does anybody else know whether this is true or not?

Best,

-Slashy

If it uses the system of Karbonite (which seems to be the case). Karbonite had unlimited resources everywhere, and only the percentage changed.

Which leads to the issue where you can even land on a low yield area and just timewarp for a few weeks to get full tanks.

IIRC (don't quote me on it), i've read in this forum that asteroids have finite ressources, so i assume that goes for planetary bodies as well.

Yep, maxmaps said asteroids have finite resources. I don't think that'll be implemented in stock ksp tho.

[andruszkow]

Problem with this discussion is as always, that you can only ask this question if there's a set way of playing this game. And there isn't. These discussions are silly really, unless the topic of debate were something along the lines of "Which way of playing KSP do you enjoy the most?".

With all these silly "balancing" and "realism" demands, we will in the end, get a game with 3000 sliders to adjust "difficulty" or "realism" or "how correct do you want to play KSP?" settings.

As always, if it's silly to you, don't use it.

[SkyRex94]

Well it seems fine for me.

Huge amounts of electricity are needed, you can adjust the amount in difficulties, and you can't just timewarp to infinity,because i'm sure asteroids willl be limited and on planets you have to have enough electricity to bridge the night as it seems the drill turns itself off as soon as it rans out of energy.

Fine for me so far

cheers

[m4inbrain]

As i said, my opinion on that is, since one doesn't need to use the ISRU stuff, who cares. It'd be different if all the engines suddenly go to 4000 ISP, because you actually need to use them, but that's not the case. I certainly will use it, because i think it's awesome - especially with TAC LS it'll be fun. At least i'm hoping.

[SelectHalfling0]

You can reduce the # of minerals in the game options tab. I'll probably play with 50% (that should make it so there are only isolated pockets).

[Caelib]

It's not cheating if it's physics/science when NASA is trying to do the same thing right now.

[SelectHalfling0]

Watching a stream, it seems that to avoid spending years filling up your tanks, you have to mine in areas where the percentage is very high (which restricts your landing locations greatly).

[Torham234]

Watching a stream, it seems that to avoid spending years filling up your tanks, you have to mine in areas where the percentage is very high (which restricts your landing locations greatly).

Yeah, and it seems the ore depletes under the craft, so its not infinite. You have to keep repositioning the drilling platform. I think its quite balanced, the 2% concentration refilled about 20 units of fuel before depleting the ore under the craft. That is not cost effective by any means, since the refinery and all the drilling equipment is really heavy.

[RoverDude]

The ore does not deplete. What you probably saw with that streamer is the efficiency dropping as the drill overheated. Poor deposits are NOT fun

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

This is one of the very rare occasions when I agree with the Term "If you dont like it, dont use it".

KSP always gave you the freedom to do whatever you want and I refused to fully upgrade the Tracking Station to get rid of annoying Asteroids flying around.

Not that I dont like the asteroid-capture-feature but I didnt feel the need to have them in my game at all.

If you dont like the Idea of ISRU's just dont use them in your install and go the planets the old fashioned way.

But keep in mind, that exoplanetary refueling is a real-world-topic and it "hopefully" will find some application in the future.

Maybe just for lifesupport, but if you have water and sunlight you are not far away from producing hydrogen and oxygen

[GoSlash27]

Watching a stream, it seems that to avoid spending years filling up your tanks, you have to mine in areas where the percentage is very high (which restricts your landing locations greatly).

SelectHalfling,

Do you remember which stream you saw this in? My gameplan is going to depend on whether or not resources deplete.

Thanks,

-Slashy

[Temeter]

Yeah, and it seems the ore depletes under the craft, so its not infinite. You have to keep repositioning the drilling platform. I think its quite balanced, the 2% concentration refilled about 20 units of fuel before depleting the ore under the craft. That is not cost effective by any means, since the refinery and all the drilling equipment is really heavy.

Then it's actually properly balanced. Not sure if for the best, but proper.

[RoverDude]

For clarity. Ore does not deplete. See comment above

[Temeter]

Ah thanks, that was the on post i missed.^^

Nice. There are just too many variables: I once build a 2k ton vtol that could land and start of mars including mining equipment. Can't balance that kind of stuff against a reasonable mining ship.