Cdr_Zeta

Resource Question: Why ORE !?

Recommended Posts

Greetings,

So I am working on resource implentation for all the BIOMES, Planets, Moons, in KSP, OPM, maybe one or 2 extra planets/moons for OPM.

We are using STOCK resource generation now, and only basic resource implementation is provided.

This game is going places, but players such as myself and modders especially make it go further.

A premise or 2 for resources in this game is to add realism or extra challenges; survival, building things in space, like more spacecraft !

So I was thinking..."ORE??" Scan and drill for ore and convert it to rocketparts; there are mods that get into this, some of which are either pretty basic and others which involve a level of logistical thinking that boggles the mind !

Well since we are going down this wabbit hole, why 'ORE' now?

Let us drop ORE and define the basic metals needed to build spaceships and provide survival needs (the survival needs are provided by chemicals to grow hydroponically for example and are pretty straight forward; however even here...); in drilling for basic metals, we also get rock which contains limited amounts of various chemicals; carbon for one.

We could even have silicon.

In some of my processes I use 'chemicals' as a broad term for needed extras to complete water purification for example.

There may be some chemicals, like liquid chlorine, I use to clean water; we could get this and remove the chemicals if we wanted; we could be more specific in our processes.

ORE is not very specific. There are many kinds of ORE (and some drillable materials that are not ORE): iron, bauxite, gold, etc.

Rocketparts would then be replaced by iron, aluminum, gold...yes there is a rabbit hole here; why not start diggin !

There probly isnt much ore out there to build spaceships with; maybe some planets/moons have alot of a specific material though.

We could use iron altho it is very heavy; we can make steel or alloys in processes to make the materials less dense.

I am going to drop ORE completely from the resources list !!

Where ever it is used I am going to simply replace the process with an alloy !

I havnt a clue what the best space ship material is; so I am going for an alloy; I note that a material called karborundum is out there; I dont like how it is probly implemented; it sounds like one of the hardest materials out there (and less dense too I think) called carborundum; this could be an endgame material.

Metals could have a shelf life; after a certain amount of time it succombs to raditiation leakage; the parts have to be salvaged.

The only problem is the resources dont deplete as far as I know.

I opt for dropping ORE as a resource material for building anything, but maybe leaving it for the primary source game resource.

The new resource system now shows percentages of any resource so why have ORE (from a 'vet game player's' point of view).

An easy option would be to drill for ORE and have processes extract the materials based on the presence of the resource on the planet/moon (!); well I just had this thought now!

Say we scan for ORE and other materials; say bauxite is at 5%; this would mean we have a 5% extraction rate of Bauxite from ORE; or we drill specifically from Bauxite present on the planet/moon.

Do we keep the ORE and extract material presence in it (more processes code), or do we mine for specific materials? Looks like mining for specific materials is better as it drops out one process.

So I am dropping ORE as a drilled resource...what do you think !?

Commander Zeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather see a generic "ore" (or even "metal") as an unspecified material that is extracted and used to make rocket parts (for use in KIS/KAS, ELP, etc.) and something else (water?) to be refined into rocket fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because this is KSP and we can't have nice things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ore" sounds like a good match for the game that just has generic "fuel" for all ships.  Multiple disparate minable resources sounds like a good match for the game that has liquid O2, liquid H2, peroxide, hydrazine, aero50, etc etc.  Maybe you ought to propose this idea over in the RSS/RO/RP-0 threads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason the game is simplified is because Squad originally aimed the game at beginners. Too much complexity and newbies would face a steep learning curve which might turn them away. That's what mods are for. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

I agree on the simplicity part; probly best to keep the ORE as is; at least it is setup for players to expand with MODS and do pretty much whatever they want.

I am also questioning realism in KSP per se; I play a realistic game, but not use real fuels (dont know much about them) nor do I use the Real Solar System; tried it once with stock; epic fail !

I dont want to get into RSS or move away from KSP Stock too much but add realism to it; I suppose it adds challenge to a resource game while making the space game easy.

Also ORE is already generic for making rocket parts in Extra Planetary Launchpads isnt it? I know STOCK ISRU (?) converts it to liquid fuel and oxidizer; yes this is a start for new players; and I havnt looked at the weight changing with fuel depletion versus D/V etc if they have that working.

So I guess there are different levels of game play in KSP which makes it nice...I guess it was probly a moot question but thanks for the replies !

Commander Zeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a chart out there (I don't have it handy) showing all the resources - over a dozen - that were going to be implemented, and how they interacted.

This is what we got, and it's almost entirely (as I understand it) the work of one modder who got invited to join the team and make a form of his mod stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way KSP is relatively simple and therefore easy(ish) for new players to pick up, and then add mods as you get more experienced.

USI Kolonization adds in a whole manufacturing chain with about a dozen resources based on mining for minrals, metallic ore, substrate and water, which sounds great (not tried it yet) but would probably be a bit daunting for a new player.

Edited by RizzoTheRat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 'simplistic' nature of 'ore' as the only mineable resource.  It introduces the concept of mining 'stuff' and converting into other 'useful stuff', and for the 'stock' game it is IMO the right way to go.

Likewise,  if life support were to become  a stock feature I would favour a single 'LS' resource over a more complex system.

I see the basic 'stock' game as sort of an introduction to the complexities of spaceflight. By adding a simple ISRU system players are introduced to the issue of needing to think about it and plan accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the notion of just having one mineable resource, but if it's a resource we can use to make rocket fuel, "ore" doesn't seem like the right name for it. We don't make rocket fuel from ore; we make metal from ore. We make rocket fuel from... water, yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only similarity the KSP universe has to our own is the gravity physics. This game has a long ways to go before it can be considered a science simulator. Although it would be nice if, someday, enough of the core workings could be exposed to modders to make it accurate from a chem/bio standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ore" is just a name given to an abstract resource from which we can refine the other abstract resources called "liquid fuel", "oxidizer", and "monopropellant". They could have called it "Steve" or "tree" or anything else. "Ore" is just a fitting name for a generic raw material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jonrd463 said:

"Ore" is just a name given to an abstract resource from which we can refine the other abstract resources called "liquid fuel", "oxidizer", and "monopropellant". They could have called it "Steve" or "tree" or anything else. "Ore" is just a fitting name for a generic raw material.

Drilling for 50 units of Steve just doesn't sound right; I think I can live with ore :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to replace ore by actual elements like iron, aluminum, carbon, etc., where do you want to stop? The periodic table has 118 elements (still counting).
Let's say you select about one or two dozens of the most important ones. If you combine them your can create numerous alloys, composite materials, etc.. The question is again, where do you want to stop?
To create the materials you need new parts. How many should there be (you obviously need several because a smelter can't produce carbon fiber)?

These are rhetoric questions. The point is adding several new "ores" can quickly make the system too complex.


The original idea for ISRU was to have about a dozen minerals, fluids, etc. which need to be mined, distilled, smelted, etc. The KSP devs scrapped them because it was too tedious, too complex -> not fun.

Spoiler

08hdJyj.png

 

Edited by *Aqua*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the "ore" system.  It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that for a vanilla game.

Adding new resources is actually alarmingly simple.  Editing your ISRU to use different resources is also alarmingly simple.  Editing your ISRU so you actually have 5 different variations of the same part (each specialized for certain materials) is also alarmingly simple.  I'm sure there are guides that explain it for you, but if not I can give you a quick run-down of how it's done.

It actually is not all that difficult to implement the above posted chart: it just requires a ton of different parts and resources.  If you don't mind all the converter parts looking the same, you can re-use the ISRU with new values, and rather easily.  Adding resources is even easier than that.

Edited by Slam_Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurs to me, if we ever get ISRU working in real life, we *want* it to work on any old rock as far as possible! "Ore" is about right. And pretty much any rock is going to contain oxygen, silicon, and assorted metals especially aluminium - those are the elements minerals are made up of. Hydrogen may be the "problem" element but there are places with it.

On Earth we don't get aluminium out of feldspar or water out of serpentine because that would be incredibly energy-intensive and there are better ways to do it with specifically chosen ores. But on an early colony on another planet? We're gonna use what's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cantab said:

It occurs to me, if we ever get ISRU working in real life, we *want* it to work on any old rock as far as possible! "Ore" is about right. And pretty much any rock is going to contain oxygen, silicon, and assorted metals especially aluminium - those are the elements minerals are made up of. Hydrogen may be the "problem" element but there are places with it.

Aside from large Lunar proposals that rely on proximity to Earth, most serious ISRU proposals depend on atmospheric products, sometimes combined with resources that are brought along.  Drilling is only considered when there is a very high chance that the target location has near-surface ice because drills are heavy.

KSP's resource extraction is highly unrealistic.  It may be similar to certain Lunar proposals but that's about it.  Resource extraction on the order of some of KSP's pie-in-the-sky mods would require orbital and surface prospecting, trained geologists, heavy equipment (a lot of fuels require very power and heat intensive production methods), reactor-level power, lots of infrastructure, things like that.  You don't just plop down a drill any-ole-where and refuel; you need to mind where you're going and have the right equipment.  In the toy solar system, that's easy.  In our own, not so much.

That is not to say humans won't get there, but it's not going to look anything like KSP, and it most certainly won't be some generic "Ore".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the abstraction, it's right in line with the rest of KSP's level in my opinion. Additional complications in my view are unnecessary for stock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pandaman said:

...Likewise,  if life support were to become  a stock feature I would favour a single 'LS' resource over a more complex system....

Snacks! (by tgruetzm)

Kind of like this? The resource is called snacks and every kerbal in space eats one snack every day...if his ship has no snacks, then you lose rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal preference is for USI Life Support (I like the greenhouse modules and the supplies/mulch/fertilizer resource cycle), but I do think that if life support is ever added to stock, the relevant resource must be named "snacks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I rather like USI's Nutritional Organic Meal Supplements.  Can't beat a good acronym.

Share this post


Link to post
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.