Prevent Impossible Contracts

[r_rolo1]

Well, as I said this week to a streamer that got the same issue, this is not SQUAD fault, while it's true that the devs here are guilty of both corner cutting ( by using crew capacity alone to determine if a part is avaliable for the rescue contract ) and by, in this case , not providing the modders tools to deal with this issue... well, the modder was ( or should be ) well aware of those limitations when he created the parts, I assume ( being the modder in question Roverdude  ), so he chose to put parts that would give problems in his mod. 

That said, and again, if you ask me if I think SQUAD "solution" here is a good one ... well, it reminds me of the warnings of my programming teachers of almost 20 years ago to always check if your checks are being done on the right variables ( and also to never use magic numbers, another thing that SQUAD does a lot ). If a part realistically requires both crew capacity and a way of getting out for a contract to be fulfilled ( barring some dubious Klaw usage ), the code should check for those two things, not only one

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, tater said:

All stock parts with crew have hatches.

Yes I know. That's possibly an issue I would take up with Squad regarding the fun vs. realism equation - how many 'hatches' do u think the ISS has? Or the Space Shuttle? Or a Soyuz capsule? I'd really like to see a lot more crewable parts with a lot fewer hatches, because IRL choosing and placing your airlocks is kinda a big deal for space vehicle engineers. I guess that explains the angle I'm taking on this.

I guess I'd like to see airlock parts that allow EVAs and 'non-airlock' hatches elsewhere, e.g. cockpits. That way you have a choice of depressurising the whole cabin (e.g. Mk 1 Cockpit/Pod) vs using an additional structural part. I guess there's still an argument here for having hatches on most crewable parts, but IRL that's not the case.

In fact, now I think about it, why aren't the connector roundels (e.g. on top of the LanderCan) all treated and used as hatches if they're not attached to another part?

Getting off topic tho. Sorry for stream of thought, been a long weekend.

[Alshain]

@The_Rocketeer That, however, is an entire system overhaul.  While the idea certainly has merit and has been discussed here before, the question is of the existing contract system is broken.  The answer is, the contract system works fine if you don't install mods, which means it isn't broken.  If you install a mod that doesn't play by the stock rules, then it is the responsibility of the mod.

[John JACK]

11 hours ago, tater said:

Rescues should have various parameters. Dock and refuel might be one. Another might be to repair something. A lander might be stranded with insufficient dv to reach orbit, then you can either transfer fuel, or rescue the crew. There are many options that would make them more interesting.

That would be perfect. But harder than both curing cancer and calculating dV. Great idea for a mod, though. With crowd-sourced ships.

As for life support. LS mods may modify stranded parts and kerbals to have full or partial supplies, instead exactly zero. Or provide option to remove that contracts at all due to impossibility.

3 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

how many 'hatches' do u think the ISS has? Or the Space Shuttle? Or a Soyuz capsule?

Not zero, and often more than one? Every spaceship has some kind of hatch (because how do people get inside?), that can be opened after venting air. That may cripple a ship ­— but it is broken anyway.

Ingame Claw just dock two ships in one. Like docking port that can be "docked" to anything. You than may transfer resources, including kerbals through all new ship.
Realistic explanation may be just cutting a hole in a wall. Or that kerbals can turn to green jelly and squeeze through thinnest pipes to other cabins.

[The_Rocketeer]

8 hours ago, John JACK said:

Not zero, and often more than one? Every spaceship has some kind of hatch (because how do people get inside?), that can be opened after venting air. That may cripple a ship ­— but it is broken anyway.

I know I sometimes come across as being a bit thick, but I do realise that spacecraft have hatches. My point is that true airlocks are big and heavy, whereas KSP hatches are just a designated area of the external hull (usually with corresponding interior textures) that clearly aren't big enough for the gubbins of a proper airlock. Now, depressurising the whole cabin is fine, but there's no system in KSP to mark a cabin as depressurised, and if u leave on Kerb indoors while one goes EVA, the indoor one doesn't just die. Therefore some sort of strange magic is at work in stock KSP regarding hatches. This is the issue I am raising.

My impression of the rescue contracts is that they're supposed to seem like a mission-gone-wrong - you only ever see a single crewed part, not a whole craft, suggesting that it has become detached from something bigger. If the mission has gone wrong, who says the part they happened to be inside when it went wrong had an airlock? If it didn't, who says that the hatch hasn't been obstructed by debris/opens inwards/some other reason for not being able to exit that way? Who says that explosive depressurisation is going to be survivable for a Kerb? I much prefer the idea that, whatever the situation, you work around it. If TAC LS makes it impossible to do that because the Kerb will be dead first, that's just a more realistic outcome for that situation than Stock offers.

If realism isn't your cup of tea, why in Kraken's name are you playing with TAC LS?!

P.S. At least with KAS/KIS you can RP that necessary tools/parts and some time was spent working on the craft to make it possible to get the Kerb out somehow.

[Plusck]

52 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I know I sometimes come across as being a bit thick, but I do realise that spacecraft have hatches. My point is that true airlocks are big and heavy, whereas KSP hatches are just a designated area of the external hull (usually with corresponding interior textures) that clearly aren't big enough for the gubbins of a proper airlock. Now, depressurising the whole cabin is fine, but there's no system in KSP to mark a cabin as depressurised, and if u leave on Kerb indoors while one goes EVA, the indoor one doesn't just die. Therefore some sort of strange magic is at work in stock KSP regarding hatches. This is the issue I am raising.

To me, there is no problem. All Kerbals go to space wearing a space suit and with their helmet in their hands. If they get into a command pod, they put their helmets on. If they go into another crewed part, they stow their helmets.

There isn't an airlock on any of the crewed parts in KSP. There isn't space for one on anything but the MPL, maybe the Mk3 command pod. To go outside, everybody puts their helmets on and they depressurize the part.

Therefore, not putting a hatch on a mod part is a serious error - because there is no way of getting the Kerbal into the part to start with. A hatch is not an airlock - it is how you get in or out.

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, Plusck said:

To go outside, everybody puts their helmets on and they depressurize the part.

I don't buy this at all. Granted certain parts it makes a sense (Mk 1 Command Pod, ok), but considering the part in question is AN INFLATABLE GREENHOUSE, no sir.

[tater]

3 hours ago, Plusck said:

Therefore, not putting a hatch on a mod part is a serious error - because there is no way of getting the Kerbal into the part to start with. A hatch is not an airlock - it is how you get in or out.

This. If there is no hatch, there is no point of entry at all, it's hermetically sealed.

[John JACK]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

AN INFLATABLE GREENHOUSE

It's a mod part, not a stock game part.

As far as I know, even inflatable modules are not one-layer balloons that hold a form only by internal pressure. They are more like bouncy castles, holding shape because pressure between two wall layers. Inside space may be pressurized or depressurized without deflating everything. Plants may die, but it's an emergency. When greenhouse is a part of functioning base, hatch is blocked by access tunnel and kerbals can't go outside anyway.

And even real spacecraft do not need "true" airlocks all the time. Voskhod had an light inflatable airlock, so one man can exit it without venting whole capsule. Though other was helmeted anyway — just in case. Soyuz use an orbital module for an airlock. ISS has some small modules that can be used as airlock among other functions. Even if Apollo crew felt a need for spacewalk, they could depressurize attached lander.

[Plusck]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I don't buy this at all. Granted certain parts it makes a sense (Mk 1 Command Pod, ok), but considering the part in question is AN INFLATABLE GREENHOUSE, no sir.

So to be realistic in use you'd need to add a service tunnel. No doubt about that.

I was just looking at the .cfg files and also the cutaway views for stock parts. Looking at the .cfg didn't help at all, however I was surprised to see that no stock parts have an airlock with the exception of the cupola module. For some reason it, and it alone, does actually have an airlock.

[goldenpsp]

I disagree with anyone saying this isn't a squad issue.  It squarely is in Squad's hands.  To illustrate, let's look at another squad stock feature,  IRSU.  Squad added Ore and all the bits to mine it etc.  They also made this IRSU system extendable, so mod developers could add resources and leverage the stock system to mine it etc.  HOWEVER, if a modder adds a resource to their mod, the stock drill does not automatically become able to mine that material.  The ability for the drill to mine another resource has to be explicitly added by the modder.

Similarily, in my opinion the stock contract system should default to using stock parts only.  This includes rescue contracts as well as part test contracts and so forth.  Then there should be some sort of variable that can be explicitly added to a parts config file that would allow modders to flag a part that is appropriate to be used for contracts.

This would fix all kinds of wonky contracts that can sprout up using modded parts that cannot be completed.

[tater]

The ISRU contracts are 99% absurd (probably 100%, but maybe I haven't seen all of them). Any contracts to move ore from one place to another... boggles the mind.

[goldenpsp]

21 minutes ago, tater said:

The ISRU contracts are 99% absurd (probably 100%, but maybe I haven't seen all of them). Any contracts to move ore from one place to another... boggles the mind.

Well honestly many of the contracts are absurd in general.  Not sure the relevance of that to this thread though.

[tater]

^^^True, not impossible, just stupid. I guess since "stupidity" is a thing in KSP, I need not be diplomatic, and I should rate my assessments in "stupidity."  

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, goldenpsp said:

Well honestly many of the contracts are absurd in general.  Not sure the relevance of that to this thread though.

I agree. They are waaaaay too random. I usually end up spending too much time in Mission Control because I try to filter out all those dumb contracts that I'm not even interested in. I wish KSP had some sort of filtering system, or programs to be chosen in the Admin Building instead of strategies.

I would post my thread with suggested solutions here, but you guys are probably already fed up with it since I try to promote it everywhere all the time.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Veeltch

[goldenpsp]

5 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I agree. They are waaaaay too random. I usually end up spending too much time in Mission Control because I try to filter out all those dumb contracts that I'm not even interested in. I wish KSP had some sort of filtering system, or programs to be chosen in the Admin Building instead of strategies.

I would post my thread with suggested solutions here, but you guys are probably already fed up with it since I try to promote it everywhere all the time.

Yea pretty much.  To swing it back on topic of sorts for this thread though, I would reiterate that IMO contracts should be built around stock, and default to only using stock parts.  And then there should be a flag that a modder can put in their part configs to flag a part as available for contracts should that modder deem the part appropriate for contracts.

[Festivejelly]

Use KIS and slap on a docking port

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, Festivejelly said:

Use KIS and slap on a docking port

Oh wow. I live in a fractal pattern!