Sign in to follow this  
DocMoriarty

Convert-O-Tron 125 Balance Total Nonsense

Recommended Posts

The current parameters set on the small ISRU unit are total nonsense. The small ISRU uses 5x more resources than the big one to produce 1/2 of the big ones output. So to run the small one you need 5x BIG Drills than for a big ISRU. And now what are the new small drills for?

I'd really like to create a craft with small ISRU and drills that makes sense. Of course the small ISRU needs to be slower in a way and that in a way that matches the abilities of the small drills. But not by setting resource needs to 5x that of the big ISRU which makes it totally impossible to use small drills along with it. The small drills are currently useless unless you want to create a millipede looking thing.

First of all, the same amount of input should produce the same amount of output. The only difference between small and big ISRU should be that the small one consumes 5x LESS RESOURCES for 5x LESS OUTPUT per second than the big one. That way the small drills would suddenly make sense. Likewise the small drills should produce 1/5 of a big drills output (not sure whether the base efficiency % makes them extra slow aside of the max output parameter).

Certainly not going to use small ISRU ever again until this is fixed.

I actually consider the current parameters for the small ISRU a BUG!

Edited by DocMoriarty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that the small one is far less efficient. However we had a recent discussion on the matter. It's lower efficiency makes both sense and no sense, depending on the arguments. 

As I explained however in the thread I mentioned, the real bug is the low electricity consumption of both ISRUs. It should be a LOT higher if it was anywhere near realistic. It makes no sense you can power ISRU units with fuel cells. But from a game-play point of view, the current two ISRUs are decent options which both have their design challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about the electricity part. If you need more electricity (energy) to get energy resources than you actually get resources, then you will end up with no energy at all.

In the beginning of oil drilling you got like 100 barrels of oil by investing the energy of 1 barrel of oil aequivalent.

Also: making the small ISRU this inefficient makes no sense. Basically it should just be 5 times slower but also using 5 times less resources for the output, thats penalty enough. That way the small drils & ISRU would make a useful group of items. The way it is right now they are totally useless.

Edited by DocMoriarty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DocMoriarty said:

I disagree about the electricity part. If you need more electricity (energy) to get energy resources than you actually get resources, then you will end up with no energy at all.

In the beginning of oil drilling you got like 100 barrels of oil by investing the energy of 1 barrel of oil aequivalent.

Generally speaking, quasi-realistic ISRU should assume the net loss of energy; for example, converting ice or hydrates to hydrogen-oxygen fuel means a large investment in energy, because not only do you have to drill the raw material out, you also have to convert it to a useable propellant. Only in a few places will you find either a raw fuel (such as hydrocarbons) or a raw oxidizer, and so far as I know, Earth is the only planet where those two coexist, and that's mainly because of this weird little thing called "life".

In terms of game balance: while it's probably a bit exaggerated, I see why they did it; by making ISRU so heavy, and by benefiting so much from engineers, they encourage Kerballed exploration, with the 1.25m ISRU mostly as something to stick on a small probe that, so long as it eventually fills up, you're happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:

In terms of game balance: while it's probably a bit exaggerated, I see why they did it; by making ISRU so heavy, and by benefiting so much from engineers, they encourage Kerballed exploration, with the 1.25m ISRU mostly as something to stick on a small probe that, so long as it eventually fills up, you're happy.

I simply think someone didn't know what he was doing. It's obvious that the intended balance between small and big ISRU was 1:5. Thats why i consider this a BUG.

Edited by DocMoriarty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DocMoriarty said:

I simply think someone didn't know what he was doing. It's obvious that the intended balance between small and big ISRU was 1:5. Thats why i consider this a BUG.

Given the sheer ease with which this "bug" could be fixed by the devs (literally just a quick config file edit), I am given to suspect it is an intentional design decision. If you don't like it? There's this thing called "config file editing" and another called "module manager".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how it takes them sometimes years to fix bugs i disagree completely.

But regardless whether bug of feature, it's nonsense.

Edited by DocMoriarty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stopping by to only state that the balance is by design.  If you want discussion you may want to rethink your approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the 1.25-m ISRU was new there was some discussion about its role here.

It was easy for me to guess that the smaller ISRU would produce less output, and the thread linked by Magzimum above explains how it would be less efficient in terms of output per electricity consumed and per heat generated, compared to the larger version with its efficiency of scale.  The lower efficiency in terms of output per input ore, however, is harder to understand and remember, and is frustrating for people designing their first asteroid-mover where ore-mass is limited.  The current design encourages the use of the 1.25-m ISRU with a field of drills manned by an engineer.

The balance works better for me if I use the same mass-ratio between input and output as the large drills, and maybe reduce the efficiency of fuel-per-electricity even further.  Then the small ISRU works on a hopper, limited by the solar energy collected between hops.

Spoiler

 


@PART[MiniISRU]
{// Change miniISRU to conserve mass from ore to output like the big ISRU.
	@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter],*
	{
		// MiniISRU in stock 1.2.1 consumes 10t ore per 1t output
		@INPUT_RESOURCE:HAS[#ResourceName[Ore]]
		{
			@Ratio *= 0.1
		}
	}
}
@PART[MiniISRU]
{// Cut miniISRU throughput by a factor of 2,
 //  but leave electric consumption and heat generation at original values
	@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter],*
	{
		@INPUT_RESOURCE:HAS[#ResourceName[Ore]]
		{
			@Ratio *= 0.5
		}
		@OUTPUT_RESOURCE,*
		{
			@Ratio *= 0.5
		}
	}
}

 

Edited by OHara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DocMoriarty said:

Deleted by the Moderation team.

Ad-hominem attack aside, you realize one of the people you called either a fanboy or unwilling to think the problem through designed the part you're complaining about?

For what it's worth, I agree with your basic idea that the small ISRU parts aren't worth using unless you literally don't care how long it's going to take. I always care about that, so will never use them again unless they're tweaked to be a bit less time- and resource-intensive. I accept though that it was designed this way for a purpose and not herp-a-derped together by a four year old who didn't know the difference between a / and a *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A offensive post was removed, guys please don't resort to ad hominem attacks, whether it is against a specific individual or a perceived group it is not good conduct on these forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DocMoriarty said:

The only difference between small and big ISRU should be that the small one consumes 5x LESS RESOURCES for 5x LESS OUTPUT per second than the big one

Says who?

The bigger the device, the more efficiently you convert things. If you have the "RocksWithIce" resource as input, you get the Water Resource as Output. However, it is implicit that the "RocksWithALittleLessIce" is a by-product. How much water you get out of your rocks with ice depends on the efficiency of the extraction process, and the bigger the device, the more efficient that is.

 

14 hours ago, DocMoriarty said:

In the beginning of oil drilling you got like 100 barrels of oil by investing the energy of 1 barrel of oil aequivalent.

Completely irrelevant here, see below.

 

14 hours ago, DocMoriarty said:

I disagree about the electricity part. If you need more electricity (energy) to get energy resources than you actually get resources, then you will end up with no energy at all.

You are not drilling for energy though. You are drilling for mass. The energy comes free to you, in the form of sunlight on solar panels. What you don't have is the reaction mass, and this is what you drill out of an asteroid.

Think of mining for fuel in space as: I dig out reaction mass (e.g. Water), so that momentum can be conserved, and I charge (turn to O2 + H2) the reaction mass up with energy that I get from somewhere else.

Edited by Kobymaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Ad-hominem attack aside, you realize one of the people you called either a fanboy or unwilling to think the problem through designed the part you're complaining about?

For what it's worth, I agree with your basic idea that the small ISRU parts aren't worth using unless you literally don't care how long it's going to take. I always care about that, so will never use them again unless they're tweaked to be a bit less time- and resource-intensive. I accept though that it was designed this way for a purpose and not herp-a-derped together by a four year old who didn't know the difference between a / and a *

 

I used them small ISRU parts once too and then decided not to use them anymore like you. See now there are 2 who don't use this because it makes no sense (nonsense, see final ratio between both ISRU's below).

To make the problem really obvious I made 2 crafts, a MK1 based and a MK2 based Mun lander. The reference crafts should behave kinda same with a reasonable balance, that is the Mk1 and Mk2 versions should refuel roughly in the same time (give or take). In the example calculations i had 11.42% ore abundance and used Bill Kerman at level 0 as engineer on the crafts.

ISRU_reference_crafts.jpg

MK2 ISRU Reference Craft: This craft is built with the big ISRU and used as reference of what to expect. It should be possible to land it on the Mun and refuel with the ISRU within a reasonable timeframe. Weight: 30 tons, 1440 liquid fuel.

Example refueling 1440 liquid fuel for the MK2 version:

Ore mining with 2 big drills: 0.171250 ore per second * 2 drills = 0.3425 ore per second.

Ore needed for liquid fuel (0.45 ore per sec yields 0.90 lf according to parameters): 1440 / 0.90 * 0.45 = 720 ore.

Production time: 720 ore / 0.3425 ore per sec = 2102 seconds = 35 minutes

MK1 ISRU Reference Craft: Same as the big one but all based on MK1 / smaller parts with small ISRU and drills. This craft needs only 1/4 the of the big crafts fuel. IMO a reasonable balanced small ISRU/drill would refuel this craft in roughly the same time as the big craft is refueld by the big ISRU/drill. Weight: 8 tons (roughly 1/4 of big craft).

Example refueling 360 liquid fuel for the MK1 version:

Ore mining with 2 small drills: 0.034250 ore per second * 2 drills = 0.0685 ore per second.

Ore needed for liquid fuel (2.25 ore per sec yields 0.45 lf according to parameters): 360 / 0.45 * 2.25 = 1800 ore.

Production time: 1800 ore / 0.0685 ore per second = 26277 seconds = 437 minutes vs 35 minutes refueling the MK2 craft, ratio 12.5:1, this is already pretty questionable.

Direct Comparison of both - Production time for 1440lf using the MK1 setup:

Ore needed for 1440lf: 1440 / 0.45 * 2.25 = 7200 ore.

Production time: 7200 ore / 0.0685 ore per second = 105109 seconds = 1751 minutes vs 35 minutes for the same amount with the big ISRU, thats a 50:1 ratio and that is not what I call a good balance that makes any sense at all. And that is why i consider it a BUG.

And that gets even worse when you have no engineer on the craft.

So my balance would be:

The basic ratio between small and big ISRU should IMO be somewhere between 1:4 to 1:6, 1:5 would actually be good because its slightly less efficient than the big one compared to size and weight (tank volume ratios are 1:4 between MK1 and MK2). Ore and electricity needed per 1 output unit (LF, Ox, Mono) should be same, just the output should be reduced to 1/5 for the small ISRU. That way the small ISRU along with the small drills would be useful and the MK1 reference craft would actually work somewhat satisfyingly. Finally i would unlock the small ISRU und drill in research tree one (or more) step(s) before the big ones.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, it's clear to me that the 1.25m and 2.5m parts were intended to fill different roles, that they were never meant to be balanced against each other, and might be considered parts of two different systems, with the 2.5m with large drills filling the role of heavy-duty, industrial-scale ISRU operation, and the smaller parts intended for small probes where you don't necessarily mind if it takes months to fill up the tanks.

If you want something efficient and effective, go to 2.5m.

If you just want something that will fill up eventually, go with 1.25m, which was never intended to be efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, folks, this thread doesn't look like it's going anywhere productive at this point; I think that everything that can reasonably be said, has already been said.  I can summarize the thread thus:

  • The mini mining equipment is a lot less efficient than the big mining equipment, by design.
  • Some people like it that way.
  • Some people don't.

That's really all that you can say, here.  Closing it down.  Some inappropriate content has been snipped from various posts.

 

A few points to consider:

  • The current state of the mini-ISRU and mini-drill aren't an accident.  They're clearly done that way, by design.  You don't have to take my word for it-- the actual designer of the parts has already weighed in on this thread, so you have it straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
  • Yes, the mini equipment is less efficient than the big equipment.  That was done on purpose.  I think it's fair to say that the basic idea there has merit: not just a "realism" argument that bigger equipment is more efficient IRL, but also from the standpoint of creating a gameplay tradeoff.  Smaller equipment is more convenient, therefore it can keep things interesting if it has some off-setting disadvantage to it.  Tradeoffs make for interesting gameplay.
  • Certainly it's reasonable to argue about just what the tradeoff should be, i.e. what numbers would be a "good" choice.  For example, how much of a disadvantage should the mini-ISRU and mini-drill have, to compensate for its increased convenience?  But that's subjective-- different folks will have different opinions.

And that brings us to the crux of the matter, here.  On a subjective matter, there are going to be differences of opinion, and nobody's opinion is more valid than anyone else's.  It's fine to say "this is my opinion, and here are the reasons for it."  It's okay to say "I disagree with your opinion, because <reasons>."  But it's not okay to call other people "stupid" (or similar) for having opinions that happen to differ from yours.

So... please bear that in mind in the future.  Disagree, yes.  Make counter-arguments, yes.  Personal attacks?  Not so much.

And, finally... if you do see someone behaving in a way that seems inappropriate to you (e.g. making personal attacks)... please, folks, don't try to address it yourself.  That's the moderators' job.  Telling other folks what to do (or not to do) can stray over the line into "backseat moderating", which is itself against the forum guidelines (rule 3.2).  Please, just report the post and then let the moderator team take any action that may be required.  It's what we're for.

Thank you for your understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this