ZooNamedGames

What Ever Happened To Part Upgrades?

Recommended Posts

In years long since past- Squad added a new save settings option known as 'Enable Part Upgrades', and it was supposed to enable the future implementation of part upgrades. Upgrades which could improve the thrust of parts, reduce cost, reduce weight, improve resource values, and so on. Sadly since this togglable was first implementation, nothing further has ever been mentioned or done with this. 

I think that KSP has finally reached a point where old parts need more care than a simple textural overhaul. As we add more and newer parts, the old become more and more antiquated and less and less useful and at a point, only remain in the game for for occupying the lower nodes of the tech tree and providing compatibility and ensuring that craft files and old save files aren't broken as they remove ancient parts in the game. 

Two major examples I can think of, are the LV-30 Reliant and the LV-45 Swivel. Two very ancient rocket engines that go back to before I bought in the game in 2013 and, isn't the oldest part in the pack. An honor I could bestow on the the mk1-2 cockpit, and the RT-10 Hammer solid rocket booster (at least, that I'm aware of, amongst other parts). Two parts which have received love and attention over the past few years but a quick peak towards the LV-30 shows it's received little of the same affection. Merely receiving two visual overhauls (0.7.3 appearance, and it's post .18 overhaul that we have today.

But for some parts, a simple shifting of ingame values (mass, thrust, ISP, etc) is no longer enough to keep them competitive with other parts and engines. Part Upgrades could help by reducing their price, their mass, their thrust, etc. Which could put the Swivel as a more competitive option to newer and more modern parts. 

But Zoo! How would Squad ever go about implementing such an idea? Well thank you for asking hypothetical person- my proposal is this. In career/science modes, you gain % points when you use parts (bonus points when first used, when they're used to set a record/complete a major achievement), and you gain multiplied bonuses when you complete testing missions (test part on the launchpad, test at certain altitude/conditions). I suggest this, since I have never had inclination to accept the more complex testing contracts since I could earn more cash than the contract is offering by completing other contracts, however with this suggestion, there would be more incentive than just the typical cash/science/rep reward but also the chance to rapidly improve a part. 

As you gain % points on a part, with certain milestones (5% increments, 10% increments, 20%, etc) you would gain an upgrade (reduced cost, reduced mass, more resources in said part, more thrust, reduced drag, improved lift, increased ISP, etc etc etc ad nausem). Which of these options that are unlocked at which point are to be decided by Squad for game balancing. In sandbox- there would be a slider or buttons you could select that would select which upgrades are active and save them to the craft file like thrust limiter values and gimbal range values have been set up. 

Visually, I would suggest hexagons which would act as the buttons in sandbox and in career/science mode, these buttons would be fixed and not able to be pressed. Acting as a visual indicator of progress instead of a selector as it is in sandbox. In each hexagon, would be a symbol representing what is changed/improved. A  -:funds: for when cost is reduced, a + re-entry flame symbol for increased thrust, etc etc. 

 

Thanks for coming and listening to my TED Talk idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the swivel out of date? It still works perfectly for 1.25m rockets as intended. It's cheap and relatively efficient for what it does. And by the time you need more power 1.85 and 2.5 m parts become available. And if you want; you can use engine plates in MH to cluster them. I've actually done this with 2.5m tankage for larger landers that need high TWR but no suitable engines exist.

All that said I don't actually disagree with the overall point of your argument. IRL we didn't grind science and then magically have the F-1 engine poof into existence; we had a mission which had a series of specifications that any potential engine would have to meet. Then designs were submitted and built; I would like to see a similar feature in KSP. Where you can define a set of specifications (That actually make sense physically) and R&D chugs away and as you continue through your program are notified that potential designs are ready. You then pay a sum to fly them and after several tests are cleared for regular use. This would stand alongside the tech tree in career; where additional technology will increase the speed of development, types of engines and the range of values that can be tweaked. 

Ps. Sorry for the wall o text 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

How is the swivel out of date? It still works perfectly for 1.25m rockets as intended. It's cheap and relatively efficient for what it does. And by the time you need more power 1.85 and 2.5 m parts become available. And if you want; you can use engine plates in MH to cluster them. I've actually done this with 2.5m tankage for larger landers that need high TWR but no suitable engines exist

Which is true but if I need more thrust at 1.25m, I just use the vector (I play largely in sandbox), or just upgrade past in size using larger engines without their tank butts and just clip upwards and it even visually functions well, as well as practically. But maybe that's a personal opinion and I will admit to that fault, if it is one. 

9 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

All that said I don't actually disagree with the overall point of your argument. IRL we didn't grind science and then magically have the F-1 engine poof into existence; we had a mission which had a series of specifications that any potential engine would have to meet. Then designs were submitted and built; I would like to see a similar feature in KSP. Where you can define a set of specifications (That actually make sense physically) and R&D chugs away and as you continue through your program are notified that potential designs are ready. You then pay a sum to fly them and after several tests are cleared for regular use. This would stand alongside the tech tree in career; where additional technology will increase the speed of development, types of engines and the range of values that can be tweaked. 

Which doesn't sound like a bad idea. Issue is players don't want to bother thinking (ironic despite the game), so to ensure the game is accessible to as many players as possible it needs to made straight forward and simple. Which is why a simple point system is so effective at keeping the game so easily accessible since points are easy for even the least aerospace informed player to grasp and work with. Especially since the game has a steep enough learning curve as is and introducing any more would cause some players even more additional mental fatigue as they try to learn the game. So bear that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ZooNamedGames There is a pretty bare, but definite implementation of Part Upgrades in stock. I've experimented well with it and I can precisely name some places where it falls short and where it can grow. I and Angel-125 use it in our mods and we have enabled engines to be upgrade-able, but again, shortcomings.

  • Does not support every stock module
    The ones I know of are ModuleSAS (The SAS levels), ModuleEnginesFX (Thrust and Isp of course), ModuleRCSFX probably, and ModuleResourceConverter (ISRU), but not ModuleResourceScanner (surface scanner modules) and obviously, no modules added by mods.
     
  • Root level properties cannot be upgraded
    Mass, cost, heat tolerance, title, manufacturer and so on. Nope. Not happening. I wanted to affect heat tolerance to provide a construction material upgrade. Boy was I dis-heartened. If I couldn't affect that, what hope is there in testing anything else.
     
  • Only the first instance of a subnode
    For example, a resource converter that takes two or more input resources. You can only change the one of these nodes. The upgrade parameters don't support targeting multiple.
     
  • Visual upgrades
    There's no means to tie a change of model or texture to an upgrade so there's never the opportunity to tell that one of two identical objects standing beside each other is better just by looking at them.
     
  • Not all upgrades should be overrides
    Tanks, for example, could be made to support new options for fuels, namely the fussy ones like cryogenics (Liquid Hydrogen) or high toxics (Red Fuming Nitric Aciddddddd). Procedural Parts gets around this somewhat. Tank lengths are bound by tech node unlocks as though part upgrades.
     
  • Upgrade in-flight
    It would be a great thing if an engineer, or a group of them, could huddle around a part and apply an upgrade. As it currently is, upgrades cannot be applied retroactively (which is fine actually, but the option for an engineer to make it so on EVA likely does not exist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@ZooNamedGames There is a pretty bare, but definite implementation of Part Upgrades in stock. I've experimented well with it and I can precisely name some places where it falls short and where it can grow. I and Angel-125 use it in our mods and we have enabled engines to be upgrade-able, but again, shortcomings.

  • Does not support every stock module
    The ones I know of are ModuleSAS (The SAS levels), ModuleEnginesFX (Thrust and Isp of course), ModuleRCSFX probably, and ModuleResourceConverter (ISRU), but not ModuleResourceScanner (surface scanner modules) and obviously, no modules added by mods.
     
  • Root level properties cannot be upgraded
    Mass, cost, heat tolerance, title, manufacturer and so on. Nope. Not happening. I wanted to affect heat tolerance to provide a construction material upgrade. Boy was I dis-heartened. If I couldn't affect that, what hope is there in testing anything else.

I see your point with this. My only return comment is maybe Squad and overhaul the whole system and make it functional for parts. But being a non-coding pleb, I will refer to your advice in this case. 

21 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

 

  • Only the first instance of a subnode
    For example, a resource converter that takes two or more input resources. You can only change the one of these nodes. The upgrade parameters don't support targeting multiple.
     
  • Visual upgrades
    There's no means to tie a change of model or texture to an upgrade so there's never the opportunity to tell that one of two identical objects standing beside each other is better just by looking at them.

I didn't consider changing those things but since you mentioned having made a mod that managed that I will again refer to your judgement. 

22 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Not all upgrades should be overrides
Tanks, for example, could be made to support new options for fuels, namely the fussy ones like cryogenics (Liquid Hydrogen) or high toxics (Red Fuming Nitric Aciddddddd). Procedural Parts gets around this somewhat. Tank lengths are bound by tech node unlocks as though part upgrades.

Or if you're stock- LF/Ox to LF only, or Ox only, xenon, monoprop, etc perhaps. 

23 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Upgrade in-flight
It would be a great thing if an engineer, or a group of them, could huddle around a part and apply an upgrade. As it currently is, upgrades cannot be applied retroactively (which is fine actually, but the option for an engineer to make it so on EVA likely does not exist).

Not a bad idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Which is true but if I need more thrust at 1.25m, I just use the vector (I play largely in sandbox), or just upgrade past in size using larger engines without their tank butts and just clip upwards and it even visually functions well, as well as practically. But maybe that's a personal opinion and I will admit to that fault, if it is one. 

Which doesn't sound like a bad idea. Issue is players don't want to bother thinking (ironic despite the game), so to ensure the game is accessible to as many players as possible it needs to made straight forward and simple. Which is why a simple point system is so effective at keeping the game so easily accessible since points are easy for even the least aerospace informed player to grasp and work with. Especially since the game has a steep enough learning curve as is and introducing any more would cause some players even more additional mental fatigue as they try to learn the game. So bear that in mind.

There's no real reason that the points system can't be there in addition to a more complex system; then just have toggles to ramp it up/down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much agree with this. And 1.25m engine options are lacking on the higher tiers.

the 260-270/310-320 Reliant/Swivel ISP ranges prove to be very low tech. Where the reliant boasts better Thrust and Sea level ISP it's part upgrade would ultimately greatly enhance the Reliant's Sea level ISP and thrust. I wouldn't make it that much lighter because the thrust to weight off a reliant or Swivel isn't that bad to begin with.
The terrier on the other hand is purely a Vacuum engine but has quite the weight so a part upgrade could definitely lower the weight and slightly improve the Vacuum ISP by 5 but no more as that would make it unrealistic since a max of 355-360ISP seems the most balancing game wise.

Besides the kodiak (almost a 2nd Reliant stats wise) the Vector is the only other 1.25m engine, but to my view and dislike it's OP to begin with so doesn't need stats boost.

What I make of this is that in the 1.25m category there are no high stat engines. While the Terrier is a good upper stage the Vector is OP and the other engines are ancient.
I wouldn't mind the Skipper and Mainsail have upgrades aswell since they could perform better also.

Also, if parts are to be upgraded prices should remain the same. Rocket parts didn't become cheaper because they're made cheaper but because there are made more of them and when they are made cheaper they are almost always made by large so it's the productions amount that factors in how much a engine would cost. That's mainly why parts got cheaper over the decades.
No such elements are part of the game, only static prices. Usually a rocket should remain the same price or be cheaper or people wont want to use that rocket. So a revised engine that costs more would usually be another engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Aeroboi said:

I very much agree with this. And 1.25m engine options are lacking on the higher tiers.

the 260-270/310-320 Reliant/Swivel ISP ranges prove to be very low tech. Where the reliant boasts better Thrust and Sea level ISP it's part upgrade would ultimately greatly enhance the Reliant's Sea level ISP and thrust. I wouldn't make it that much lighter because the thrust to weight off a reliant or Swivel isn't that bad to begin with.
The terrier on the other hand is purely a Vacuum engine but has quite the weight so a part upgrade could definitely lower the weight and slightly improve the Vacuum ISP by 5 but no more as that would make it unrealistic since a max of 355-360ISP seems the most balancing game wise.

Besides the kodiak (almost a 2nd Reliant stats wise) the Vector is the only other 1.25m engine, but to my view and dislike it's OP to begin with so doesn't need stats boost.

What I make of this is that in the 1.25m category there are no high stat engines. While the Terrier is a good upper stage the Vector is OP and the other engines are ancient.
I wouldn't mind the Skipper and Mainsail have upgrades aswell since they could perform better also.

Also, if parts are to be upgraded prices should remain the same. Rocket parts didn't become cheaper because they're made cheaper but because there are made more of them and when they are made cheaper they are almost always made by large so it's the productions amount that factors in how much a engine would cost. That's mainly why parts got cheaper over the decades.
No such elements are part of the game, only static prices. Usually a rocket should remain the same price or be cheaper or people wont want to use that rocket. So a revised engine that costs more would usually be another engine.

After the price of the mastadon was reduced to 8K i haven't used the Mainsail at all; i can get 2X Mastadon for a similar price and i'm not shy about using massive clusters of engines. So the Mainsail is in a desperate need of a rebalance since it has no real use currently; as far as 1.25m engines go it's pretty slim pickings as well. However most stock engines actually fit perfectly fine on a 1.25m body bare; so a quick and dirty option is just allowing most 1.875 and 2.5m parts to be used "Bare" in stock. But i agree; even after only a few nodes 1.25m engines basically end up becoming an option between "Old and reliable" and "Hilariously OP" with nothing in between. I would also say there's almost a similar lack of engines for 1.875m parts; which you get well before engine plates and basically end up discarding because there's no real engines you can mount to them. And by the time you get plates; you're launching 2.5m stacks anyway. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

After the price of the mastadon was reduced to 8K i haven't used the Mainsail at all; i can get 2X Mastadon for a similar price and i'm not shy about using massive clusters of engines. So the Mainsail is in a desperate need of a rebalance since it has no real use currently; as far as 1.25m engines go it's pretty slim pickings as well. However most stock engines actually fit perfectly fine on a 1.25m body bare; so a quick and dirty option is just allowing most 1.875 and 2.5m parts to be used "Bare" in stock. But i agree; even after only a few nodes 1.25m engines basically end up becoming an option between "Old and reliable" and "Hilariously OP" with nothing in between. I would also say there's almost a similar lack of engines for 1.875m parts; which you get well before engine plates and basically end up discarding because there's no real engines you can mount to them. And by the time you get plates; you're launching 2.5m stacks anyway. 

 

Good comparison on the Mastodon <> Mainsail. Maybe get a Mainsail upgrade as soon as you get the Mastodon, but by the looks of it that means the mainsail needs a re-balance altogether with some whereabouts related to it's current stats so it isn't rendered a entire different engine. I use the 1.875m engines on 1.25m nodes only if they're in fairings since 1.875m engines without trusses on a 1.25m node still create added drag. On 8 asparagus landers using 8 x 1.875m engines on 1.25m nodes you can see this effect and without a fairing may even create aero balancing problems since these are landers often that are on the top. So I think it's mandatory to have good operating 1.25m engines with high tier stats for the 1.25m nodes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aeroboi said:

Good comparison on the Mastodon <> Mainsail. Maybe get a Mainsail upgrade as soon as you get the Mastodon, but by the looks of it that means the mainsail needs a re-balance altogether with some whereabouts related to it's current stats so it isn't rendered a entire different engine. I use the 1.875m engines on 1.25m nodes only if they're in fairings since 1.875m engines without trusses on a 1.25m node still create added drag. On 8 asparagus landers using 8 x 1.875m engines on 1.25m nodes you can see this effect and without a fairing may even create aero balancing problems since these are landers often that are on the top. So I think it's mandatory to have good operating 1.25m engines with high tier stats for the 1.25m nodes.

I always forget about KSP's weird stock drag modeling; personally i think the mastadon would be fine as is because having a cheap 2.5m engine with decent thrust enables plenty of missions that throwing Mainsails away would make too expensive. Just give the Mainsail more thrust and a bigger/longer bell while keeping to 2.5m; as far as everything else i'm agreed.  I use a mod called "SpaceY" and it adds a 1.25m engine with 440kn of thrust with pretty reasonable efficiency; which i find to be a very nice mid-game engine. Great for landers or massive bundles of asparagus that tempt interplanetary space; something like that is desperately needed in stock. Just not unlocked too quickly because it breaks early progression badly; i feel it should be unlocked with 1.875m parts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:
  • Root level properties cannot be upgraded
    Mass, cost, heat tolerance, title, manufacturer and so on. Nope. Not happening. I wanted to affect heat tolerance to provide a construction material upgrade. Boy was I dis-heartened. If I couldn't affect that, what hope is there in testing anything else.

My experience contradicts this, so I guess I don't understand your point. For example, I use a part upgrade at Composites to beef up the Hitchhiker, increasing the crash tolerance with a mass and cost increase. I do high tech level mass reductions on a couple other parts as well.

10 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:
  • Not all upgrades should be overrides
    Tanks, for example, could be made to support new options for fuels, namely the fussy ones like cryogenics (Liquid Hydrogen) or high toxics (Red Fuming Nitric Aciddddddd). Procedural Parts gets around this somewhat. Tank lengths are bound by tech node unlocks as though part upgrades.

I agree on this one, but your example sounds like you want to make one of the fuel switcher mods aware of the part upgrade system or at least lock valid fuel options to the tech tree. But this would be on a mod author to implement. In general,  I think the upgrades should appear more as variants. The editor should give you a choice of which version you want. Over the lifetime of a rocket engine design you will see improved performance variants be developed, but depending on the mission a lower performance variant may be all that's needed. The current system only lets you use the latest and greatest.

10 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:
  • Upgrade in-flight
    It would be a great thing if an engineer, or a group of them, could huddle around a part and apply an upgrade. As it currently is, upgrades cannot be applied retroactively (which is fine actually, but the option for an engineer to make it so on EVA likely does not exist).

I disagree with this point. The upgrade should represent changing the part with a newly manufactured part. For example, it would make little sense that  my beefed up Hitchhiker part could be upgraded in situ, since I think of it as a complete structural redesign. Also what you describe sounds pretty close to KIS anyway, so taking the new part to the vessel and using KIS to swap old for new should be the expected upgrade path for existing parts.

I don't have opinions on your other points mainly because I've never explored those areas. Part upgrades are an area I don't think a lot of players or mod authors even consider since so many play sandbox only.

Share this post


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

My experience contradicts this, so I guess I don't understand your point. For example, I use a part upgrade at Composites to beef up the Hitchhiker, increasing the crash tolerance with a mass and cost increase. I do high tech level mass reductions on a couple other parts as well.

I'd really like to see your config for this, and see what was missing from my config that sought after heat tolerance.

2 hours ago, Tonka Crash said:

Over the lifetime of a rocket engine design you will see improved performance variants be developed, but depending on the mission a lower performance variant may be all that's needed. The current system only lets you use the latest and greatest.

This is the use case I was trying (and really hard) to think of when I came up with that point. What if you had a really good reason to reuse a previous upgrade?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I'd really like to see your config for this, and see what was missing from my config that sought after heat tolerance.

I came up with this about a year ago and have no idea how, but I checked my game before my last post to make sure I wasn't huffing glue::

Spoiler

@PART[crewCabin,Tauruexcrementschhiker]
{		
    %MODULE[PartStatsUpgradeModule]
    {
		%showUpgradesInModuleInfo = true
		UPGRADES
		{
          UPGRADE
          {
            name__ = BeefyCrewCabin
            description__ = Crash tolerance now 12m/s
            techRequired__ = composites
            IsAdditiveUpgrade__ = True				
            PartStats
            {
                crashTolerance = 12
                mass = .3
                cost = 200
            }
          }
      }
    }	
}
PARTUPGRADE
{
	name = BeefyCrewCabin
	partIcon = crewCabin
	techRequired = composites
	entryCost = 5000
	cost = 0
	title = Reinforced Hitchhiker Cabin
	manufacturer = Jebediah Kerman's Junkyard and Spacecraft Parts Co
	basicInfo = The composite upgrade helps ensure that the Hitchhiker cabins will consistently survive re-entry and landing.
	description = Crash Tolerance doubled to 12m/s with a slight weight and cost increase.
}

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've wondered about this too.  I mostly like how @Angel-125 uses upgrades in his mods, and would like to see some of the same in stock.   And this has me thinking about adding a patch or two myself, based on those upgrades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When part upgrades was released I was ecstatic. MOLE had its own part upgrades system at the time and it was nowhere near as robust as what the stock system had. There are a couple of items added that were a result of feedback from MOLE testing... Anyway, the old PorkJet parts revamp used part upgrades effectively, and I could see earlier parts gaining improvements as the tech tree progresses. It depends on what the game designers want to do though. It’s a trade off of introducing new parts versus updates to older ones. Part of the fun of unlocking the tech tree is getting new parts to play with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part upgrades is yet another feature Squad has implemented with little thought for why they're adding it.  I put it up there with Courage and Stupidity as generally pointless features  (in stock) implemented into KSP.

Edited by klgraham1013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appreciate the utilization of this system in stock, but in a slightly different manner. My line of thought applies to engines most directly but can be applied to other parts as well.

First, upgrades aren't mandatory. Similar to Zoo's suggestion, science points and funds (R&D effort) can be spent to apply upgrades to parts in several categories depending on the part, and each category affects mass, cost, and other related category values based on the category delta from the reference part.  e.g. increasing ASL and vacuum iSP for the Reliant might not affect mass (engine bell geometry), but thrust would suffer because m-dot is the same. Increasing m-dot would increase mass due to a better turbopump, and might reduce iSP slightly.  The amount of delta in each category is capped (as a balancing mechanic) and can be increased as the new tech nodes are unlocked.  Once the part has been 'tweaked' and the R&D cost assessed (again based on the delta from the reference part), the part gets a new mode, or simply a duplicate model with different stats in the editor. This way, the player gets to decide how to apply upgrades, and they aren't stuck with precanned benefits or detriments, and they can have multiple variants of each part optimized for different roles.

This could be a royal pain to implement though, because not only does each category of part need its tweakable parameters and their effects on other parameters defined, but the ranges have to set and balanced for every part.  A graduated slider (1 or 2% intervals) of upgrade might make this easier.  Structural parts and tanks would be pretty easy, but engines and wheels could get complex.

I would also like to see some default acceleration and thermal tolerances reduced to make reducing mass actually have noticeable detriments (default impact tolerance balance is probably fine). Fuel tanks cannot withstand multiple 10's of gees without failing, no way.  Al-6061 starts melting at 880K, not 2000K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 10:48 PM, Incarnation of Chaos said:

How is the swivel out of date? It still works perfectly for 1.25m rockets as intended. It's cheap and relatively efficient for what it does. And by the time you need more power 1.85 and 2.5 m parts become available. And if you want; you can use engine plates in MH to cluster them. I've actually done this with 2.5m tankage for larger landers that need high TWR but no suitable engines exist.

All that said I don't actually disagree with the overall point of your argument. IRL we didn't grind science and then magically have the F-1 engine poof into existence; we had a mission which had a series of specifications that any potential engine would have to meet. Then designs were submitted and built; I would like to see a similar feature in KSP. Where you can define a set of specifications (That actually make sense physically) and R&D chugs away and as you continue through your program are notified that potential designs are ready. You then pay a sum to fly them and after several tests are cleared for regular use. This would stand alongside the tech tree in career; where additional technology will increase the speed of development, types of engines and the range of values that can be tweaked. 

Ps. Sorry for the wall o text 

Your R&D process reminds me of military aircraft procurement, where the service branch in question issues a set of specifications, and private aerospace companies submit designs to the branch, who selects the one they prefer the most.

Share this post


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

Your R&D process reminds me of military aircraft procurement, where the service branch in question issues a set of specifications, and private aerospace companies submit designs to the branch, who selects the one they prefer the most.

Considering i'm a massive aircraft nerd (Especially military) the fact that my process looks like this is not surprising in the slightest; even though i didn't intentionally base it off that model xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 12:51 AM, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Considering i'm a massive aircraft nerd (Especially military) the fact that my process looks like this is not surprising in the slightest; even though i didn't intentionally base it off that model xD

What would be really interesting even though it would be a massive change would be if once you submitted your specifications multiple https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Category:Manufacturers submitted designs with defilement costs and performance pros/cons, and the player had to pick the best one for his/her own needs.

Edited by ErinBensen
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are already challenges with balancing as many engines as are in the game now and giving them each a purpose that isn't redundant with some other engine. When I imagine multiplying that number by 3 or 4, it doesn't seem very likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 1:20 AM, HebaruSan said:

There are already challenges with balancing as many engines as are in the game now and giving them each a purpose that isn't redundant with some other engine. When I imagine multiplying that number by 3 or 4, it doesn't seem very likely.

There would only be the extra engines until the player picked which one to keep-the other would be cancelled and deleted.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YA-9 vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

Edited by ErinBensen
Typo

Share this post


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

There would only be the extra engines until the player picked which one to keep-the other would be cancelled and deleted.

That doesn't help with the problem I noted. SQUAD would still need to balance the ones the player didn't keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 3:34 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

Does not support every stock module
The ones I know of are ModuleSAS (The SAS levels), ModuleEnginesFX (Thrust and Isp of course), ModuleRCSFX probably, and ModuleResourceConverter (ISRU), but not ModuleResourceScanner (surface scanner modules) and obviously, no modules added by mods.

I'd be really keen and was hoping that Squad might add  ModuleResourceConverter (ISRU), as well, and requested it at some point I think through the 1.6 updates.  But I guess it is with low priority, or the have some reasonfor not including it. 

Maybe time for a followup @SQUAD and @St4rdust?

Simplex Propulsion #shamelessplug also added some engine upgrades - but it probably needs revisiting :)

Peace.

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.