Sirad

Why not make Engines upgradeable ?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Nah it’s just that this is creating a continuous distraction in the thread.

The only distraction here is these continuous attempts to hijack and derail a good discussion topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lu K. said:

The only distraction here is these continuous attempts to hijack and derail a good discussion topic.

Fair enough. I’ll leave you to it. If Star Theory doesn't do this (and I don’t think they will) maybe one of you will make a mod of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Nah it’s just that this is creating a continuous distraction in the thread.

Hmmm, I seem to not be the one creating the distraction by repeatedly beating a dead horse

22 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Since you clearly prefer being misunderstood to correcting the misunderstanding at the root, I’ll certainly let it drop. Carry on, my good Renaissance doctor

Since you clearly like to tell people what to do I shall bid you adieu ... and as an aside, I have already clarified the context of my statement (a couple times) let alone it should be quite clear when reading it that it was said in jest

That is unless a person has the affinity for speaking to inanimate objects in the hope of making said inanimate object feel better :confused:

Anyways, back to your regular programming

22 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

a good discussion topic.

Yes, it is ... lots of good ideas have come from this thread

Edited by DoctorDavinci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Yes, it is ... lots of good ideas have come from this thread

Yes. Even if my initial idea fell of the Table quite quick, i really like the idea of having an assortment of Engines that can be configured/extended/reduced whatever.

Adds much to the testing and optimizing if one wants. As i mentioned, anyone would be free to ignore that feature and fly with default parameters. Like driving in GTA5, you can choose to pick up a car and crash/explode anywhere you like. You can mod the car prior to explode or not. The Fun is the same--- And the outcome is the same. Police (or kraken) shows up and start to chase you anyhow...

Edited by Sirad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

This idea has more potential. However I don't like it much either. It would take the KSP "Lego" approach one level down: we wouldn't be rocket designers anymore, we'd be rocket engine designers. This would introduce a lot of complexity to an already highly complex game as well as changing its character quite a lot.

So this one I'd file under terrific ideas for mods, but not so much for base KSP.

 

Hmm. I actually like this idea. In essence, it is what we are doing now in the Breaking Ground DLC with props.  We don't get a prop engine out of the box like Simple Planes, rather we have to construct it.  You are correct that we would need to achieve a balance between too much detail, but there is huge potential in the idea.

What if it is something as simple as:  New Elephant Engine (making this up.) has TWR of X and consumes Y fuel per minute.  After doing more research, you can now bolt on a new part called the Supercharged Kerfficiency Aerospace Module (SKAM). Adding the part gives a 10% boost in efficiency and a 5% boost in power.  By keeping it as separate parts, that should still allow for sharing, which I do think is very important.

 

3 hours ago, Sirad said:

Well

There goes more energy in pulling out the hair from a good suggestion than i thought of. I hopefully think that those who want KSP2 only a Boring Copy of KSP1 because everything else would change their prefferred gameplay to much, will not make their way into the coders minds. There is always something that gets added what anyone dont likes. Any addition can be ignored but something thats not in it, can not enter the reality of the game by missing it.

....

KSP2 has to be something new and not just a bland copy of KSP1 and any suggestion should be welcome...

 

Actually, I think you have generated a good discussion. I've seen @Brikoleur's comments on a lot of posts, and he is not someone who just dismisses stuff out of hand.  What I see here is a back and forth and some evolving ideas on how to solve your initial issue while taking into account the needs of other players.  The more I think about it, the more I think there is something to this. It is just a case of getting the implementation right.

 

There is perhaps also room for doing a lot more with the advanced tweakables.

 

PS. Sorry for contributing to the off-topic discussion. Perhaps post asking a moderator to clear out the off-topic material so the thread can stay focused on your original point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Actually, I think you have generated a good discussion. I've seen @Brikoleur's comments on a lot of posts, and he is not someone who just dismisses stuff out of hand.  What I see here is a back and forth and some evolving ideas on how to solve your initial issue while taking into account the needs of other players.  The more I think about it, the more I think there is something to this. It is just a case of getting the implementation right.

I didn't dismiss this out of hand either, I think it's a good idea -- I'm just less convinced that it belongs in the base game. It's already a quite a lot of work to build craft, if on top of that we would be building the engines, would it make for too much work? I honestly can't say. 

The main reason I wouldn't want to push for this in the base game is design and implementation effort on Star Theory's side. To make this work and make it fun is a big effort, comparable to, say, the Breaking Ground DLC although perhaps not quite that big. They have a lot on their plate already. 

(It could also be a DLC though. It's a nice idea for it, expanding the scope and possibilities of the base game while meshing nicely with it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

PS. Sorry for contributing to the off-topic discussion. Perhaps post asking a moderator to clear out the off-topic material so the thread can stay focused on your original point?

Well, my original Point was using Science Points to upgrade engines. This holds many obstacles not easy to overcome. By others who gave their 5 Cents to it it evolved. I just gave the car a shove and its running down the hill now. Actually i would think about an assortment of engines (not all, but some) that can be modified by adding some modules to it (one suggestion) or swap out parts (other suggestion) maybe 3,4,5 or 6 Different parts so there is a balance between complexity and playability. No need to add all Thousands of things that are Part of an engine to it to make it fun.

We have this game right now. Anyone ever Planned where to Place the Nozzles for the Orientation management for your Space station ? A lot of prior thinking has to be invested to build a good Space station actually in ksp1, so deep complexity already entered the game....

There has to be a balance between 'usability' and 'complexity' and there has to be the possibility to NOT use it if you dont want it.

Something like a Engine that has a basic configuration that represents the generic ISP etc. of the Current engines. You can Mod it with additional Parts if you research the needed Points/Parts in the Tech tree. Like swapping out the generic Turbo Pump with another one that has 5% more Pressure by having the disadvantage of having 10% more weight. So any Part could have a Bonus on one Side and a Drawback onto another side. HOW it is implemented (if this idea is worth implementing, what is in any case not OUR decision) is upon the Team that writes the code. If you make it short you dont even need any 3-D Modeling for the modules, the engines can have checkboxes like the way they have the gimbal Checkbox if the 'Other Pump' gets available. This way you could instantly see what comes out your modification. Actually you can modify the Engines already a lot. Gimbal yes no and gimbal range.

The idea has Potential (from my Point of view) and This wont shorten the fun for others because you can safely ignore it if you want to Play old style.

 

Edited by Sirad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about an "engine design building" (basically a static fire test block) similar to the VAB/BAE where you can put together your engine from individual components and test it to see if it works and how it performs, or just blows up.

You would have options for different nozzle shapes and sizes and materials, different injector types, different turbopumps, plumbing setups for the combustion cycle, etc, along with all the exotic interstellar options which might have to be tested on a space station or a planet without an atmosphere.

This would offer a more interesting upgrade path as you'd start off with cheap components that might fail or perform badly (maybe your nozzle overheats and vaporises on a long burn), and over time move towards better performing and more expensive components.

Of course there would be preset designs to help new players.

Because the thing is that you don't always want optimum performance - as with the SpaceX Merlin, it's made to be cheap and easy to refurbish rather than perform at peak efficiency and cost a lot.

This puts R&D more in the hands of the player and wouldn't require science points - it's more like DIY research Kerbal style, limited by your budget and the amount of time you are willing to spend fiddling around on the test block.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

What about an "engine design building" (basically a static fire test block) similar to the VAB/BAE where you can put together your engine from individual components and test it to see if it works and how it performs, or just blows up.

You would have options for different nozzle shapes and sizes and materials, different injector types, different turbopumps, plumbing setups for the combustion cycle, etc, along with all the exotic interstellar options which might have to be tested on a space station or a planet without an atmosphere.

 

Hm i must admit that i start to drool over the thought of it.... :-)

eh... anyway. Badges must be given then by KSP2 for: Biggest Engine Test Explosion, most Kerbals killed while exploding, etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

What about an "engine design building" (basically a static fire test block) similar to the VAB/BAE where you can put together your engine from individual components and test it to see if it works and how it performs, or just blows up.

You would have options for different nozzle shapes and sizes and materials, different injector types, different turbopumps, plumbing setups for the combustion cycle, etc, along with all the exotic interstellar options which might have to be tested on a space station or a planet without an atmosphere.

This would offer a more interesting upgrade path as you'd start off with cheap components that might fail or perform badly (maybe your nozzle overheats and vaporises on a long burn), and over time move towards better performing and more expensive components.

Of course there would be preset designs to help new players.

Because the thing is that you don't always want optimum performance - as with the SpaceX Merlin, it's made to be cheap and easy to refurbish rather than perform at peak efficiency and cost a lot.

This puts R&D more in the hands of the player and wouldn't require science points - it's more like DIY research Kerbal style, limited by your budget and the amount of time you are willing to spend fiddling around on the test block.

 

I think an engine design building would make an excellent DLC, though probably too much for the base game.   Nate Simpson says he hopes KSP2 will have a long lifespan, so once the base game is released and kinks have been ironed out, there will be scope for addons.  I imagine DLCs will play a role there.

 

I do think there could be more limited tweaking in the base game itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a JPL DLC... I'm interested.

As to the main thread, its basically the KRnD mod, which is fun but OP.

Combined with Sigma Dimensions and scaling up the system, its alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

So a JPL DLC... I'm interested.

As to the main thread, its basically the KRnD mod, which is fun but OP.

Combined with Sigma Dimensions and scaling up the system, its alright.

You could all all kinds of stuff to that. Wind tunnel for example, to test craft aerodynamics under various conditions.

(It's a shame KSP2 won't be getting a better aero model, the stock one is unintuitive as well as being unrealistic. FAR is just better in every way, and unlike it's often made out to be, it's not even harder.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me sharing crafts and attending different forum competitions has been a huge part of the game so I really like the idea that everyone has access to same pieces. So I'm not a big fan of this idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

For me sharing crafts and attending different forum competitions has been a huge part of the game so I really like the idea that everyone has access to same pieces. So I'm not a big fan of this idea

Are you opposed to the original idea or are you referring to it being a DLC?

Edited by Klapaucius

Share this post


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

Are you opposed to the original idea or are you referring to it being a DLC?

Well both pretty much, but I certainly dont want it to be in the base game...

EDIT: I also read through the thread quickly to see what ideas have been said about craft sharing and such. Pretty much the only proper idea I saw was just including the upgrades in the craft file but that is still bad IMO since everybody is no longer using the same part set. That is the main problem: I really like the idea of everyone having the same pieces to work with.

I mean, if I see a cool ship I want to replicate it and maybe try to improve it in some way. If I have different parts I obviously cant do that. Also I like forum challenges and there it is important that everyone is working with the same piece set.

Edited by tseitsei89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some suggestions that wouldn't have that problem though -- either make the tuning features tweakables on the engines or have engine components be part of the tech tree, and make it possible to assemble engines out of them just like we assemble craft. 

Those ideas are workable and if done well they could be a lot of fun. As stated though I think this would be better suited for a DLC or mod, because they expand on the base game (and also it's super important for Star Theory to be able to keep scope under control at this point, which they are -- there aren't going to be any robotics in KSP2 at launch either.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tseitsei89 said:

For me sharing crafts and attending different forum competitions has been a huge part of the game so I really like the idea that everyone has access to same pieces. So I'm not a big fan of this idea

not sure where you're coming from with this, or how it would even be possible for everyone to not be using the same parts?

upgrades just change stats, that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

not sure where you're coming from with this, or how it would even be possible for everyone to not be using the same parts?

upgrades just change stats, that's it.

Changing stats wreck designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lu K. said:

not sure where you're coming from with this, or how it would even be possible for everyone to not be using the same parts?

upgrades just change stats, that's it.

Yeah... Changing stats of a part is essentially making it a different part. I mean if we both have an engine called Raptor for example but your Raptor has 350 ISP while mine only has 300 ISP, it is quite obvious that we have different parts. Your Raptor designs will not work with my part set because our parts are different and have different capabilities.

4 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

There were some suggestions that wouldn't have that problem though -- have engine components be part of the tech tree, and make it possible to assemble engines out of them just like we assemble craft. 

This would be fine because then we would all still have the same pieces unlocked via tech tree. Our parts just wouldnt be whole engines but rather parts of engines. But if I make a craft with some parts and share that craft, it will work similarly for other players.

But then again I dont really see a need for that. It would give some more room for optimization which is good but might be quite complicated for new players. It is a question of how fine details we want to go to. I would be okay either way :)

Edited by tseitsei89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making engines "upgradeable" can be done in a wide variety of ways. It doesn't need to change a part's stats or use the current implementation of part upgrades. Dismissing the idea based on that specific implementation is selling the idea short.

You can simply start with one engine "part" which is cheap and inefficient and performs poorly, then unlock more expensive and better performing engine "parts" later in the tech tree.

The current approach of having tech progress mainly through size rather than performance and efficiency makes no sense. You should either have more freedom in scalability or more options for engine clusters and bigger tanks from the start.

That way if you can afford to build a 5m wide rocket with a cluster of 9 starter engines it will barely fly and add another layer of challenge and fun to the early game and provides motivation to research more advanced engines. Plus you have the launch pad mass limitation which is another restriction requiring progress there.

I'm working on this implementation in my current mod since I can't program a VAB style editor for engines based on components, though I think this approach is the best overall. I'd like to find the best design choice for engine R&D before KSP2 comes out so if they use the same approach as KSP1 (which I really dislike) I'll have a proof of concept ready to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 8:36 AM, Sirad said:

Why not making any engine Upgradeable ?

So you can invest some additional Science Points (lets say 100) to have 1% more ISP out of one Engine to choose ?

This could be a good sink of any unspent Science Points later on...

 

This was in fact originally intended by Squad when the science mode was introduced.  There was quite a fierce debate about it on this forum simply because it would make comparing and contrasting engines impossible, let alone sharing them.  Just look at how many questions are asked about craft design or engine choice every week.

For a start you'd have to give designs for people using sandbox versus science/career modes, then for those that have certain amounts of 'spare' science points AND want to spend them on certain design improvements.  Nevertheless it would, as you say, be an interesting and realistic feature.  The developers themselves thought so and, regardless, of course you're allowed to suggest whatever you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.