I don't want to burst your bubble of ksp simplicity but, I think things are gonna be more complex.

[Guest]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

So long as engine performance is dependent on the engine then I feel new fuels add nothing but a name. If instead we built the engines themselves and could change their performance values which would be dependent on fuel types then I would be all for it. But if we're just purchasing pre-built engines then all the fuel tank is doing is adding a check mark and nit picking what color the check mark comes in adds, in my view, little to nothing to the actual gameplay.

In my example you have Kerolox as early-game fuel for cheap engines, hydrolox as a cheap to refine fuel with low tech refineries anywhere there's water and methalox as an option for Eve and Duna, but that's only an example I put together in 2 minutes to make an example of gameplay over simplicity, not an actual proposal.

[mcwaffles2003]

4 minutes ago, Master39 said:

In my example you have Kerolox as early-game fuel for cheap engines, hydrolox as a cheap to refine fuel with low tech refineries anywhere there's water and methalox as an option for Eve and Duna, but that's only an example I put together in 2 minutes to make an example of gameplay over simplicity, not an actual proposal.

Should, in your view, an engine like the swivel be compatible with all, some, or only one of these fuel types?

If it is all or some then now were telling people that engines can run multiple fuel types, which as I understand, they don't

If its just one then why not keep engines as they are and re-label "Liquid fuel" to "The liquid hydrocarbon of your choosing"?

The only way I see this being truly positive is if we can design our own engines so performance figures can't just be simply tied to the engine which relies on the fuel "not the oxidizer"

[SpaceFace545]

12 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So long as engine performance is dependent on the engine then I feel new fuels add nothing but a name. If instead we built the engines themselves and could change their performance values which would be dependent on fuel types then I would be all for it. But if we're just purchasing pre-built engines then all the fuel tank is doing is adding a check mark and nit picking what color the check mark comes in adds, in my view, little to nothing to the actual gameplay.

What gameplay does it add other than "realism"? What are these challenges you refer to?

Just seem like more logistical slowdowns all to just add titles

Kerolox-good for brute force isn’t stages and simple rocket engines, Saturn v first stage. Can be mined or drilled for on planets that have or had life 

hydrolox-low mass high volume stages with efficient engines, great for upper stages where you need fuels that don’t weigh much. Can be mined Literally anywhere with water

methalox-efficient, high thrust, cool. Can be isrued anywhere with co2 and oxygen.

both methalox and hydrolox are cryogenic so they need to be cooled to prevent boil off and need larger tanks where kerolox can be used straight from the refinery without any cooling needed but it is very heavy. 
All of these different characteristic of these fuels will give players different experiences and challenges when building and flying craft.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Kerolox-good for brute force isn’t stages and simple rocket engines, Saturn v first stage. Can be mined or drilled for on planets that have or had life 

hydrolox-low mass high volume stages with efficient engines, great for upper stages where you need fuels that don’t weigh much. Can be mined Literally anywhere with water

methalox-efficient, high thrust, cool. Can be isrued anywhere with co2 and oxygen.

both methalox and hydrolox are cryogenic so they need to be cooled to prevent boil off and need larger tanks where kerolox can be used straight from the refinery without any cooling needed but it is very heavy. 
All of these different characteristic of these fuels will give players different experiences and challenges when building and flying craft.

I will also ask you this

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Should, in your view, an engine like the swivel be compatible with all, some, or only one of these fuel types?

If it is all or some then now were telling people that engines can run multiple fuel types, which as I understand, they don't

If its just one then why not keep engines as they are and re-label "Liquid fuel" to "The liquid hydrocarbon of your choosing"?

The only way I see this being truly positive is if we can design our own engines so performance figures can't just be simply tied to the engine which relies on the fuel "not the oxidizer"

 

[SpaceFace545]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

I will also ask you this

 

If you really want me to I’ll tell which engine uses which fuel in real life

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

If you really want me to I’ll tell which engine uses which fuel in real life

So each engine only uses one fuel?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So each engine only uses one fuel?

I would say that yes, most engines use only one fuel, but I would also see a gameplay opportunity for some very specific hybrid engines but I don't know if that's realistic as that isn't my concern when thinking about new gameplay.

[mcwaffles2003]

8 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I would say that yes, most engines use only one fuel, but I would also see a gameplay opportunity for some very specific hybrid engines but I don't know if that's realistic as that isn't my concern when thinking about new gameplay.

So why not tie engine efficiency to that engine and have a generic fuel that represents all the fuels run through all the engines?

Kinda like how the terrier has a way better Isp than the reliant? Wouldn't that minimize complexity while still just about enabling all the positive features of different fuels? Doesn't that make a single player game more manageable, therefore in general more enjoyable, and give it a broader audience to appeal to?

Also I'm pretty sure engines can't run multiple fuels as that would require different flow ratios thus different turbo pumps and, at least in the case of engines running with LH2, Hydrogen engines require insane seals to prevent hydrogen from the preburner flowing into LOX pumps which would destroy the engine

Edited May 19, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Kinda like how the terrier has a way better Isp than the reliant? Wouldn't that minimize complexity while still just about enabling all the positive features of different fuels? Doesn't that make a single player game more manageable, therefore in general more enjoyable, and give it a broader audience to appeal to?

I'm arguing for a better gameplay, over simplicity and over realism, the fuel one was just an example, not something I'm intrested in goin OT on.

My point is that the whole argument is not realism vs simplicity, everything else is an example.

[mcwaffles2003]

18 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I'm arguing for a better gameplay, over simplicity and over realism, the fuel one was just an example, not something I'm intrested in goin OT on.

My point is that the whole argument is not realism vs simplicity, everything else is an example.

I get that, and I believe I understand the general idea you put forward. No need to go OT into making your example. I am just saying you can have all the functionality of the thing you are proposing while also minimizing logistical complexity. The way things are now, in base game, we can have refueling stations in orbit needing only 1 resource as opposed to LH2, CH4, RP-1, U-235, etc...

We already have the RP-1/methalox initial stage and  the Hydrogen 2nd-stage, thats why the engine Isp's and their trust are so different for some engines.

To those of us, and I am one of these people... I have multiple RSS/RP-1 playthroughs , who want more fuels, we can go to the modding community and add that extra functionality without imposing it on the broader base community. I am okay with this since I recognize not everyone wants to play the game the way I do.

 

Now if you can give me an example that really adds to the fun factor in gameplay I am all ears, I really am. So far the only way I see making more fuels worthwhile, gameplay wise, is if we design our own engines and tie Isp partially to the fuel used (along with chamber pressure, expansion ratio, etc) in those engines we make.

Edited May 19, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[betaking]

I only hope they make things more complex in ways that aren't isolated to "late game stuff" like colonization and "Futuristic propulsion systems".

That is to say having togglible(Toggleable, toggle-able?)  settings for things like "Orbital decay", or "Downrange safety concerns" (Stock Kerbal Cities that notice if debris lands near them, maybe resulting in penalties), and more importantly aeronautical stuff like wing-geometry.

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I get that, and I believe I understand the general idea you put forward. No need to go OT into making your example. I am just saying you can have all the functionality of the thing you are proposing while also minimizing logistical complexity. The way things are now, in base game, we can have refueling stations in orbit needing only 1 resource as opposed to LH2, CH4, RP-1, U-235, etc...

We already have the RP-1/methalox initial stage and  the Hydrogen 2nd-stage, thats why the engine Isp's and their trust are so different for some engines.

To those of us, and I am one of these people... I have multiple RSS/RP-1 playthroughs , who want more fuels, we can go to the modding community and add that extra functionality without imposing it on the broader base community. I am okay with this since I recognize not everyone wants to play the game the way I do.

 

Now if you can give me an example that really adds to the fun factor in gameplay I am all ears, I really am. So far the only way I see making more fuels worthwhile, gameplay wise, is if we design our own engines and tie Isp partially to the fuel used (along with chamber pressure, expansion ratio, etc) in those engines we make.

Doesn't Simple Rockets have an engine editor? I've seen some other engineering games that have various part editors, and it always seems like a pretty good idea to me, as it prevents a lot of "clang"/performance issues by allowing for certain engineering statistics to be "baked" prior to "runtime".

Having a parts-designer/editor would/could be interesting, especially if it wasn't limited to "rocket engines" but could include other stuff like fuel-tanks, (though it would somehow have to convey meaningful differences in terms of tank design that would incentivise "optimal ranges" (relative to mass/Internal-Volume/cost/etc.-ratios) in order for there to be the necessary amount of variety.

I could even envision some kind of IVA editor (that could be made to work with already "fixed" internal spaces), though how that would have much impact outside of the "IVA only gameplay" and/or "aesthetic-centric"-communities is anyones guess..

[AntaresMC]

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's your preference but KSP was never about practicality.

None of this makes sense, and where did you get "red dwarves get brighter over time" from?

Red dwarves get denser as bur H into He, what makes them fuse more, so be hotter, so brighter. Actually every living star gets brighter over time, just red dwarves do more because they're fully convective and live trillions of years. Google it, its basic stellar life cycle.

Edited May 20, 2020 by AntaresMC
A 2 orders of magnitude language error xD

[mcwaffles2003]

39 minutes ago, betaking said:

Doesn't Simple Rockets have an engine editor? I've seen some other engineering games that have various part editors, and it always seems like a pretty good idea to me, as it prevents a lot of "clang"/performance issues by allowing for certain engineering statistics to be "baked" prior to "runtime".

Having a parts-designer/editor would/could be interesting, especially if it wasn't limited to "rocket engines" but could include other stuff like fuel-tanks, (though it would somehow have to convey meaningful differences in terms of tank design that would incentivise "optimal ranges" (relative to mass/Internal-Volume/cost/etc.-ratios) in order for there to be the necessary amount of variety.

I could even envision some kind of IVA editor (that could be made to work with already "fixed" internal spaces), though how that would have much impact outside of the "IVA only gameplay" and/or "aesthetic-centric"-communities is anyones guess..

It does. But there is a real trade off to be made in the case of procedural engines (and other parts) as they would render normal pre-built engines (and other parts) a bit pointless. This might cause a less predictable path for progression to those new to the game.

I'm sure this could all be handled by the devs to make a complete game around this but it would deviate greatly from KSP as we know it (which I am fine with, honestly). Think is 99.9% surely not happening though as we have dev made pre-built engine models definitely confirmed. I hope the modders will take this kind of torch up and run with it though as it is a style of play I would really enjoy.

[Tw1]

I'm up for things being more complex. Just saying. 

It's more of an achievement to create beautiful and performing vehicles against more complicated rules, as long as those rules make sense, and don't feel arbitrary.

As long as every complex thing has solutions,  this could be a plus. 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Tw1

[AntaresMC]

15 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I get that, and I believe I understand the general idea you put forward. No need to go OT into making your example. I am just saying you can have all the functionality of the thing you are proposing while also minimizing logistical complexity. The way things are now, in base game, we can have refueling stations in orbit needing only 1 resource as opposed to LH2, CH4, RP-1, U-235, etc...

We already have the RP-1/methalox initial stage and  the Hydrogen 2nd-stage, thats why the engine Isp's and their trust are so different for some engines.

To those of us, and I am one of these people... I have multiple RSS/RP-1 playthroughs , who want more fuels, we can go to the modding community and add that extra functionality without imposing it on the broader base community. I am okay with this since I recognize not everyone wants to play the game the way I do.

 

Now if you can give me an example that really adds to the fun factor in gameplay I am all ears, I really am. So far the only way I see making more fuels worthwhile, gameplay wise, is if we design our own engines and tie Isp partially to the fuel used (along with chamber pressure, expansion ratio, etc) in those engines we make.

Before answer, I have to say that realism doesnt matter. Under known phiscs is plausible (not easy) the kerbal System, just a nuke methabolisim solves all LS problems, and LFO could be explained in some ways. What I mmean is that I will adapt the lore to whatever it is and stop pretending Kerbin is Terra. Dont care about realism until breaks a fundamental law.

Having said that, I think 2 simple mechanics that allows for more gameplay deph (and disable them if dont want them)

1st, fuel variety. I believe that the typical "one easy and 2 more specialized" and "1 easy and 1 good" for oxidizers.

Lets say for example, Kero, Metha, Hydro for fuel. Kero is easy what means can be in every tank, high thrust low Isp. Really difficult to ISRU (mabe requires a mini production chain from metha). Metha is more complicated (mild cryogenic) can be in some tanks, and in the non cryogenic tanks it uses up a lot of electricity. Easy ISRU, but in airless bodies will have to search for concrete locations (can extract CO(2) from athmo, but its not always in the ground). Hydro is the more complicated, since is very cryogenic (uses electricity always, but in cryo tanks much much less),  but  gives a medium thrust (less, but good) at high Isp, easily ISRUable (water is everywhere, in more or less quantity). Only fuel for Nerv (mabe a lox afterburner AS MUCH). Ah, H2 has a pitty density.

And for the oxidizers, lets say HTP and LOx. HTP aint cryogenic have both same thrust (mostly affected by the fuel, so lets simplify) but LOx have a higher Isp and ISRUability. I dont know which is denser, so lets say moreless equal. HTP could also be a low perfonance monoprop if dont want complexity, at the cost of a good RCS

The "ores" would be water, that gives both oxidizers and LH2. Found in most planets, some athmos (Eve, a lot; Kerbin, rare; Jool, medium and Laythe, super rare). CarbonOxides (both CO/CO2) that are found in all athmos (but rare in Kerbin's) and in some, not comon patches in the ground (have to aim landing). It+water gives CH4+O2 and this+more water+some regular ore (dont know exact chemistry, so I did gameplay-balanced) gives Kero. Also could be a generator that runs in CO-O2>CO2, or CO-HTP>CO2+H2O, a generator that burns ore for simplicity. The fuel cell can run in H2/O2 (efficient) or CH4/O2(or HTP), less efficient. Then regular ore gives SolidFuel and SolidOxidizer, or SolidFuel and O2 (if dont like generics, say WhateverMetalIFoundAndMixed) and, a hybrid rocket engine! And is all over all the surfaces (now is less valuable), in more or less quantity. 

And lastly, Id love if Jools athmo is H2 and you could make a plane burning O2, and scoop up "JoolAthmo" that if you pass trough an ISRU it converts into like 2/3 H2, and waste a lot of power for balance. Also would love a thermal ramjet that if is supersonic (and have intakes) generates free thrust in athmo. The idea is to give variety and reasons yo make ISRU plants all over the place.

Also if you have 6 fuel combinations, you have 6 engine types, 6 different new ways of playing, and specialization of missions, giving them a unique taste more than the dV puzzle. And eases life for modders (KSPIE-regular LFO is a pain in the ass). Even could add a useless, super heavy, super rare resource that gives a bit (with diminishing returns, obvious) of science and a lot of money!

 

The 2nd thing I envision a simple life support (dont go, Ill explain):

You have Snacks (if dont have, stop doing anything but waste electricity, instant) and Space (just is a multiplier to how they work, if dont have, they "lose" its proffesion temporarely) All capsules have enough snacks 1/2 seats (rounded to max) for 2 weeks (to not worry inside KSoI). I seat gives 1 space, Kerbals use the numbers of kerbals in space, and its working efficiency 1-1/space (1 kerbal in a 3 seat pod, will work at 1/2 its rate, will pilot worse, will research slower/take less science,  ISRU worse, etc). Also, cupoulas impriove the efficiency of Kerbals by 1/2 (cant go more than 100%) (so if we have 2 kerbals in a hichiker module+landing can capsule (7 slots total) and a cupoula, well have 100%eff (1-1/3)×1.5). Space dont matter the 1st day. There are recyclers, that cut Snacks use by 1/2 with an engineer an by 1/4 alone. Affect a limited amount of crew (I imagine a radial to 1, a bigger radial 2, an inline 1.25m 4 an an inline 2.5m to 8-12) AND THEY DONT STACK bonuses, just crew affected. There are agroponics that recycle the crew's waste at 1/2 eff if scientist and 1/4 by alone. They vary with experience, but they are maxes, so self sufficiency is only possible if lvl5 engineer AND scientist with 100% space. The evample before could be self sufficient if had electricity, 2 lvl5 and enough recyclers and greenhouses. If a pilot is present, veicles in 2Km share LS related resources and gives the opportunity to manual transfer everything between both, and yes, you can chain them as long as there are pilots 2Km appart. So groung ISRU is easier.

With electricity, ore, water and waste you can make 2x waste, allowing for Snacks ISRU plants, making bases easier as you can have a shuttle between the station and the base. Life support as you see isnt realistic and its REALLY easy to be self sufficient with ISRU and just easy if not. Its to balance labs, they are OP. But you can still make long range SSTOs, just need a few tons less payload cap and about 10+ parts! ;D

Edited May 20, 2020 by AntaresMC

[DunaManiac]

11 hours ago, AntaresMC said:

Red dwarves get denser as bur H into He, what makes them fuse more, so be hotter, so brighter. Actually every living star gets brighter over time, just red dwarves do more because they're fully convective and live quadrillioms of years. Google it, its basic stellar life cycle.

Actually, I thought that red dwarfs only lived for 10 trillion years, not quadrillions. Besides, 1 quadrillion years is well into the degenerative era, where by then most stars would be dead and the universe would be ruled by black holes and white dwarfs.

[noobsrtoast]

im ok with complexity, its the reason im drawn to ksp in the first place and not something like space engineers 

[AntaresMC]

55 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

Actually, I thought that red dwarfs only lived for 10 trillion years, not quadrillions. Besides, 1 quadrillion years is well into the degenerative era, where by then most stars would be dead and the universe would be ruled by black holes and white dwarfs.

Ah, sorry I meant trillions (Im Spanish and the 10^3 barrier between "illions" confuses me)

But mabe, a good fraction of the quadrillion is possible, I mean, only the smallest from the smallest, Kerbol is too big for more than a few trillions.

If counting the "active" white dwarf, blue dwarf, and helium blue dwarf stages (absolutely everythig before is full degenerate matter and cant fuse anymore, generally as soon as the ultradense He/C/O core forms is a white dwarf eve though it has a lot of  billions of years of fusion, just not enough to keep temperature up with radiation) it just might be possible a good fraction of the quadrillion for the smallest...

And a proper white dwarf is similar to that not-quite-dying-but-not-save quasi-white-dwarf in brightness, mass and they arent all that different in volume and live actual quadrillions until they get (dont know name, the interstage betwee white and black, where stops being hot, but still has enough heat for thigs like life to form), ill call it a grey dwarf. That would be quadrillions of years of effective sunlight and at the end would still be possible to live in that degenerate planet burnig solid He for energy.

Mabe SFIA has to make another episode of civs at the end of time!

Edited May 20, 2020 by AntaresMC

[AntaresMC]

19 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Let's say  (and my whole post is an assumption) they simply change current LF to liquid hydrogen, and OX to liquid oxygen.

Okay, that's fine, many conventional engines present in the game at the moment can work on that.

But our old LV-N? I don't think it could work with just liquid hydrogen, it's a nuclear engine for a reason. So that gives us one new fuel type, probably to be used by few other engines as well.

Jet engines shouldn't work with LF, now known as as hydrogen, that wouldn't make much sense, from what I've read, many jet engines work on kerosene, so that's second new fuel.

Plus you can mix kerosene with liquid oxygen, and boom, another rocket propellant. Or we could just have kerosene instead of hydrogen. 

So, not much has changed in terms of complexity, we got one more fuel type, only because it makes a little bit more sense. Plus few new names for old fuels. They're still the same thing, just properly named. And still with old engines of ours.

Why not?

1st) NUKES CAN ONLY WORK IN H/He usefully, and He aint the best fuel ever, i guess.

2nd) Jet engines can work in H2, is just a bad and inconvenient fuel. More difficult, less dense, same thrust, almost same Isp. But see the SABRE! It suns in hydrolOx cause it needs a better Isp in vaccum/closed cycle mode and in jet mode works just fine.

3rd) Changing fuel name will not help, the idea is to have more fuel types, more flexibility, not realism. I proposed using 3 fuels (easy, efficient and thrusty) and 2 oxidizers (easy and good) and called it (coincidentally) as real counterpars. The point is that this complexity adds not barriers/challenges but a spectrum of possibilities, and if its too complexfor you, use just the easiest (that is in my proposal, Kero-HTP)

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, noobsrtoast said:

im ok with complexity, its the reason im drawn to ksp in the first place and not something like space engineers 

Complex gameplay decisions are fine, and even a good thing.

Complexity for complexity's sake is annoying and a bad thing.

The hard part is making sure any complexity being implemented is the first, and not the second.  Master39's point is well taken - that adding fuels just for realism and complexity's sake shouldn't be the goal and shouldn't be something that gets done, but that if by adding a resource you add an interesting decision and a unique play differentiator for that fuel, *that* may be a good idea.

[shdwlrd]

21 hours ago, Master39 said:

Then let's make the jets work in vacuum, or any engine without fuel at all, that's also punishing by the standards of other space games.

You can do that already in KSP using the cheat/debug menu or a simple config edit. But those options are completely optional. You can use them if you want or not use them at all. 

 

21 hours ago, Master39 said:

Remember, I'm arguing for gameplay, not pointless realism, obviously if you decide to ignore the main mode of the game you'll also find the related gameplay features to be useless, but I would argue that pairing tanks and engines it's hardly considerable a mild inconvenience at best and that the devs should not cut content from the progression mode to keep the sandbox simple.

How will it change gameplay? Is the change in gameplay going to be a boon or burden for the majority of the user base? 

I'm asking these questions because you can't just think about your own opinions. You have to think about people who will be using it. 

You're lobbying for a change that isn't necessary.

Turbine engines can run on any fuel that burns, internally or externally.

Rocket motors can use any fuel that burns. The only reason they use specific fuels, is they are designed for that fuel. It doesn't mean they can't be made to use another fuel.

So with that thought, why change something that doesn't need to be changed? Just to add more pieces to the puzzle? 

[AntaresMC]

9 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

You can do that already in KSP using the cheat/debug menu or a simple config edit. But those options are completely optional. You can use them if you want or not use them at all. 

 

How will it change gameplay? Is the change in gameplay going to be a boon or burden for the majority of the user base? 

I'm asking these questions because you can't just think about your own opinions. You have to think about people who will be using it. 

You're lobbying for a change that isn't necessary.

Turbine engines can run on any fuel that burns, internally or externally.

Rocket motors can use any fuel that burns. The only reason they use specific fuels, is they are designed for that fuel. It doesn't mean they can't be made to use another fuel.

So with that thought, why change something that doesn't need to be changed? Just to add more pieces to the puzzle? 

Mabe you can have 3 fuel types (easy, thrust, Isp) and 2 oxidizers (easy, good), with no incompatibilities, just new tools to multiply by 6 the types of effective engines you have. Now add 3 independent ores, to make the ISRU more complete without making pains in the ass (just need one, so more free gameplay options!) You have expanded the game quite a lot without making it complex (since you havent got to cross them, they are mostly paralel) and not making it easy since they are balanced and mostly paralel. You add a lot of deph without changing most of the game (basicly same mechanics, just different "modes" as the RAPIER)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

You're lobbying for a change that isn't necessary.

I'm not lobbying for anything except for more meaningful choices and a deeper, layered gameplay.

I created an example in 2 minutes using the fuel argument as a base not knowing I was apparently stepping on a minefield, I don't care about the fuel argument, I don't care if metallic hydrogen is not realistic and I don't care if having only one fuel was simpler, I care about the gameplay aspect of the game.

 

[AntaresMC]

39 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I'm not lobbying for anything except for more meaningful choices and a deeper, layered gameplay.

I created an example in 2 minutes using the fuel argument as a base not knowing I was apparently stepping on a minefield, I don't care about the fuel argument, I don't care if metallic hydrogen is not realistic and I don't care if having only one fuel was simpler, I care about the gameplay aspect of the game.

 

I did say a serious proposition of a fuel system: 3 fuels, 2 Ox, all engines can run on all, but theyre like variants, can only change in VAB, automatic mass ratios, a paralel ISRU system, some extra things that might be cool. (Hide and read later, its loooooong). Mabe would be cool if there is some kind of Rutherford engine that can change fuel midflight, but uses ElectricCharge as balane.

10 hours ago, AntaresMC said:

Before answer, I have to say that realism doesnt matter. Under known phiscs is plausible (not easy) the kerbal System, just a nuke methabolisim solves all LS problems, and LFO could be explained in some ways. What I mmean is that I will adapt the lore to whatever it is and stop pretending Kerbin is Terra. Dont care about realism until breaks a fundamental law.

Having said that, I think 2 simple mechanics that allows for more gameplay deph (and disable them if dont want them)

1st, fuel variety. I believe that the typical "one easy and 2 more specialized" and "1 easy and 1 good" for oxidizers.

Lets say for example, Kero, Metha, Hydro for fuel. Kero is easy what means can be in every tank, high thrust low Isp. Really difficult to ISRU (mabe requires a mini production chain from metha). Metha is more complicated (mild cryogenic) can be in some tanks, and in the non cryogenic tanks it uses up a lot of electricity. Easy ISRU, but in airless bodies will have to search for concrete locations (can extract CO(2) from athmo, but its not always in the ground). Hydro is the more complicated, since is very cryogenic (uses electricity always, but in cryo tanks much much less),  but  gives a medium thrust (less, but good) at high Isp, easily ISRUable (water is everywhere, in more or less quantity). Only fuel for Nerv (mabe a lox afterburner AS MUCH). Ah, H2 has a pitty density.

And for the oxidizers, lets say HTP and LOx. HTP aint cryogenic have both same thrust (mostly affected by the fuel, so lets simplify) but LOx have a higher Isp and ISRUability. I dont know which is denser, so lets say moreless equal. HTP could also be a low perfonance monoprop if dont want complexity, at the cost of a good RCS

The "ores" would be water, that gives both oxidizers and LH2. Found in most planets, some athmos (Eve, a lot; Kerbin, rare; Jool, medium and Laythe, super rare). CarbonOxides (both CO/CO2) that are found in all athmos (but rare in Kerbin's) and in some, not comon patches in the ground (have to aim landing). It+water gives CH4+O2 and this+more water+some regular ore (dont know exact chemistry, so I did gameplay-balanced) gives Kero. Also could be a generator that runs in CO-O2>CO2, or CO-HTP>CO2+H2O (CarbonOxides+an oxidizer=>EC+water (if HTP)), a generator that burns "ore" for simplicity. The fuel cell can run in H2/O2 (efficient) or CH4/O2(or HTP), less efficient. Then regular ore gives SolidFuel and SolidOxidizer, or SolidFuel and O2 (if dont like generics, say WhateverMetalIFoundAndMixed) and, a hybrid rocket engine! And is all over all the surfaces (now is less valuable), in more or less quantity. 

And lastly, Id love if Jools athmo is H2 and you could make a plane burning HTP/O2, and scoop up "JoolAthmo" that if you pass trough an ISRU it converts into like 2/3 H2, and waste a lot of power for balance. Also would love a thermal ramjet that if is supersonic (and have intakes) generates free thrust in athmo. The idea is to give variety and reasons yo make ISRU plants all over the place.

Also if you have 6 fuel combinations, you have 6 engine types, 6 different new ways of playing, and specialization of missions, giving them a unique taste more than the dV puzzle. And eases life for modders (KSPIE-regular LFO is a pain in the ass). Even could add a useless, super heavy, super rare resource that gives a bit (with diminishing returns, obvious) of science and a lot of money!

 

The 2nd thing I envision a simple life support (dont go, Ill explain):

You have Snacks (if dont have, stop doing anything but waste electricity, instant) and Space (just is a multiplier to how they work, if dont have, they "lose" its proffesion temporarely) All capsules have enough snacks 1/2 seats (rounded to max) for 2 weeks (to not worry inside KSoI). I seat gives 1 space, Kerbals use the numbers of kerbals in space, and its working efficiency 1-1/space (1 kerbal in a 3 seat pod, will work at 1/2 its rate, will pilot worse, will research slower/take less science,  ISRU worse, etc). Also, cupoulas impriove the efficiency of Kerbals by 1/2 (cant go more than 100%) (so if we have 2 kerbals in a hichiker module+landing can capsule (7 slots total) and a cupoula, well have 100%eff (1-1/3)×1.5). Space dont matter the 1st day. There are recyclers, that cut Snacks use by 1/2 with an engineer an by 1/4 alone. Affect a limited amount of crew (I imagine a radial to 1, a bigger radial 2, an inline 1.25m 4 an an inline 2.5m to 8-12) AND THEY DONT STACK bonuses, just crew affected. There are agroponics that recycle the crew's waste at 1/2 eff if scientist and 1/4 by alone. They vary with experience, but they are maxes, so self sufficiency is only possible if lvl5 engineer AND scientist with 100% space. The evample before could be self sufficient if had electricity, 2 lvl5 and enough recyclers and greenhouses. If a pilot is present, veicles in 2Km share LS related resources and gives the opportunity to manual transfer everything between both, and yes, you can chain them as long as there are pilots 2Km appart. So groung ISRU is easier.

With electricity, ore, water and waste you can make 2x waste, allowing for Snacks ISRU plants, making bases easier as you can have a shuttle between the station and the base. Life support as you see isnt realistic and its REALLY easy to be self sufficient with ISRU and just easy if not. Its to balance labs, they are OP. But you can still make long range SSTOs, just need a few tons less payload cap and about 10+ parts! ;D

I came up with a better idea for RP1 ISRU, call the kero "HeavyHidrcarbons", or "Oil" and make a sort of bio reactor that needs ore, waste, water and CarbonOxides, and gives HeavyHidrocarbons. If disable life support, kerbals still give Waste, so life support is still optional.

Also, for the sake of "everything is ISRUable", because its cool, Id love if the Nerv could have an option in where if there's an engineer on board can stop producing power/thrust but collect "NobleGases" or "IonFuel" or keep the XenonGas

Edited May 20, 2020 by AntaresMC

[mcwaffles2003]

10 hours ago, AntaresMC said:

Before answer, I have to say that realism doesnt matter. Under known phiscs is plausible (not easy) the kerbal System, just a nuke methabolisim solves all LS problems, and LFO could be explained in some ways. What I mmean is that I will adapt the lore to whatever it is and stop pretending Kerbin is Terra. Dont care about realism until breaks a fundamental law.

Having said that, I think 2 simple mechanics that allows for more gameplay deph (and disable them if dont want them)

1st, fuel variety. I believe that the typical "one easy and 2 more specialized" and "1 easy and 1 good" for oxidizers.

Lets say for example, Kero, Metha, Hydro for fuel. Kero is easy what means can be in every tank, high thrust low Isp. Really difficult to ISRU (mabe requires a mini production chain from metha). Metha is more complicated (mild cryogenic) can be in some tanks, and in the non cryogenic tanks it uses up a lot of electricity. Easy ISRU, but in airless bodies will have to search for concrete locations (can extract CO(2) from athmo, but its not always in the ground). Hydro is the more complicated, since is very cryogenic (uses electricity always, but in cryo tanks much much less),  but  gives a medium thrust (less, but good) at high Isp, easily ISRUable (water is everywhere, in more or less quantity). Only fuel for Nerv (mabe a lox afterburner AS MUCH). Ah, H2 has a pitty density.

And for the oxidizers, lets say HTP and LOx. HTP aint cryogenic have both same thrust (mostly affected by the fuel, so lets simplify) but LOx have a higher Isp and ISRUability. I dont know which is denser, so lets say moreless equal. HTP could also be a low perfonance monoprop if dont want complexity, at the cost of a good RCS

The "ores" would be water, that gives both oxidizers and LH2. Found in most planets, some athmos (Eve, a lot; Kerbin, rare; Jool, medium and Laythe, super rare). CarbonOxides (both CO/CO2) that are found in all athmos (but rare in Kerbin's) and in some, not comon patches in the ground (have to aim landing). It+water gives CH4+O2 and this+more water+some regular ore (dont know exact chemistry, so I did gameplay-balanced) gives Kero. Also could be a generator that runs in CO-O2>CO2, or CO-HTP>CO2+H2O, a generator that burns ore for simplicity. The fuel cell can run in H2/O2 (efficient) or CH4/O2(or HTP), less efficient. Then regular ore gives SolidFuel and SolidOxidizer, or SolidFuel and O2 (if dont like generics, say WhateverMetalIFoundAndMixed) and, a hybrid rocket engine! And is all over all the surfaces (now is less valuable), in more or less quantity. 

And lastly, Id love if Jools athmo is H2 and you could make a plane burning O2, and scoop up "JoolAthmo" that if you pass trough an ISRU it converts into like 2/3 H2, and waste a lot of power for balance. Also would love a thermal ramjet that if is supersonic (and have intakes) generates free thrust in athmo. The idea is to give variety and reasons yo make ISRU plants all over the place.

Also if you have 6 fuel combinations, you have 6 engine types, 6 different new ways of playing, and specialization of missions, giving them a unique taste more than the dV puzzle. And eases life for modders (KSPIE-regular LFO is a pain in the ass). Even could add a useless, super heavy, super rare resource that gives a bit (with diminishing returns, obvious) of science and a lot of money!

Can you highlight where greater gameplay depth is being explained here? All I'm getting reading this is there will be a lot more resources and ISRU. None of this "enhances" gameplay, but just arbitrarily makes it more tedious. In your plan does 1 engine run multiple fuel types? 

You have added water, H2, CH4, HTP, CO2, CO, Solid Oxidizer, and "a useless, super heavy, super rare resource that gives a bit" and for what? you never explained where this enhances gameplay, it just sounds like now I will either spend most of my time setting up resource transition plants instead of building/flying rockets or I will just ignore everything here and fly rockets. This sounds, tedious and painstaking and I fail to see the reward for it..

49 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I care about the gameplay aspect of the game.

You say this but still haven't explained how splitting up fuels enhances the gameplay anymore than having all the fuels combined and having engine performance tied to the engines. Complexity is being added for no reward beyond complicating the titles of the fuel tanks and making logistics later in the game more arduous.