Jump to content

Add Salvage Worthy Debris as a category in Tracking Center


Recommended Posts

Just as we can tag tracked objects as ships, debris, probes, etc., how about adding "Salvage Target" or just "Salvageable"?  That way we can still filter out debris from the map without passing up that full fuel tank the kraken had mercy upon

Link to post
Share on other sites

@darthgently Nice idea, but one problem I can see with this is the game's automatic assignation of vessel types, e.g: if it has a relay antenna then it's a relay, if it has no control then it's debris etc. The game wouldn't be able to automatically mark a vessel as 'salvage-worthy debris' because it has no idea what the player considers salvage-worthy. Interesting concept though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kspnerd122 said:

e.g if it still has fuel in it it could be considdered salvage worthy.

for example there is 1/2 of the fuel left in a tank, you should be able to have it automarked for recovery.

Whether a piece of debris is salvage-worthy could also depend on its trajectory though. If a discarded stage half full of fuel is in LKO, then that would be worth it to rendezvous with it and suck the fuel out. But if the same stage is on a solar escape trajectory, then it really wouldn't be worth the dV to rendezvous with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Who is going to go all the way out to eeloo, just to drag the lander descent stage off of eeloo, to take it to kerbin, same for jool, maybe if it was on eve, fine, use the fuel to leave, but who is dragging some 100 ton fuel tank off eve because it was "salvage worthy", maybe there should be a max delta v setting for something to be salvage worthy, e.g anything costing more to get than a landing and return from duna should not be done.

for career mode, maybe give contracts to "remove space junk", by pushing it out of a SOI or deorbiting it, make sure it has 0 LFO or LF in it or you will be penalized for throwing away materials, people will need to find ways to deal with their junk, if nothing is inside, they just need to remove it from the SOI of the planet it is in(this would not happen if it was landed, trash on a planet is less bad than a 10 ton stage moving at 2 km/s, waiting to hit your 10 million fund rocket)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@darthgently Nice idea, but one problem I can see with this is the game's automatic assignation of vessel types, e.g: if it has a relay antenna then it's a relay, if it has no control then it's debris etc. The game wouldn't be able to automatically mark a vessel as 'salvage-worthy debris' because it has no idea what the player considers salvage-worthy. Interesting concept though.

No, that is not the idea.  The player would tag it as salvage worthy.  You can change the categorization by selecting the object in the list in Tracking Center, the clicking on the "i" panel down in the menus, then doubleclicking on the name of the object.  You can edit the name and you can re-categorize it to one of the stock categories.  I'm merely suggesting adding another category the player could choose.  No automation.  More clear?  Sorry if I wasn't

9 hours ago, kspnerd122 said:

Yeah, Who is going to go all the way out to eeloo, just to drag the lander descent stage off of eeloo, to take it to kerbin, same for jool, maybe if it was on eve, fine, use the fuel to leave, but who is dragging some 100 ton fuel tank off eve because it was "salvage worthy", maybe there should be a max delta v setting for something to be salvage worthy, e.g anything costing more to get than a landing and return from duna should not be done.

for career mode, maybe give contracts to "remove space junk", by pushing it out of a SOI or deorbiting it, make sure it has 0 LFO or LF in it or you will be penalized for throwing away materials, people will need to find ways to deal with their junk, if nothing is inside, they just need to remove it from the SOI of the planet it is in(this would not happen if it was landed, trash on a planet is less bad than a 10 ton stage moving at 2 km/s, waiting to hit your 10 million fund rocket)

The player decides, not the game.  Currently I change the name of the object in TC, but I want to be able to filter it in and out like the other categories.  Jeez guys, think

9 hours ago, kspnerd122 said:

e.g if it still has fuel in it it could be considdered salvage worthy.

for example there is 1/2 of the fuel left in a tank, you should be able to have it automarked for recovery.

I wouldn't want automated anything.  I just want to be able to assign it as salvage myself and filter it in and out as needed.  I launched a rocket to replace some solar panels that Jeb flew through on a sat, then later when going through debris there was a piece of failed rocket with panels on it.  Could have save some time to just rendezvous a ship that was already up there and grab it.  I hadn't deleted it because long ago I thought, that might be useful sometime, then forgot about it.  I want to tag it and see it when I filter by 'salvage' 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can change the classification of any object in the tracking station- click the object to select it, click the ‘i’ button on the right then double click the orange banner with its name and it should give you the standard vessel renaming pop up. Call it a ‘base’ or something like that and it won’t be deleted, so you can collect it later.

You could also try using this mod as it makes things much easier (and is really useful for keeping track of things if you have many missions on the go at once):

 

Edited by jimmymcgoochie
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

You can change the classification of any object in the tracking station- click the object to select it, click the ‘i’ button on the right then double click the orange banner with its name and it should give you the standard vessel renaming pop up. Call it a ‘base’ or something like that and it won’t be deleted, so you can collect it later.

You could also try using this mod as it makes things much easier (and is really useful for keeping track of things if you have many missions on the go at once):

 

Yes, currently I rename stuff that might come in handy in orbit somewhere so I don't accidentally delete it as debris.  But the filters in the map view, not just the TC, filter by specific categories.  I would like a category just like "ships", "debris", probes", "bases", but for stuff that KSP calls debris, but I don't want to mistake for debris.  Why does this seem so complicated?  A lot of off the wall push back here on a fairly straightforward UI suggestion.  How about the general ability to add custom categories?  It is a matter of being in map view and wanting to find something in the noise and being able to click a button to filter out the irrelevant, not looking at the name I gave everything after going to the TC etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, darthgently said:

How about the general ability to add custom categories?

This is probably better than prenamed categories.  4-6 should do fine, should cover most players needs.  Of course, there's always some nutcase who wants 138 of them and actually has a need for them. 

49 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Why does this seem so complicated?

Most of the pushback on this idea probably came from suggesting an addition to a system that is already automated, without specifying it will be manual.  So people were trying to figure out how to automate it, and running into a lot of issues.    Custom categories will suit most people best, for the same reason you are asking for more categories over the stock ones now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I figured out why I think this is a good idea and others can't figure it.  I use Kerbal Attachment System so engineers can fix/build a lot of stuff outside the VAB, but I don't run Extraplanetary Launchpads so I can't just build rockets anywhere.  I have, however, had kerbals replace parts on stuff in orbit that were scavenged (usually from a nearby working ship that had extras).  A good example is moving parachutes from a zero fuel  upper stage (that normally deorbits so Stage Recovery can handle it; I used all the fuel circularizing and forgot to leave any to deorbit the upper stage and just left it up there). Anyway, when I ended up with less room on my ship during a contract rescue (because the VAB put extra castaway kerbs on that I didn't notice before launching) the solution was to put parachutes from the debris onto the rescue contract Command Capsule and nudge it into a deorbit.  Everyone survived.  But the rescuee rode back in the rescue ship and one of the engineers rode the debris and chutes down because it seemed like the thing to do.  Got paid for the Command Capsule too.  So it was 2 rendezvous instead of one, the first to go get the chutes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel this would be fine, but i feel like EL is super useful, as it lets you actually construct stuff off planet(I dont make rockets with it, I make bases, and then use SSTO vehicles to transport parts to orbital shipyards).

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kspnerd122 said:

I feel this would be fine, but i feel like EL is super useful, as it lets you actually construct stuff off planet(I dont make rockets with it, I make bases, and then use SSTO vehicles to transport parts to orbital shipyards).

I get that, but I've drawn the line at KAS/KIS and some mining related stuff.  The mods really bog a system down after awhile.  Games are about working within limitations, ELP deflates the fun a bit for me by taking away a key limitation that makes KSP fun for me.  ELP solves problems that are the point of the game for the player to solve.  For me it crosses the line just enough to start sucking the fun out of the game.  I have no doubt the creator(s) of it took great joy creating it and had some fun in between the sweat and tears, but I feel it comes at the expense of having solved issues that many others want to solve themselves

Link to post
Share on other sites

EL does not make ksp much easier, and it does not lag me, EL makes it so that you can more easily establish bases, and if you are using KIS/KAS, it makes it better, as you can make replacement parts, or make a base to build more ships, or refuel, e.g you ship is running low on fuel, it has enough to build a refueler ship(and land it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kspnerd122 said:

EL does not make ksp much easier ... EL makes it so that you can more easily establish bases ...

Your words not mine.  Flying ships and stablishing bases is the point of KSP to me.  Different strokes for different folks, have fun

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cfds said:

Why the "vessel categories" are hard coded and not fully configurable is one these weird decisions of KSP development that will never be answered...

Exactly.  I'd like to call a polar scanning satellite something other than a "relay".  And just because I like some station parts on a larger ship doesn't make it a "station" (the word deriving from static, as in staying in one area).  Then, to make things worse, and ship that docks with that "station" ship gets its root part reassigned to the part that docked.  Because "stations" have that kind of awesome power

Edited by darthgently
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.

×
×
  • Create New...