Control surfaces and landing gear using resources.

[Azimech]

What I've never understood in KSP is why control surfaces and landing gear don't draw power. Either stamina from the kerbal when using mechanical linkages and direct control or hydraulic/electric.

In real life you get the stiffening of controls at high speeds and a lot of pilots died because they couldn't get out of a dive.

I'd prefer if both hydraulic and electric can be added, with a loss of pressure and hydraulic fluid when damage occurs. A fluid storage container, pump driven by APU or engine. Multiple pumps needed when the amount of control surfaces/landing gear goes over the pressure/flow limit of the pump.

[The Aziz]

Do we really need that in space game?

Now I'm gonna hear how aerodynamics are integral part of spaceflight, but I'd rather see devs spend their resources on improving space part, rather than a hardcore, but unnecessary mechanic that will do nothing but add difficulty.

Nothing better than adding even more parts to the craft so the elevons and wheels can work. There's a line between hardcore simulaton and game available for anyone, and what you're proposing crosses that line.

[Bej Kerman]

5 hours ago, Azimech said:

I'd prefer if both hydraulic and electric can be added, with a loss of pressure and hydraulic fluid when damage occurs. A fluid storage container, pump driven by APU or engine. Multiple pumps needed when the amount of control surfaces/landing gear goes over the pressure/flow limit of the pump.

That's going into KSPIE/RO territory, and we don't need vast interconnected systems a la KSPIE/RO in KSP 2. Active engines consume fuel and don't need to be fed anything else to ignite in the first place, and passive systems like landing gear do not consume resources - that's the way it should be.

[DeadJohn]

I think the OP is delving too far into micromanagement. This a flight game, not a mechanical maintenance game.

Here are other "resources" I don't want modeled in KSP 2: Tire wear from the repeated stress of landing. Metal remaining on engine pistons. Engine oil. Brake shoe thickness. Lubrication of doors and other moving parts. Paint wear from high-speed airflow. Metal fatigue due to pressure and temperature changes. Turbine blade wear. Degradation of solar panels and batteries. Etc.

[Synonym Toast Crunch]

I agree with the responses so far that this would get too micromanagementy for KSP, but I do think that having the control surfaces and landing gear take electric charge to move makes sense. It doesn't have to be a lot of EC, just a tiny bit. It's strange how in KSP 1 you can control an airplane that has zero EC, but not a spaceship without reaction wheel power. It would make sense if only for consistency's sake.

[Azimech]

On 9/25/2021 at 6:32 PM, The Aziz said:

Do we really need that in space game?

Now I'm gonna hear how aerodynamics are integral part of spaceflight, but I'd rather see devs spend their resources on improving space part, rather than a hardcore, but unnecessary mechanic that will do nothing but add difficulty.

Nothing better than adding even more parts to the craft so the elevons and wheels can work. There's a line between hardcore simulaton and game available for anyone, and what you're proposing crosses that line.

If I proposed a hardcore simulation, I would go far beyond that. I've been playing using this game since version 0.16, 2012.

This game has never been for anyone. And the complexity has been added over the years.
 

On 9/25/2021 at 8:50 PM, DeadJohn said:

I think the OP is delving too far into micromanagement. This a flight game, not a mechanical maintenance game.

Here are other "resources" I don't want modeled in KSP 2: Tire wear from the repeated stress of landing. Metal remaining on engine pistons. Engine oil. Brake shoe thickness. Lubrication of doors and other moving parts. Paint wear from high-speed airflow. Metal fatigue due to pressure and temperature changes. Turbine blade wear. Degradation of solar panels and batteries. Etc.

In some ways it already is a mechanical maintenance game. Why need an engineer of a certain level to repair a wheel or solar panel? Getting that engineer to that level is already micromanagement - the tedious type. And that wasn't my idea.

By the way, for intelligent games like this one, increasing complexity over the years seems to be a standard in this industry.

On 9/25/2021 at 6:43 PM, Bej Kerman said:

That's going into KSPIE/RO territory, and we don't need vast interconnected systems a la KSPIE/RO in KSP 2. Active engines consume fuel and don't need to be fed anything else to ignite in the first place, and passive systems like landing gear do not consume resources - that's the way it should be.

KSPIE/RO are vastly more complicated than what I propose. Let's agree to disagree.
 

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Azimech said:

KSPIE/RO are vastly more complicated than what I propose.

KSPIE/RO don't make you wire up each part and every landing gear, so I can safely say what you're proposing is best suited for a NASA supercomputer simulator for training rocket engineers - a level of detail that RO/IE wouldn't dare approach. But I digress...

[MKI]

On 9/25/2021 at 4:30 AM, Azimech said:

What I've never understood in KSP is why control surfaces and landing gear don't draw power. Either stamina from the kerbal when using mechanical linkages and direct control or hydraulic/electric.

I always used my head cannon reasoning. Jeb's arms have infinite stamina!

 

There's a weird niche where the power used to apply control surfaces can't really come from anywhere but fixing that niche will result in either you lugging up a bunch of batteries for a glider, or forcing you to ignite engines to replenish your supplies. Suddenly your Shuttle replica is in a race against time to get to the ground before its batteries run out, or your just using battery cells and you end up with essentially the same craft, except with more parts you must have on your craft. 

 

I'd put this in the same bucket as SAS. Every craft has some form of SAS, because playing the game without it is just a huge pain. Sure adding it would make the game make more sense, and increase difficulty a bit. But the game is already pretty darn hard ;D

 

 

 

[pandaman]

I agree that control surfaces and landing gear etc do, obviously, draw power of some sort.  If not electrical etc.  then hand power if they use cables and winding handles.  So it's not a silly suggestion to have that reflected in game somehow.  But I do think it could just be an extra layer of 'clutter' as we would need some way of defining what method is used for any given craft or even each part on the craft.