KSP batteries are actually capacitors

[m4v]

If you go by the literal meaning of "ElectricCharge" then its unit would be in Coulombs, meaning ElectricCharge/sec would be just Amperes, talking about energy or power (joules or watts) is meaningless without quantifying the voltage, and without voltage whatever name you pick is going to be just as meaningless as EC is. Changing the "ElectricCharge" unit just for the sake of changing it isn't going to help in anything, except maybe in breaking saves.

Soo... What's the gameplay value of adding realistic electricity to stock KSP? I mean, we use it for SAS and ion drives. That's it. Do we really need that complexity?

Unless they try to mod in the concept of "pressure" into KSP's fuel system the complexity isn't going to change at all, they are just nitpicking the name of the electric unit.

Edited August 17, 2014 by m4v

[Renegrade]

If you go by the literal meaning of "ElectricCharge" then its unit would be in Coulombs, meaning ElectricCharge/sec would be just Amperes, talking about energy or power (joules or watts) is meaningless without quantifying the voltage, and without voltage whatever name you pick is going to be just as meaningless as EC is. Changing the "ElectricCharge" unit just for the sake of changing it isn't going to help in anything, except maybe in breaking saves.

Actually, no, it's the other way around. amperage or voltage is meaningless by itself, and multiplied together, is power, in watts. Power is the ability to do work. Voltage and amperage(or coulombs) separately are not. Also let's please not read TOO much into what name Squad assigned it. I'm sure they made that name because the batteries are "charged" with "electricity" and therefore have an... "ElectricCharge".

Anyhow, don't take my word for it.

http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/ion_prop.asp#solar - 10KW solar panel array on Dawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_program#Power - 470W RTGx2 on Voyager probes.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apolocsm.htm - 690 kWh capacity in the CSM fuel cells, 6kw average draw

You can also talk to the Interstellar folks or the people in the Stock Rebalance thread about that too if you like.

Batteries are often specified in ampere-hours as the chemistry of the battery will give you the voltage so you can derive the wattage figures from that. Ex. all nickel-cadmium cells are 1.2v, so you know an old 450mAh AA NiCd will be 1.2v * .45a = about 0.54 watt-hours.

NB: I'm fine with EC and EC/s as labels. I just don't want them to end up being "Volts" or "Coulombs" when that would be utterly wrong, doubly so since they're already effectively watt-seconds(or joules if you prefer. I prefer watt-seconds or watt-hours) and watts.

[Starwaster]

Soo... What's the gameplay value of adding realistic electricity to stock KSP? I mean, we use it for SAS and ion drives. That's it. Do we really need that complexity?

It's useful in balancing power consumption to power generation. The name doesn't have to be changed for that (and shouldn't be). Just change generation values and battery storage values. Realism Overhaul does that. ElectricCharge is treated as one thing for generators but treated as something else for battery storage. But it's just a concept used in determining values to assign and from the player's side it's all invisible.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Volts is actually not wrong if we're assuming that everything works in 1:1:1:1 ratios of volts/watts/amperes/coulombs. Perhaps it's all using DC. Magic DC that doesn't have inefficiencies. It runs on cheap unobterbalimunim wires which act as superconductors at all operating temperatures and are capable of carrying DC current across any vessel instantly without loss of charge along the way, which also means no heat generation in the wires. Or it doesn't need to be labeled as such. Either way, it's not a big deal. But I still think SOME unit like I proposed would be useful, even if it's just an EC (electric current) unit, rather than specifying charge per second/minute/hour.

====================================================================================

The main reason I want to see both batteries and capacitors in the game is that the capacitors we have currently (the ones that are labeled as batteries) don't store enough charge for when you spend a lot of time out of the sunlight. The PB-NUK is heavy and high in the tech tree. Most people don't want to rely on it for missions that are going to spend at least half of their time in the light. So batteries solve this problem. The reason we shouldn't just upgrade capacitor charge capacity to where I have suggested for batteries is that it makes it too easy to use very large amounts of energy with small capacitors.

[m4v]

I still don't see your point, if you want batteries with more charge just add them, there's no need to go into technicalities like if this is a capacitor or a battery or whatever electric unit it uses. The game doesn't account battery charge state, charge cycles, or maximum charge and discharge rates, the qualities that distinguish batteries from capacitors simply aren't there so this is nothing more than just semantics.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Adding that much more max charge to the existing batteries would make quick-use energy too easy. Not adding it leaves the problem with long-term energy uses.

[Stargate525]

The main reason I want to see both batteries and capacitors in the game is that the capacitors we have currently (the ones that are labeled as batteries) don't store enough charge for when you spend a lot of time out of the sunlight. The PB-NUK is heavy and high in the tech tree. Most people don't want to rely on it for missions that are going to spend at least half of their time in the light. So batteries solve this problem. The reason we shouldn't just upgrade capacitor charge capacity to where I have suggested for batteries is that it makes it too easy to use very large amounts of energy with small capacitors.

Again, for what purpose? In vanilla, the only purpose for electricity is SAS, probe bodies, rovers, and ion drives. The only thing that needs lots of power is the ion drive, and I'm having a hard time thinking of anywhere in the kerbol system that puts you both in dark long enough to burn through 1000 units of power AND precludes you from simply waiting until the sun rises.

I'm trying to get your point, but it's looking like a solution in search of a problem.

[m4v]

So define a new part.cfg with more charge? it will be no more than a part made for convenience, after all long term energy use is just a matter of adding enough batteries, the radial mounted batteries are massless so the only limit to them is part count and funds.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Again, for what purpose? In vanilla, the only purpose for electricity is SAS, probe bodies, rovers, and ion drives. The only thing that needs lots of power is the ion drive, and I'm having a hard time thinking of anywhere in the kerbol system that puts you both in dark long enough to burn through 1000 units of power AND precludes you from simply waiting until the sun rises.

High energy costs:

* ion engines

* transmitting data

* using the mobile processing lab

Low sustained energy costs:

* probe cores

* lights

* rovers

Places where you are in the dark for an extended period of time and need energy:

* entering LKO from an evening launch

* ground-to-interplanetary launch during a night window (very common for Eve and Moho Hohmann transfers)

* Mün base or base anywhere with a long night (lights draw energy even during time warp)

* roving at night

* orbital insertion maneuvers at night (more common with low altitude insertions, especially common when making prograde insertions)

* any maneuver during a solar eclipse

Just because you can't think of any situations in which it occurs doesn't mean it isn't a common occurrence. I feel like if you haven't had this problem many times in the past, you either just aren't doing a lot of missions away from Kerbin or you are doing them all in large craft with lots of batteries, or perhaps you're avoiding probe cores and lights altogether. Try flying interplanetary ion probes and you'll quickly discover just how often you find yourself in the dark for a long period of time.

[thereaverofdarkness]

the radial mounted batteries are massless so the only limit to them is part count and funds.

This isn't a valid long-term solution. The radial batteries aren't supposed to remain massless forever, eventually they will probably cost mass. Sometimes the mass or attachment surface needed in battery power to keep a probe core alive through the night is far too much for comfort.

[Superfluous J]

The radial batteries aren't supposed to remain massless forever, eventually they will probably cost mass.

I have not ever heard a developer say this. I was under the impression that - sadly - the whole masses thing was status-quo.

Regarding the whole capacitor/battery thing... I have to agree with many of you. It's not a problem that needs solved. Power doesn't flow in this game, it just gets used.

[Stargate525]

Just because you can't think of any situations in which it occurs doesn't mean it isn't a common occurrence. I feel like if you haven't had this problem many times in the past, you either just aren't doing a lot of missions away from Kerbin or you are doing them all in large craft with lots of batteries, or perhaps you're avoiding probe cores and lights altogether. Try flying interplanetary ion probes and you'll quickly discover just how often you find yourself in the dark for a long period of time.

Everything you've listed that isn't ground-based is a half hour, tops. If you don't have enough charge to last a probe core half an hour, what are you doing? As for needing to burn during the night, I just consider that a drawback of ion drive planning, not a flaw in the eletricity system. And sorry, but I have never had enough lights on my vessels to come close to draining their stores.

If by 'lots of batteries' you mean three of the large radials, then sure. But I don't consider that 'lots of batteries.'

[Renegrade]

The main reason I want to see both batteries and capacitors in the game is that the capacitors we have currently (the ones that are labeled as batteries) don't store enough charge for when you spend a lot of time out of the sunlight. The PB-NUK is heavy and high in the tech tree. Most people don't want to rely on it for missions that are going to spend at least half of their time in the light. So batteries solve this problem. The reason we shouldn't just upgrade capacitor charge capacity to where I have suggested for batteries is that it makes it too easy to use very large amounts of energy with small capacitors.

Based on this and some of the replies afterwards, I think I understand now what you're getting at (leaving aside issues of standard unit names).

I implemented my own energy system for a game I've been scribbling up for the uh.. last twenty years (*cough* it will release Soonâ„¢. Like.. Squad soon.. cubed. I'm thinking in the 2240s perhaps), and I did actually classify battery-like devices and capacitor-like devices in it (although it's not 'electricity', it's some sci-fi 'energy', like 'electroplasma' on Star Trek or other silly things -- the game is descended from the 'TREK' games from the mini era).

Capacitor-class devices: stored very little 'energy', but had an unlimited energy charge/discharge rate. If you produced 10k surplus energy every tick, it could store it. If you needed 100k energy suddenly, it could provide it.

High-charge devices (similar to NiCd/NiCad batteries): stored much more energy than capacitor-class devices, but had a limited (but high) maximum charge or discharge rate.

Mid-charge devices (similar to NiMN batteries) : more energy than above, but the max charge/discharge rates were less

Low-charge/high storage devices (like Li-Ion batteries): stored the most energy, but the charge/discharge rates were the lowest of all devices

Is this what you're trying to say (more or less)?

[thereaverofdarkness]

If by 'lots of batteries' you mean three of the large radials, then sure. But I don't consider that 'lots of batteries.'

So you are running missions that don't put you into these circumstances. Please don't expect the rest of the community to fly the way you do. Do you have some specific reason for wanting this idea to not come into the game? If not, then please stop commenting here.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Capacitor-class devices: stored very little 'energy', but had an unlimited energy charge/discharge rate. If you produced 10k surplus energy every tick, it could store it. If you needed 100k energy suddenly, it could provide it.

High-charge devices (similar to NiCd/NiCad batteries): stored much more energy than capacitor-class devices, but had a limited (but high) maximum charge or discharge rate.

Mid-charge devices (similar to NiMN batteries) : more energy than above, but the max charge/discharge rates were less

Low-charge/high storage devices (like Li-Ion batteries): stored the most energy, but the charge/discharge rates were the lowest of all devices

Is this what you're trying to say (more or less)?

Sort of, though it doesn't need to be that complex. It wouldn't be a problem though, as players can be fine slapping whatever kind of batteries/capacitors they want on, and it'll only become an issue of checking their stats when you have more specific energy needs and want to spare as much battery mass as possible. Win/win for everyone.

I mostly just wanted batteries and capacitors (two distinct variants) because the batteries solve a specific issue I have had and keep having on a regular basis. I threw in the capacitor batteries as a high tech option that requires even less planning, if you're so inclined to use them.

Edited August 17, 2014 by thereaverofdarkness

[Stargate525]

So you are running missions that don't put you into these circumstances. Please don't expect the rest of the community to fly the way you do. Do you have some specific reason for wanting this idea to not come into the game? If not, then please stop commenting here.

I run missions that work around the drawbacks of the parts given me. My specific reason is that I KNOW how much of a confusing mess electrical engineering can get, and I see no reason to introduce that headache into the stock game for negligible gameplay benefit. Have some more:

-It's another class of parts that need to be designed, modeled, balanced, and explained.

-It would introduce a brand new mechanic to all resources in game; that you have a maximum rate of expenditure and gain.

-There aren't enough power-consuming items in the game to require such an overhaul of management.

-I still don't see the gameplay benefit of adding this. Realism =/= gameplay, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to how this will make the game more fun.

And, respectfully, I'll post wherever I please.

[Renegrade]

Sort of, though it doesn't need to be that complex. It wouldn't be a problem though, as players can be fine slapping whatever kind of batteries/capacitors they want on, and it'll only become an issue of checking their stats when you have more specific energy needs and want to spare as much battery mass as possible. Win/win for everyone.

I mostly just wanted batteries and capacitors (two distinct variants) because the batteries solve a specific issue I have had and keep having on a regular basis. I threw in the capacitor batteries as a high tech option that requires even less planning, if you're so inclined to use them.

Ah. Then I'd actually support that. I afterall did design a system like it, and build an entire series of parts for it too (with a script, of course. meta-programming for the win!). My objections were mostly around the incorrect terminology.

There's just one problem:

-There aren't enough power-consuming items in the game to require such an overhaul of management.

^ This part. This is true. The game as it is has very little use for these parts. You can run a Mobile Science lab off of a quad of Z-400s and Ox-Stats easily.

Back in 0.22, you could actually leverage things like the 6-panel solar units or Gigantors, since you could spam-transmit the science through a huge array of Commutron 16s.. but now that they've taken away spam science, we're left with "OP" solar panels.

Something needs to be done about the lack of uses for energy (outside of ion drives).

-I still don't see the gameplay benefit of adding this. Realism =/= gameplay, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to how this will make the game more fun.

Well if we got into volts, amps, coulombs and crap like that, it would definitely be realism overtaking everything and smothering fun with a pillow of hateful and wrong EE stuff. I totally agree with avoiding being smothered by the pillow of hate.

However, if we could address the #lol_oxstat problem and make energy count for something, you could get gameplay out of designing around the limitations of various batteries. If you want to invoke the KISS principle there, you could just use the existing batteries and just add a "maximum rate" stat (like solar panels have) to them. Radial batteries could be more 'battery' like and have a low "maximum rate", and inline ones could have a high "maximum rate".

To be absolutely clear: easy mode #lol_oxstat != gameplay either. Might as well take energy out entirely with the way it is now.

CAVEAT: The current energy code Squad uses is loaded with bugs and doesn't work properly. It would need to be overhauled AGAIN (the energy fixes for 0.23 made it worse). But it needs to be fixed anyhow. And fixing it will probably involve a rewrite from scratch at this point, given how broken it is so.. why not write a better system?

[thereaverofdarkness]

-There aren't enough power-consuming items in the game to require such an overhaul of management.

-I still don't see the gameplay benefit of adding this. Realism =/= gameplay, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to how this will make the game more fun.

I have yet to see a compelling argument to back up this assertion that the added complexity will actually increase the learning curve, or make building rockets more complicated.

I'm offering a super simple solution to a problem that won't disrupt the play of anyone who wants to avoid using those parts.

[Stargate525]

I have yet to see a compelling argument to back up this assertion that the added complexity will actually increase the learning curve, or make building rockets more complicated.

It's quite simple.

Instead of one class of part that does electric storage, you now have two that operate under differing rules regarding discharge and capacity.

Because you need to differentiate between these two sources, something has to be done to display how much is in each type on a given vessel. This makes the resources screen more complicated.

The new system would behave uniquely to every other stock resource currently in the game. Whereas all other fuels drain as you need them, electricity would drain at differing rates from different units. That is a new system players have to learn.

[Mesons]

It's quite simple.

Instead of one class of part that does electric storage, you now have two that operate under differing rules regarding discharge and capacity.

Because you need to differentiate between these two sources, something has to be done to display how much is in each type on a given vessel. This makes the resources screen more complicated.

The new system would behave uniquely to every other stock resource currently in the game. Whereas all other fuels drain as you need them, electricity would drain at differing rates from different units. That is a new system players have to learn.

And a new system that will be necessarily quite complicated to program. This idea seems like too much realism to me. Besides, the main reason batteries are used in slow-discharge applications is that a high current (and the resulting fast heat dissipation) will damage or destroy a battery, whereas a capacitor is not affected by high currents because the heat dissipation in circuits involving them is all in the wires and other resistive elements. If KSP batteries consist of many, many, many batteries in parallel, the current drain on any one battery would be very small even with a large overall drain. Constructing the innards of the batteries this way could totally defeat any worry about fast drain and batteries.

By the way, voltage is only indirectly related to the rate of battery drain. The maximum release rate to avoid damage would be a wattage, or a current since the voltage of a (chemical) battery is fixed.

I much prefer keeping the ElectricCharge setup how it is, and I'm fine with the bulky batteries for a couple reasons--they are big enough to be visible on a vessel, with the many-batteries-in-parallel engineering hack it makes sense, and simply calling it ElectricCharge avoids, as a few others have said, balancing the physical values of current/voltage/charge/energy/power to be realistic (which would take plenty of development time, lest scientists and engineers form angry mobs).

[Stargate525]

(which would take plenty of development time, lest scientists and engineers form angry mobs).

Welcome to the forums, where scientists and engineers form angry mobs regardless of the presence or absence of real-world units.

[thereaverofdarkness]

It's quite simple.

Instead of one class of part that does electric storage, you now have two that operate under differing rules regarding discharge and capacity.

Because you need to differentiate between these two sources,

No, you don't. They both provide energy to your craft. Do you need to learn to differentiate between command modules and probe cores? Or between liquid or solid rockets? Their minor differences are something you learn about as you go. You can fly just fine with one or the other. Batteries and capacitors are especially easy, because you can just slap both on.

Welcome to the forums, where scientists and engineers form angry mobs regardless of the presence or absence of real-world units.

Well I was getting only positive feedback until I mentioned volts, then all of a sudden it degraded into negative feedback. I never changed any of the mechanics of the idea, just the nomenclature. And the only reason I did it was to make it simpler to understand. Edited August 18, 2014 by thereaverofdarkness

[UberFuber]

I would argue to just go with ElectricCharge (e) as the unit of storage. The unit of charge/discharge should just be what the game is using right now (charge/second).

No, you don't. They both provide energy to your craft. Do you need to learn to differentiate between command modules and probe cores? Or between liquid or solid rockets? Their minor differences are something you learn about as you go. You can fly just fine with one or the other. Batteries and capacitors are especially easy, because you can just slap both on.

First, you do have to distinguish between liquid and solid rockets. Liquid you can throttle and control, solid you cannot (you can only limit it in VAB). They're not minor but fairly major differences.

Also, regarding "capacitor" type and "chemical" battery, as the way you suggested you do need to differentiate them, if not by player than by the game.

Take for example, two hypothetical battery.

Battery A has a capacity of 1200 e and discharge rate of 20 e/s

Battery B has a capacity of 1200 e and a discharge rate of 10 e/s

Let's say you have something that needs 12 e/s to operate. If you discharge all of it from battery A, you get only 100 seconds of operating time (once A deplete, you can no longer draw from B since it can only supply up to 10 e/s). Now, an obvious solution in this case it to draw from B first than (discharge rule, draw from low discharge rate battery first).

However, if you have some odd combination is where you get into trouble. Let's say for a different battery combination.

A: 1200 e cap and 20 e/s rate

B: 100 e cap and 10 e/s rate

Let's say you need to draw 25 e/s to operate (neither battery can fully support the electric cost). In this case, doing the reverse would make sense (20 e/s from A and 5 e/s from B, netting a max operating time of 20 seconds). However, if you discharge from the as in the previous scenario (low discharge first), then you only get 10 seconds of operating time).

One possible solution is to order the batteries by the amount of "discharge time" they've left (charges stored divide by discharge per second, giving you number of seconds the battery can discharge at full discharge rate). At each ticks, the battery compute their "discharge time". Then, for each source requesting power, they "draw" from the battery that has the highest "discharge time" first.

The same idea could be apply in reverse, for charging. Instead of "discharge time" you have "charge time" (charge capacity remaining divide charge per second), and each electric source charges battery that has the highest charge time first.

Of course, all this added complexities means that there may be edge cases where some of this doesn't work.

[thereaverofdarkness]

How to make it function from the programmer's side is pretty simple, and much like the way it works already. The energy will be subtracted from the capacitor supply (all command modules and probe cores have a built-in capacitor, except for the EAS chair) and the capacitor will fill proportionally from each battery by its discharge rate. If the capacitor has room for 10 EC and you have two batteries with discharge rates 5, 18, and 60, then since the capacitor would fill in less than one charge frame, it'll take 7.23 from the 60, 2.17 from the 18, and 0.6 from the 5. While the capacitor is full, the batteries will balance each other gradually--typically it will be the large batteries charging up the small ones because those deplete faster. Any time the capacitor has more than a charge frame to fill, the batteries will be filling it at full speed.

Any craft that has no capacitor will have to run power straight from the batteries, and once again it will come proportionally from each one. Units that draw more power than is available will run on partial power, just like they do already when the capacitor runs out. Most of this stuff is already programmed in, and the rest is trivial.

But to the end user, it will be a remarkably simple system. Say a fresh KSPer builds his/her first functional space-capable rocket and it has a Mk-1 command pod, three RT-10 solid boosters separated by TR-18A stack decouplers, completely auto-staged. Due to energy issues in transmission with earlier flights, the user places a single Z-3 battery on it, along with the Communotron 16 and any science equipment, and finally a Mk16 parachute. User doesn't have to learn throttle, but does have to expect the rocket to continue with thrust until the current booster is depleted. When transmitting science, the antenna will drain the capacitor of its 50 EC in 5 transmission frames, or two seconds, and during this time the Z-3 battery will have refilled it up by 0.1 EC. The data will continue to be transmitted slowly as the battery gradually charges the capacitor. The user may likely discover during this very mission that using time warp will make the capacitor fill "faster" and allow the transmission to complete more easily.

In the end, the mission is successful and the rocket is recovered with the Kerbal still alive. The user is still confused by a lot of things but is capable of flying a rocket without really understanding how the majority of this stuff works or what it means.

I fail to see how this extra complexity will make the learning curve more difficult for the end user. Now I've made a very explicit example with a lot of detail. Please don't say I'm wrong unless you have some sort of explanation to back it up! Then when you have your explanation, read it back to yourself. I'm wasting a lot of my time and several pages on this thread trying to explain why the burden of proof in this situation doesn't rest on me, and we're just running in circles here. All I'm getting back from those of you who think this is a bad idea is vague assertions that it will make the game more difficult for the end user. But I have reason to believe that it will have precisely the opposite effect.

[Murph]

Sorry, but this all strikes me as needlessly complex, without really adding anything of value to the game. It will add some confusion, and some lag, neither of which are desirable.

Yes, it's good for KSP to be reasonably realistic, but it's certainly not necessary for it to be perfectly realistic in every way possible. The current electricity system is good enough by providing generation, buffering, and consumption, and it really doesn't matter whether or not it is properly aligned with the finer detail of electrical engineering.