[Games] Spacecraft Game Idea

[Nicholander]

tl;dr: This is just a thing explaining a game idea I have, of pretty much a kinda KSP like thing which is MUCH more focused on the engineering part of the game.

As the tl;dr said above, this explains a game idea which is kinda like KSP but MUCH more focused on the engineering part of the game. So... where do i begin? (I'm terrible at introductions, unfortunately)

By the way, if you can't tell, the name of the game is Spacecraft.

Basics:

It focuses on engineering. (I've said that 3 times, you know that. Why am I saying that so many times? Oh, yeah, I'm terrible at introductions) There is a "flight" portion of the game, but it is almost entirely automated (exceptions include docking, unless you put an automated docking autopilot on, and landing a manned lander, unless there is an autopilot. Oh, and EVA.) You can choose where the spacecraft goes and it's orbital trajectory. (You either just put "final destination: 200 Km circular Mars orbit, 0 degree inclination", or you can make the trajectories your self). More clearly, you essentially make spacecraft in the clean room/spacecraft factory/place where you design and build spacecraft (Let's just call it the Clean Room, okay?), it's much more complex then the KSP VAB (By complicated I don't mean you need to know insane calculations and stuff, I mean you can design individual components of the spacecraft, and there would be a bunch of stuff to guide and help you make stuff (Which you can turn off, if you're feeling hardcore and even MORE realistic). Also, there would be a bunch of pre-made examples and stuff in the game (Like sub-assemblies), and even some whole craft and rockets. Oh, and you can also even design the rockets and launch vehicles. I think I've covered the basics pretty good.

Clean Room:

Well, obviously you design and build your spacecraft, there would also be a separate building called the VAB where you build your launch vehicles. But let's focus on the Clean Room, in the middle there is the spacecraft you're building in it's current state, you can select certain components/parts of the spacecraft you would like to view on a bar on the bottom, which would also have an "All" button which which makes all components appear. When you click on the name of a certain component, it shows info, details, and statistics about it on a panel on the right, the "Component Viewer". The Component Viewer would show the component type (Ie: Radio Antenna), the component's name (Ie: RA-3), It's mass, it's electrical drain (If it uses electricity, of course), It's expected lifetime, the other components that it's wired to, and some stats/info/details that are specific to that component type. (Ie: Data bandwidth: 1 byte per second. Radio range: 2,500 Km. Radio Type: UHF). There would also be an "Edit Component" button, which would go to the Component Editor, where you can edit your components. On the left there would be another panel, the Component Placer (Gotta think of a better name for that one), This is a lot like the Panel on the left In KSP, it has the list of available components that you can put on your spacecraft. You can right click a component and it will show you it's stats on the Component Viewer. (Except for it's name and the components it's wired to). You can then click on the component and it a popup in the middle of the screen (The Spacecraft Viewer) will ask you if you want to put the component on the outside of the spacecraft (Not concealed by anything), or the inside the spacecraft (Concealed by the shell/chassis of the spacecraft). If you choose outside, you can, like and KSP, move a "Ghost" version of the component, put your mouse cursor over where you want to put it on the spacecraft, and it will appear where your cursor is on the Spacecraft. And then you can click, and it is now attached onto the spacecraft. The inside is the same, except it is cutaway, and when you put you're mouse cursor on an area, you can press a button to add small "Stools" on the bottom of the component, which will raise it, so you're using the inside more efficiently! Also, in the component editor, you can make "Mega Components", essentially they're treated as sub-assemblies, and you can get a component, add some stuff and some other components. You can create some stuff like the long truss which sticks out on the Voyager spacecraft, by making a truss component, and then adding some RTG's at the top. Oh, for the components to actually work together, you have to wire them to each other, so for example a Radio Transmitter could be wired to a Radio Antenna and it would broadcast whatever the Radio Transmitter is making. (Ie: A Sputnik Style Beep). That took a long time to write!

Mission Planner:

This is where you go before you start making your spacecraft. This is where you choose what your spacecraft's mission will be, in the middle of the screen there is a visualization of your spacecraft's mission plan, and on the left there are options for where it will go. I'm too bored to put it in sentences, so here is how it would look like. (In Text)

Mission Plan:

First: 350 Km circular LEO orbit (Some of the steps will block out the option to add anymore, for example Suborbital.

Second: Trans Lunar Injection for 120 Km Lunar Periapsis (All steps require a minimum amount of delta-v, and some a thrust-to-wight ratio. The only exceptions are "Instrument usage/Scientific research",

"End of mission" (This is for when the mission is over and there's no more steps, this is a step which is impossible to remove (Unless the mission has either crashed or it's de-orbited and there's nothing more that can be done with it)), and "Surface activities" (For landers, and it can also be done for EVA's.)

Third: Course Corrections

Fourth: Lunar Orbital Injection for 120 Km Lunar Periapsis and 600 Km Lunar Apoapsis

Fifth: Instrument Usage/Scientific Research

Sixth: End Of Mission

So that's how it'd look on the left panel, called the "Mission Steps Overview". Also, even after the "End Of Mission" step, you can select the spacecraft in the "List of current missions and spacecraft/tracking station", and if it works and can has enough delta-v, you can assign some more steps to it. There's really not much else to explain.

I'm not done writing this, but this is taking FOREVER to write, so I'll continue it later.

NOTE: I don't have any experience with the Unity engine, well, i have it and tried it, but just looking at Java or C++ code made me think "Yep, I'm NEVER gonna be able to do this!".

Also, some questions and feedback would be great!

[mythic_fci]

Sounds nice, but here are some concerns of mine:

The game sounds too much like KSP, except that most of the flight is automated instead of manual.

It would be extremely hard to add a game function that programs multiple maneuvers to achieve a single goal.

I don't think the game would be particularly appealing, considering that a copy of KSP with Mechjeb installed would do practically the same thing.

[Nicholander]

I don't agree, it's supposed to focus MUCH more on the engineering part of the game. By components, i don't mean like parts. In ksp, a probe core is alot of complicated stuff combined into one little part. In this, you would make a spacecraft shell, which can be Many, MANY shapes. And a component can be very small, from everything from radio transmitters to Main Processing Units, it has vastly more complex and specific components then KSP.

I'll try to make a MS paint visualization of the Clean Room.

EDIT: More Clearly, In KSP, the engineering part is just smacking a bunch of parts together. In this, you would actually need to design and pay attention to what you're making. Want to add a parachute for you're Mars lander? KSP: Smack a parachute on top of it. Spacecraft: Go into the Component Maker and actually go make every part of it, from what type of material the parachute is made of to the release system for when the landing engines ignite. I made this idea because I think spacecraft engineering is fascinating. And KSP just doesn't quite cut it.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Nicholander

[Nicholander]

Here it is. Though I do see how you could see it as a KSP with a MechJeb. But it's not, you don't actually pilot it. (Unless it's and aircraft with no autopilot or the exceptions above) and it's more complex and you actually design the parts/components, not just plonk them down on any node on your spacecraft. (This also does not have a node system)

[jwenting]

hmm, what if you had a game where you could build rockets and then launch them into space crewed with little green men...

[Nicholander]

hmm, what if you had a game where you could build rockets and then launch them into space crewed with little green men...

In that game, the "Engineering" part of the game is smacking together a bunch of fuel tanks, engines, and the occasional battery and then pressing the green "Launch" button. In This, you would actually design the every little component in the spacecraft and you can create absolutely anything you want! This focuses a lot more on the engineering, and KSP focuses on the flight. Please, can people understand that this is focusing on engineering, not a version of KSP with mechjeb. Please everyone, understand that.

Like I said earlier:

More Clearly, In KSP, the engineering part is just smacking a bunch of parts together. In this, you would actually need to design and pay attention to what you're making. Want to add a parachute for you're Mars lander? KSP: Smack a parachute on top of it. Spacecraft: Go into the Component Maker and actually go make every part of it, from what type of material the parachute is made of to the release system for when the landing engines ignite. I made this idea because I think spacecraft engineering is fascinating. And KSP just doesn't quite cut it.

I like engineering. Some other people may like the flight section of KSP more. And i think the engineering part in KSP is way to dumbed down and over simplified. On focuses on flight. The other focuses on engineering. Is that clear?

[Chris P. Bacon]

I've had an idea very similar to this for a while... I'm coming more from the aviation side, but I've always felt things like KSP's jet engines (basically just slapping on a turbine nozzle and calling it an engine) pretty laughable. The same goes for wings (now that we have aero failures with far), the structure of the wing, ribs, spars, drag/antidrag wires, aren't taken into consideration.

What I had in mind was more of an extremely complex/probably impossible mod for ksp, that would bridge the gap of straight up modeling parts in 3ds or blender and the snapping of components together in the vab.

Basically a seperate interface that would allow you to design the structure of a wing, add spars, adjust thicknesses, add wing ribs, holes for cables or hydraulic lines. It would be a kind of 3d modeling interface, but more so where you could start with a base part like a wing, and engineer the structure for your purpose.

This program would then do all the physics legwork for ksp, writing a part cfg that supports the performance and failure states of that part you created. Then you could just assemble your craft within ksp, similar to the component space shuttle or KSO.

[Nicholander]

I've had an idea very similar to this for a while... I'm coming more from the aviation side, but I've always felt things like KSP's jet engines (basically just slapping on a turbine nozzle and calling it an engine) pretty laughable. The same goes for wings (now that we have aero failures with far), the structure of the wing, ribs, spars, drag/antidrag wires, aren't taken into consideration.

What I had in mind was more of an extremely complex/probably impossible mod for ksp, that would bridge the gap of straight up modeling parts in 3ds or blender and the snapping of components together in the vab.

Basically a seperate interface that would allow you to design the structure of a wing, add spars, adjust thicknesses, add wing ribs, holes for cables or hydraulic lines. It would be a kind of 3d modeling interface, but more so where you could start with a base part like a wing, and engineer the structure for your purpose.

This program would then do all the physics legwork for ksp, writing a part cfg that supports the performance and failure states of that part you created. Then you could just assemble your craft within ksp, similar to the component space shuttle or KSO.

Interesting.... Well, I don't know if that type of KSP mod you're talking about (Which seems awesome, and if I had a magic button which would make it appear on my computer, I'd sure as heck press it!) is possible, mine is a completely different game (Idea), but there are similarities.

[Lukaszenko]

Interesting idea on paper, but I do see some issues.

For one, it looks like KSP but with MANY more parts and MANY more variables and MUCH more detailed physics. The deeper you want to go, the more computer power it takes, and it can quickly escalate to requiring a supercomputer, or letting a regular computer render the simulation overnight.

Two, how deep exactly do you want to go? To design an actual spaceship takes countless man-hours simply designing each and every component piece-by-piece, bolt-by-bolt on a CAD station. Then indeed they probably run the whole things on multiple-thousands of Euro software on high-end workstations. Overnight/ week. So perhaps the thing you are asking for already exists, but is still computer generations away from being practical. And then, when trying to make a spaceship, exactly how many hours do you want to spend designing an electrical cable routing for the toilet light? .01? 1? 20?

Besides this and other concerns, I could indeed see a more complex and/or more tweakable version of KSP being fun. But one must be very careful to not get carried away and make it overly complex and mundane.

[Nicholander]

I see some very valid points Lukaszenko, and I see the detailed physics taking up a super computer.

One: I think the parts/components and variables are not computer intensive, but the physics, yeah. I see the problem. The only problem like this i thought of was engine physics. In KSP, the thurst is just a variable in a .cfg. And the fire that comes out is just an effect, same for the sound. Though, for example FAR has MUCH more detailed physics then in the regular game. Though, that improves the aerodynamic properties of the game, and does nothing to the engines. Spacecraft would have that and engine physics calculations. That means stuff like how the fuel flows into the combustion chamber, how it ignites when the igniter is started, how much pressure it creates in the combustion chamber, and how much thrust all those calculations combined would create. This would allow for actual failures, like engine fires, gimbal failures, combustion chamber breaches and explosions, fuel line blockage and leaks, etc. But as you said, it would be very computer intensive, I mean just imagine your computer trying to calculate 26 engines, with all there physics and such. It would be Lagtopia. Though well, FAR does do something which I THINK is equally computer intensive, and I don't get any unbearable lag. So i don't know how much physics it would be forcing the computer to calculate.

Two: For example, the light to the space toilet, all you would need to is just click on the thing that generates/has electricity. (Either a big battery or a thing where all the solar/RTG/whatever power goes) Then you would right click it, (Which opens a bar), click "Wire To...", and then click on the toilet light. I think that is simple, though I don't know if there should be different kinds of wire and if they should be editable/makeable in the Component Maker/Editor. I think it should be complex, like up to making a solar panel in the Component Maker/Editor by being able to change it's dimensions (How long and how wide it is), what type of material/type of solar panel it is made of, and maybe how thick it is. (Depends on the technology level you have, I'll get to tech levels, campaigns, and challenges later). Oh, if you want it to be deployable, you have to make a robotic arm/deployment system as a different thing in the Component Editor. (though really, it wouldn't be that hard to create a component. All of the types of component editors will have a similar number of variables.)

So yeah, I see why you would see some issues.

[cantab]

It's a huge task. Working out part performance is going to require some serious simulation. If you were just talking about one type of part it might be achievable, but for everything? You're practically building a Reality Simulator.

[Seret]

Ok, so you've got an idea for a game, but can't write it yourself. Is the point of this thread to try and gauge interest in your idea? Are you looking to assemble a team that can actually write it, or do you intend to write it yourself? Or are you just bouncing the idea around at this stage?

I think your idea of doing simulation of fuel flow and combustion is a bit ambitious btw. These things are quite computationally intensive and it's questionable how much it would add to gameplay IMO.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Seret

[Nicholander]

Seret. The reason I made this thread was because I just thought other people might be interested in my idea. And I won't be expecting anyone to actually go into Unity and make something, but IF someone does, FANTASTIC!

Okay, I see that it will be simply impossible to make an engine simulation that complex. Do you have any ideas to make it simpler but not so dumbed down like KSP?

[Seret]

Do you have any ideas to make it simpler but not so dumbed down like KSP?

Depends what your objective is. Games can be educational, but they also have to be fun and engaging and offer the player some kind of reward in exchange for the risk of failure. So you want to simulate rocket engines more closely, ok, but to what end? Simply running a good simulation isn't inherently fun, if it was people would play with engineering simulation tools instead of games. Games are always a trade off between simulation and playability. There's nothing wrong with a game being more towards one end of that spectrum than the other, but you need to be aware that increasing simulation often decreases "fun".

You need to have a think about what are the main points about rocket engines that make a difference. Things like:

1. Different nozzles perform differently at different altitudes
   
2. Different fuels are available
   
3. Some engines are more complex than others, due to the type of fuel
   
4. Engines may have a limited number of starts available
   
5. Ullage and other fuel feed issues
   
6. Thrust vectoring
   

People can probably add more to that list, that's just off the top of my head. Once you've decided how much of that stuff your game needs you can look at how to implement it.

You also need to think about the fact that a good editor does not a good game make. Spore is a good example. The editors in that were amazing, but once you left the editor and played the game it was, well, underwhelming. Simply having a "better" VAB mini-game than KSP wouldn't make a better game overall.

[Nicholander]

1. Yeah, I think that won't be computer intensive.

2. Of course that would be in the game!

3.Hmmm.... I don't know about that one.

4.Yeah, that would be simple to add.

5.I don't THINK that would be computer intensive...

6.Probably simple.