tater

Odd, I was looking at the KSP eclipse thread, and somehow posted in this one (thinking it was the eclipse thread, moved). My bad.

Odd, I'dve assumed "science labs " was for real science, not something exclusive to KSP (which this is). Cool, though. <EDIT> thought a different thread was moved, clearly my Stupidity rating is on the high side. I have reasonable Courage going for me as a counterbalance

Yeah, switching from whatever dot-version to 1.0 is the norm. None the less, we are still where they are talking in terms of sub-1.0 version releases, and everything I have read on here suggests that the atmosphere is a placeholder---or am I wrong, and the soup is it, and aerodynamics for spacecraft will never matter on Kerbin? Cosmic and solar radiation are in fact a principal reason for mines to be useful, should anyone ever want to see stock use of resources. Shielding is expensive to lift from planet side, but less expensive to lift from the moon (erm, Mun) or Minmus. What you'd really want from those worlds in terms of mining would be fuel, and regolith for shielding. The O'Neil colony ideas all have a few meters of regolith shielding, as do modern ideas for lunar bases (both from the radiation and micrometeorite standpoints). Some people like to "decorate" things to look cool/ralistic, I'd simply prefer them to need to be that way <shrug>. It's like taking hitchhiker modules to make the craft more realistic. Others like their ships to be a tardis, I guess. Yes, mods will take care of all this, but as I have just started playing, and version changes break mods/saves/careers in many cases, I'm sticking to vanilla for a while (though I'll be modding mine within a month, I imagine, as I get bored).

Doing the same stuff over and over is tedious. Building a station "just because" is fun, but you can do that in sandbox. Other than a contract, there is no reason to build a station in a career game. No reason to assemble anything in orbit. A more realistic reentry is likely a given, we are at version 0.24 out of a nominal 1.0, and the atmosphere is explicitly a placeholder, right? Once that is fixed, even a little, many ships that work now won't.

You're right, it doesn't. They could have those as difficulty settings, I suppose. Turn it on in a career, and make it easy for just messing around. Again, I'm not for this in particular, just the choice of lightweight crew compartments for some uses, and significantly heavier ones for longer duration journeys. Really long duration flights would likely be assembled in orbit.

That's why I suggest just the normal background of cosmic rays and solar protons. Bringing more mass IS interesting. It means that you would have to construct ships in space. Launching insane, un-aerodynamic glop from the ground to the distant solar system is not nearly as interesting as having to construct a serious interplanetary craft in orbit. Mass, more mass, for missions creates the need for LKO stations, and complex systems of spacefaring other than make a ship half a klick wide with girders and stuff all over to get your sky crane lander to the other side of the system. Meh. So it's interesting, and creates reasons to do stuff. It's like satellites, they should be useful. Ditto stations. For a career game, you want challenges and problems to solve. If people don't want that, they can play sandbox.

Cosmic radiation can be "random" and still be essentially isotropic and is a legitimate factor. Solar radiation is not isotropic, and the game already tracks the sun location, so it would be easy to abstract once some, even simple life support is in. Different mission regimes would require heavier habitation modules (either built-in shielding, or a "storm cellar"). It could be another way to force manned flight to be heavier for longer missions (life support in general would do this). I get the point about them not wanting "random" stuff, even if I think they miss good gameplay options as a result. Note that in the case of things like flares, nominal craft can be assumed to be survivable vs that in low orbit, certainly, and any later requirements for life support can simply subsume any costs (mass) for shielding.

A flare is not a nova, but it's a good idea. Actually, cosmic radiation need not be random. It could simply be continuous, and vary a little based on location. Below Van Allen belts, it's minor. Above them, you'd want more shielding. In a KSP with life support, this would simply be a requirement for missions of duration above X days, or in unprotected regions. It would make acceptable habitats more massive, is all. No need for anything random, just scale the nominal shielding masses to reflect some worst case of a flare (habitat thick enough for normal operations, with an X% mass increase for the "storm shelter" included).

They talked about a big project that touches everything. Sticking on the "graphics" notion, I wonder if they are adding in the ability to "record" and playback (like Il-2, for example). It would record the entire game state during the recording period for later playback with camera changes, etc.

Yeah, it took me a while to find this as well (I'm a noob, too). I tried to switch on map view by clicking, and even tried to switch in the tracking station, but it said I did not own hime. I ended up sending Jeb on an EVA (that almost stranded Jeb) then tried to right click the stranded guy (thinking maybe I had to touch him on EVA with the rescuer). Since it's a new career (first attempt at the "real" career, not "science"), I have no RCS, so I had to get within a few hundred meters by orbit matching, then EVA. I even tried pushing him with Jeb, towards Jeb's ship.

If there were life support requirements, realistic interactions with atmospheres, etc, I'd image a lot of people would have to unlearn a lot of things.

Scotius is right about them being nerfed in game. The reason NERVA wasn't used was more to do with politics (safety concerns) than anything else. In a less politically regulated, danger averse space program, we'd have flown them for sure.

Actually, the nuclear rocket program started in the mid 1950s. The basic technology of rockets is actually already pretty mature. The tech tree concept is sort of OK, but many things were in fact concurrent, and many were jammed into just a couple decades. To be honest, computer technology is what is driving modern rocketry in many respects, both from what is possible in terms of control, as well as simulating novel designs (both airframes and engine types). Imagine if you started and could launch rockets with fixed launch parameters (one turn, no further control)., then maybe manned flights get that, plus just the (unmarked) navball. You'd have to unlock the "glass cockpit" that we start with now. For interplanetary, you'd have access to the maneuver nodes, etc, but on the ground. You could try probes, but any direct command would be appropriately delayed (you'd be however many seconds behind in knowing where the craft is at, and it would take as long for any corrections to get there). Eventually you get what we have to start in a few tech tiers. In return, you'd probably have more variety in other hardware. but it would be hard to use

The contract mechanic is broken, as it incentivizes you to not complete it to use the tech at will. I actually like the idea of having "experimental" tech that contains chances of random failures (testing them makes the "researched" version more reliable. SRBs that leak through O-rings and blow up. Engines that leak fuel/oxidizer when you are halfway to the middle of nowhere, or gimbals that lock, or lack the claimed range in all directions, etc, etc. In order to "test" these flaws,you'd need to rescue the craft...

That's why there should be a disconnect between "science" and engineering. You could warp all you want, but until you start breaking rockets, you don't really know about building rockets.

^^^ cantab is right. Frankly the current tree already does this. You can land on the Mun, but can't manage to get ladder rungs to get out until the 4th level of tech. Maybe you "solicit" new tech by grabbing tech items from the next tiers in the tree (the father away the more difficulty the goal must have) for a given mission need. Any such use is provisional. Have a new mechanic where you actually set a goal, and have the goals somehow rated by difficulty. You need a sufficiently difficult goal to unlock those next-tier items. You do the mission with the "X tech," and if you succeed in the goal, you get to keep it. I start a new career, and want my first Mun mission. I plan the mission goal, Mun landing and sample return, and grab a ladder, a seismic sensor, etc. I do the mission, and based on the success, I get to keep some or all of the tech I had the guys design for me. Note that ideally, any new tech might have an improved version at some point that is visually identical, but has better specs that you evolve through use.

You would gain engineering feedback from doing real world stuff. Making, then doing (even if it fails, or maybe especially if it fails) a mission will provide useful feedback to the engineering people. The "science" doesn't help (as you say, mun rocks don't help tech much (the dust might change future designs, though, so it adds a little)), the DOING of the science helps. That's why I suggest breaking it apart more. I'm fine with budgeting money for research as a modifier that weights accomplishments, I suppose. If you have no engineering staff, no amount of "science" will help.

Not really liking "quest" idea. You don't gain much engineering knowledge from planetary science. You gain engineering knowledge somewhat by trial and error (doing stuff), and that's already in, really (could be tweaked, but in). Really, if you were planning on a sophisticated mission that required new tech, you'd get it BEFORE you went. Perhaps certain destinations/missions could be suggested along with "experimental" tech to accomplish them. Such tech would have interesting chances of random failures, so you'd get all the way to the planet, and the new chute fails to deploy, or the engine is less effective than designed, etc. Returning or transmitting data on the new tech helps unlock the "finished" version.

Multiplayer and any game that pretty much requires time compression is mutually exclusive with any kind of reality. Instancing universally stinks, and you can't have my craft at 100X, and yours at 1:1, or any hope of them meeting becomes pretty much random/impossible. Multiplayer in sandbox is fine, I suppose, the host person would control warping, and everyone else has to warp along for the ride.

Assume for a moment that the tech tree was improved, and somehow made slower at the same time. The arrangement would make a little more sense (ladders for your moon lander would not be late on the tech tree, for example). You might then get some of the tech in the next level, but marked as "experimental." You could use this tech as usual, but it would have a chance of failure. Combined with a "no revert to /launchVAB", you would gain science points by testing this experimental hardware in flight, but it might also cause failures that are interesting. Engines could flame out randomly, decouplers fail in flight, etc. Your mission with X hardware might result in a reduce mission. Seems pretty kerbal to me.

I'm a new player, and I think OP makes a good point, though I think the idea of "difficulty level" is wrong-headed (meaning making it arbitrarily harder). As was pointed out above, when life support is in, it will be a game-changer. Your ship for a distant mission will require much more work and planning. The same might be said for more realistic atmospheres, and reentry parameters that are life and death. I don't really see any arbitrary difficulty levels as being useful. Orbital mechanics is orbital mechanics.

Not even just fairings, but things like the (real) Apollo rocket. Some standard diameter tubes with an internal decoupler (little or no ejection force), and open on one end. So your CM is built. You have a subassembly already made of a lander that fits inside the standard tube and you stack that with more tanks and engines below. Blow the stage before the payload tube. Now your CM can separate. You maneuver to dock, and on the bottom of the payload tube (invisible before, and not done by hitting "space") you can click "decouple payload" when ready. Different versions might open the container like a clamshell, or split it lengthwise, drop a ramp, etc.

First post, be gentle. I'd divide science/research/tech tree in a different way. Planetary Science Spaceflight Science Medical Science (assume the kerbs get life support at some point). The Tech Tree would be completely revamped. Each tree component would have some or all types of points to progress. So new lander pod tech would be say 60% Spaceflight Science Points, 20% Medical Science Points, and 20% Planetary Science Points (made up %s ). Most rockets engines might have just Spaceflight Science Points, for example. Planetary Science (PS): ---Mapping (orbital flights) ---Surface samples ---Geology (seismic, etc) These would give points mostly towards making better instrumentation for doing this kind of science. The mapping, combined with landers could map out resource areas (assuming this is added). This is a benefit outside the tech tree (you know where to build a mining base). Spaceflight Science (SS): ---Space measurement sensors (orbital, the different distances, etc). The "environment" of space to make better stuff, in other words, these might give points to 2 or even all three branches of science). ---Returned craft (how they held up) ---Time in flight (just plain experience feedback from pilots (perhaps weighted by their stupidity?)) ---Spaceflight milestones (orbiting worlds, first docking, etc). This type of data gives points to virtually everything on the new tree. Medical Science (MS): ---Time in flight (their medical condition over time, there can be experiments or station pods to test medical stuff) ---Returned craft feedback ---? Medical is just "life support" issues. These points would go towards habitat tech, including any manned elements of spacecraft. The tech would be more available than it is now. You'd not need to do major munar exploration to get the "science" in order to build.. a ladder, for example. Fewer brand-new branches, and more incremental stuff. Clunky, fixed ladder, then a later retractable one. Mk 1 pod might have a few days worth of life support, while the Mk1b has more, and the Mk1c even more. Retexture existing models and reuse. Take command pods, since they use all 3 types of science. Start with a Probe body and a manned pod with almost no life support. That could branch. With some SS points, you can get maybe a 2 person pod, pods that are better at reentry (assume deadly reentry), less mass (carbon fiber or something), etc. Another command pod branch is for MS points. Spend those and get pods with more life support time, are more survivable at a slightly higher impact speed (they add seat cushions ). Lander pods would use more of PS stuff (improved storage space for experiments, etc). Combine the 2d level for SS and MS command pod improvements, and start getting habitats, etc. You get the idea need work, but it is more incremental. I should be clear that I don't like automatic science points per unit time---unless they are linked to player actions. Mapping probes can generate science over time while they orbit. Maybe someday robot rovers would be possible, same thing, they slowly move, and check for minerals that are useful and prod cast back "science" over time. For OP: think of it this way, the baseline of tech development over time is subsumed in the choice for whatever the tech tree order is. The "stuff" done by players is what drives the specific space tech (without a space program, there is no need for that tech).