Kegereneku

Ah drat ! It slip my mind we are not so much "extracting" usable resources as much as "converting" it so it become usable, which of course require more energy than the opposite reaction. Even in the fictional world of KSP I wouldn't want to break thermodynamic. ...so basically we will end up needing nuclear power-source if we want to refuel during month long night.

Oh yeah, entirely right. I've been using the word Isp recently as a goaround and forgot it represented both Flow Rate and Force, aka Thrust, so a part of it do vary with atmospheric pressure. It's making me very feel tired right now. In any case it is definitely linked with the aerodynamic model, it would be a very fundamental change. All tutorials would have to explain how thrust do vary with altitude, all design would be made obsolete, game balance would entirely change as pointed out by J.Random. The more I think about it, the more I'm wondering if an Aerodynamic Model upgrade wouldn't be the biggest change since docking.

Since their thrust boost more, but I've always reserved Ion drive for small probes as their only engine, not on bigger spaceship for which I would use LV-N on tug/transfer stage for maximal efficiency. In any case, I do agree with the use of fuel cell as a low tier "battery" (before solar panel) and I do see now how they would become useful again specifically to power a refueling base at night. In fact, as the only alternative would otherwise require a lot of RTG or sunlight, such power-source look to be an unforeseen requirement for deep space refueling on planet.

About the Aerospike. I'm not sure increasing its thrust (and cost) would solve the the core of its problem, because it lie in the dynamic of every engines. See, the current relation between engine performance and altitude used by KSP make Isp vary with atmospheric pressure, this is playable, but wrong. Thrust is what actually vary with atmospheric pressure. Edit : I was remembered that Isp's equation include Thrust, meaning it does change with pressure(since thrust vary), what's wrong is that Fuel Flow (in Isp's equation) should remain constant, unlike now. The selling point of the Aerospike is that unlike other engines it can maintain the same amount of thrust (while also being more fuel efficient) over a wider range of atmospheric pressure. Those qualities are what would make it the engine of choice for any single stage or reusable SSTO. However as it is now, all other engine have the same quality and staging is more fuel-efficient while being cheaper. So I think making the Aerospike more powerful would only reestablish the reason it was considered "OP" when first introduced. Not that I see any easy way to remedy to this problem without changing the aerodynamic.

I find his particular suggestion to his request unreasonable even if I can understand the reasons behind. My first post did tried to highlight why the developers did not again took a more participative approach to fan's suggestion. "I plead guilty of generalizing, but my concern are based upon simple observation of the Suggestions subforum ecosystem your honor." I have seen regularly the same strong personalities, putting a lot of effort into particularly detailed suggestion, either as part of new topic or while participating to other topic, every time trying to promote said particularly specific modification to KSP for personal reasons assumed to be true by default. And having suggested myself idea that took "some work", I claim to know the urge of defending our own idea, regardless of others disapproval or call for consensus. This, is why I would distrust myself a topic where devoted fan of KSP were given the prospect of "telling the dev what to do", to put it bluntly. Now, of course, I have to admit that I might be getting carried over by a long running "Resources discussion" in which I and Cpt.Kipard are both participant and from which is born his desire to make this topic. A desire that come from the lack of direct feedback from the Developers but doesn't lead to reasonable solution. I hope this explain why my answer to cpt.Kipard was slightly more personal than what this context call for.

I think you are being unreasonable Cpt.Kipard. It take way more than a "YES/NO" to answer a suggestion in a meaningful way without being condescending or called back as a liar later. A growing fanbase is unlikely to come to a consensus as to what to submit for approval to the developers. Such discussion are already plagued by loud egocentric minority trying to win the argument by any sophistic arguments necessary. The rating of a topic and the quantity of posts in it are not representative of the quality of anything that have been suggested in it. On the contrary, longer thread with a lot of different opinion are clear sign of feature/change people cannot agree on. Even if around 10 active participants and hundred backers giving rep point were to vote to agree on a single summary, no developers could guaranteed (for reason stated earlier) that any percentage of this feature, subdivided in sub-sub-features will make it anytime soon in the game in any form. And be honest. If you could have the answer of a devs, for I quote you : And he said "No". Wouldn't you just reformulate it "Realistic volume ratio"...and so on, indefinitely in the hope of getting what you want ?

I was wondering recently whether or not making a [suggestion] for making some engine much more refund friendly than other. because realistically some engine are way harder to maintain than other, if there were built to be maintained at all. On the matter nuclear system are the worst to maintain regularly, so "no refund" to avoid nuclear spaceplane sound a good idea to me (I would even give a penalty if nuclear material ever landed back on Kerbin) If didn't made that thread it was because : - you can not yet recover rocket spent fuel the way we (plan to) do it in reality. - to me the game is not fleshed out enough yet to really worry about balance. A lot of other parts, building upgrade, kerbal training course, tech-tree rework will certainly be done in the future. So most change of price here could turn out being meaningless.

(1) Don't that idea rely entirely on being able to get out of the water (fully loaded) without needing to use said fuel ? I wouldn't hold my breath on the devs adding electric propeller for this. Hypothetically we could have Kerbonaut setting up line, but that's speculation. (2) I guess. In the scope of manned exploration of all planet I think we can do with only the "main drive" fuels. (3) nuclear fuel is freaking durable and hard to replace, by simplification I would consider them infinite and just balance other criteria accordingly. As pointed out by Laie, it would require a new line of fuel tank unless we repurpose previous tank. (it could get confusing on screenshot if they do not differ visually) (4) Understand that, and I guess it could be used for said "refueling base" night time (more than probes), but once again we are talking of getting both LF/O at the same location (night trucking put aside). I believe we have a consensus in that probes (roughly smaller than a 2.5 fuel tank) should not be self-sufficient in themselves. About this : for or against Kerbonaute being required in the refueling process ? Real space agency would automatize it to have the fuel ready when the astronaut arrive, but in our case KSP need "focus" and favor gameplay. But now... it would make a very big difference if you need a Kerbal Engineer to run the things.

I like the truncated solution they used to make it fit 2.5m part, and most of the adapters, the symmetrical and asymmetrical one alike. Don't you fill it's missing a symmetrical mk3 to mk2 ? I see we can do it with other parts but it would be slightly longer. I'm wondering if they plan a streamlined nosecone fitting a docking port, though that's not really necessary. Some player will wish to have cargo ramp for rover, but it would require robotic mechanism which is on the WNTS list, certainly like a hypothetical attach-node that would rotate by 90° something attached in the cargo bay. I wonder how many Kerman it can carry at once 6, 8, 12 ? but a LOT it seem. It short, for now I believe I will be entirely satisfied by mk3 spaceplane parts.

Just a note about Isp, Thrust, and nuclear spaceplane : As we know there's a special relation between atmospheric pressure and Isp / Thrust. However the equation used right now by KSP isn't a very correct simplification of it. In short : fuel consumption in varying with altitude in lieu of thrust. This mean that engine like the LV-N should have nearly no thrust at all in any atmosphere. Similarly all engines' thrust should vary with atmospheric pressure, including the various kind of jet-engine (theirs would also vary with speed). With the exception of the Aerospike that should have the same thrust at all altitude (as it is the selling point of its design) This, would be the key at balancing the LV-N as a rare space-only engine. (alternatively they could also introduce heat radiator for him in particular) I do not know if SQUAD plan to change this, but they might if they rework the aerodynamic model.

I can entirely understand SQUAD not giving any targeted or even visible feedback over our suggestion. They've done so in the past and it have lead to problem. But it doesn't mean they don't care, nor that they don't read it. Look at it from their point of view : - They can only work on a few thing at a time, if they started giving immediate priority to whatever have been last discussed, they would never be working on the stuff they planned themselves. - If they answer someone negatively, even giving lot of reason why, that person is still very likely to defend his idea and expect... no require counter-argument as to why his simple altruistic idea to benefit all of mankind, shouldn't be implemented. - If they answer someone positively, even making sure to tone down the idea the fanbase will not forget it and build more upon the original suggestion. They say : "we plan to allow deep space refueling", we translate : refueling --> gas station --> regular travel --> tycoon game --> extrakerbin VAB And let's be honest, our suggestion can be ridiculous, Right now I'm reading : [suggestion] Dancing kerbals While other suggestion would require to be a game-designer to understand their feasibility. Even without answering anyone in particular, just describing as they already ar what they are working right now : To quote HarvesteR : ""The specifics of these are still very much subject to change, however, so I’m not very eager to start talking about what they are just yet. They may very well be something else entirely next week for all we know"" And that's because it's what happen in design process. I do not talk from personal experience here, but I've known team of modder, they were constantly experimenting and changing their idea as they discovered that one of them unbalanced everything or did not have it's place in the grand design. So really, I do not see anything wrong with the way SQUAD is now doing their PR. Most of the greatest-yet-reasonable idea I have seen discussed in Suggestion (I spent all my time here) have been introduced in some form or another, minus thing that were not actually necessary. Also, they DID said we would get a rework of the aerodynamic model, which is mindbogglingly important. Just as important than when they introduced docking, EVA, and sized up every part.

To : Laie I know, sorry to bring back the most basic question but in between each other personal suggestion I felt we didn't discussed them much. As you say, intermediate resources are only justified to separate one resource across multiple place, which is a balance measure. But it is necessary ? As of now there is only two sort of fuel that can do heavy lifting, and the most important of them already have two subtype LF/O. I won't bring back the "all type" discussion. But thank you for addressing the main problem of a mono-resources Nuclear engine. As you say : a) the need for a new set of fuel tank (even if LF only) the possibility to mess up And I agree we shouldn't suggest here new engine, parts or change in other's engine working. But your answer get me to broach the subject of messing up fuel dosage. Our unit to measure "rocket fuel" is the number and size of fuel tank. Not the volume ratio of LiquidFuel vs Oxidizer. The repercussion it have on ISRU is that you'll likely plan to refuel the same fuel tanks. We all see that coming but if you had refuel the duo LF/O from different place, it mean either : - specialized fuel tank (or one that can carry one resources or the other). - or to carry it in half-empty fuel tank (which would certainly annoy the most efficiency-driven of us) There's a post from CaptRobau (about RPG-like inventory) that I didn't took the time to answer. If I do not see "inventory system" working for KSP's large quantity of liquid resources this is not because because the UI would be impossible, but because of how we measure quantity in number of tank (and deltaV). Space Engineer allegedly cheat a la minecraft over the quantity you can carry and encourage hoarding. I do not see it translate at all for KSP where : A) every gram count. deltaV vary with Isp In short : Our unit of measurement is more volume than mass. how do we deal with that? Even as some kind of extremely more energetic battery, I do not see the interest in it being refuel-able. Ion-drive -normally- don't land and have enough trouble getting good acceleration even in sunlight. You make a good point. But do we learn anything if one refuse to envisage the possibility that his idea is 'fundamentally flawed' and consider all detractor as people who don't get his genius ? Please tell me if you see me camping on a position. To my knowledge, the only position I have been defending is that we do not require realistic volume ratio, name or chemistry. So unless I miscommunicate the rest should only look like opinion, suggestion and remark about conflict rising from others idea. (such as the change of spaceplane balance if we change fuel volume ratio) I'm not claiming any kind of superiority here. (though my example were indeed targeted)

To : CaptRobau I'm being a little pedantic here, but since the diagram is in itself a basic schematic, you(we) are scrapping most of it. I would go one step further by asking : - Do we even need intermediate resources ? Again I speak as a detractor to chemistry, but if we drill/pump/scoop, use electricity, and fuel goes out on the other side. Then any intermediate process is redundant or only have meaning for design restriction and game-balance, which can be addressed by biome and availability. - Do we really need to cover all type of fuel ? Xenon is quite "OP" as we say, monopropellant isn't used much and can be stored in quantity large enough that (myself) I do not see the need for more than one resupply run (from Kerbin) at most. Nuclear fuel is... let's just say infinite About it, a nuclear thruster do not require electricity, on the opposite it can produce some easily. But what is require is another resources to be used as "reactive mass". - The question is which one ? Myself I would go with Liquid Fuel, plain and simple. Late-game it would be even easier to refuel, yet possible to limit to space-only. As for fuel-cell, I don't think fuel-cell belong here as something we can refuel (we will have battery/RTG way before we can refuel them). Maybe as a low-level non-rechargeable source of energy, but that's another subject. Btw: I agree that this thread is a little misleading, but technically refueling still count as space resources. If someone made a new topic called "Deep space refueling" we would have to close this one.

What we know is that it will be more simple than their abandoned previous try on resources. It was abandoned for being "too complicated", which in retrospect look obvious although it had to be tried. Amongst it, features in term we should all understand : - 3 parts to gather from the 3 medium (Soil, Atmosphere, Ocean) - All fuel type supported - resources subtype (for most complicated fuel such as monopropellant) - intermediate processing modules - compatibility for potential life-support - absolutely 100% fictional Kerbalish chemistry Note that at the time, asteroid and the claw did not exist. I would like to remember people here that if making a certain type of fuel, require more fuel than you'll produce or to extract another type of fuel first, then the refueling system fail its goal, the worse case being discovering too late a deadlock were no excess fuel can be produced, requiring an omnipotent knowledge of where to create it and the quantity to carry around. ("Obviously !" you say ? Yet, remember that's the problem REAL game-designer struggle with) Some people might be wasting their time defending idea that are fundamentally flawed, myself I'm just blazed by how many person here "just assume" their idea is the only one that make sense, rather than discuss the broad subject to learn something out of conflicting ideas. To take an extreme example I think we are more likely to agree on : ExtraKerbin construction or the concept of exploiting/selling space resources. I do not myself find an appeal or credibility in any of those, in particular because of the common feature it could force upon us (like tedious scavenging or grinding) however I am not against finding something that reproduce the appeal of both in a way that is transparent to me. The same logic apply to anything else, as long as all participant in the discussion aren't stuck-in baseless obsession, such as chemistry realism, or seek to discuss the real scale of what they are suggesting so as to fully understand it themselves.

If you insist on making that personal, stop being so full of yourself first. You act as if everything you said was justified by a "grand design" you have, plus your condescending tone for getting reputation point or having "mods". You are the only one who didn't understood me and I can reformulate only so much, I and other understand how "specific resources parameter" is a question of game design in a universe as fictional as KSP. I "ignore everything that goes against my fancy" you say ? Speak for yourself ! The transition you argue for only matter for realism aficionados or "for mods", pretty self-serving argument you have here. You would have more credit arguing for the ability to mods it more easily, but we both know it's not actually a problem. Last I know the physic equations are correct simplification (unlike the Isp/thrust relation) so you can mod Liquid Fuel into Hydrogen and Oxidizer into Oxygen yourself if you need that particular rocket fuel and search a custom fuel tank plugin. Maybe you did understood because now AT LEAST you are making concession, asking only for volume ratio verisimilitude. Which -I suppose you know needing it for your Skylon mod and all- would definitely require a major rebalance for spaceplane who carry unequal and non-homogeneous amount of both. From my point of view SQUAD made a damn good design decision early, this is another reason you sound full of yourself. tips : if you have problem balancing your Skylon, try "cheating" by not respecting fuel tank separation, I assure you anybody will pardon you as long as it do the job of flying like a Skylon. To my opinion, going into "Inventory" is better for set of token and distinct object and sample (tools to install strut or fuel line for example), it would also allow to quantize sample (so you cannot carry 10 tons of sample in one capsule) but that's another subject. In our case, I do not see it play well with large quantity of fluid, plus it would disregard entirely internal separation if you don't want to subdivide it into more internal tank. Then, once again I'm still not interested myself by a "chemistry minigame", as in "manually guess the correct combination/dosage/transformation process of arbitrary sub-resources to make usable game resources" every time I want to refuel, or set up a refueling base. Teaching chemistry is a noble goal, but it would seem (to me) superfluous in a game like KSP. Keeping things simple would "can you make X resources here ? Yes/No" regardless of how complex the fuel is regardless how complex its molecule are (like monopropelant), and in the case of asteroid-only, indicate the quantity you can extract. I would suggest to start by making the simplest refueling system that reach its goal. If the code is modular enough it won't be a problem to modify later.

I think we need a more fundamental change Rakaydos. Your proposal would give some much needed choice, but it would still be using rigid bundle containing the technology you want for another "route". Your probe core route for example don't give much propulsion, so since (3) is costly you would skip to the LV45 and whatever has tank and decoupler cheaper If you wanted more science part you will grind for (2) probes cores because it's more cost efficient. And the jet route, although it would give you the ability to get science all over Kerbin is fairly limited to atmosphere only (no ladder) and it take longer to fly over a specific zone to make report than it does to send a capsule sub-orbital. ximrm, The main problem with upgradeable parts is that you'd need something to tell them apart on screenshot to make sharing and helping easier.

Not exactly, I'm following his Interstellar Quest and the shuttle that landed on Eve is an Air-augmented Fusion-engine - In space it can work with fusion only, low thrust but supremely efficient. - It can add stored reactive-mass to get a lot more thrust - And in atmosphere it can add ambient air to the fusion to get high thrust at high efficiency So basically it would be close the overpowered MHD "plasma-engine" I talked about first, but not the "RAMrocket" which is equivalent to other conventional LF/O rocket engine, except with added thrust in atmosphere.

That's the thing. SQUAD can give their fuel any density they want to have the fuel/oxidizer ratio they want, they don't have to force themselves to follow real chemistry if it doesn't bring anything worth to the game or make balancing more complicated (or impossible). For any aspect someone want to make more realistic, there's another aspect that will look more absurd because KSP "still isn't reality". Since KSP's resources will only be analog to real one, any chemistry minigame made would be an abstract game-logic anyway. So I still see no point in forcing the real name and chemistry. Even if as a science-enthusiast I dream myself of fusion-powered starship replenishing their hydrogen tank from Europa or comet, what KSP need is a gameplay-oriented logic. That's what we should be discussing.

We could try to compare both concepts to see if one eat the other : The RAPIER Is basically a Turbojet that turn into rocket-mode pro : It does not use precious oxidizer until it lack air. landing back you can reuse jet-mode to land cheaply con : Once in orbit you can have surplus mass of Liquid Fuel Only work on Kerbin The Ramrocket or air-augmented rocket Is a rocket engine that have amplified thrust if used in any atmosphere It use oxidizer anyway but require air-intake to gain extra thrust. pro : it give extra trust in any atmosphere con : is dead-weight outside atmosphere Conclusion : Please do not hesitate to give your own vision, To me it seem we can balance a "RAMrocket" to be the "shuttle" of outer planet but it have to be VERY efficient. I'm more worried about it shadowing other lift-off engine, especially the Aerospike (though it's because Isp isn't calculated as it should) We can make it too costly to be expandable (or low thrust for high atmos Isp), but it is enough to not make it "OP" as a reusable SSTO ? Considering how easy it is to stack engine & parachute in KSP already I'm wondering if "Make launch 50% costly & require 90% recovery cost to brake even" would balanced it enough. It still have to be a question of design choice after-all, if someone want to rely on this model he should be able to. ps : Maybe each engine should have a "recovering rating" to allow better balancing of SSTO candidate ? Gotta make a thread about that.

Well, myself I don't see problem coming out from antenna range, even with a relay gimmick so it could be added "anytime", basically only the day they need it to balance something else. On the other hand, change like the aerodynamic model, oh boy (and girl), that's ought to be the greatest evolution since docking. You'll have congratulating/bitching SQUAD for month, saying it broke spaceplane, it make the game too easy/hard/balanced, that they didn't go FAR enough or NEARly missed it...etc.

Just a remark : Gregroxmun I find you started this thread more like a suggestion than a discussion. To my opinion, no, "starting manned" is definitely not better. As the mod title said, there's "Better than starting manned" and not just because it's historically accurate. It would improve gameplay and the player's progression. You want time to learn the mechanic of the game, You want a feeling of meaningful progression, You want this progression to feel technologically rational, And you don't want to be killing Kerbal by the dozen. The situation we have now result from KSP's debut as a sandbox with no form of technological progression available and probes part being ostracized as "overpowered" at the time. But, as pointed out the rigidity of the tech-tree is to blame : It take "long" to get technology that feel very archaic, and you only have access to them in bundle. Understandable in turn is because there wasn't a gameplay to balance anyway. There was only science, no money, no upgradable building, two biome for any other planet. It couldn't be helped. Many part of the game are placeholder. However I still insist you cannot have a space program without displaying the added difficulty of manned mission

Ram air turbine it itself don't necessarily work in any atmosphere, not if the oxidizer you need to burn the Liquid fuel isn't present. However as said above, an Air augmented rocket, can potentially use any source of compressed gas to increase it's thrust. This is different from what the RAPIER engine do, so it would be a different engine. Now, there is also the dream of nuclear jet engine which would work on any atmosphere (differently though). Then again, if you don't mind "absolutely completely overpowered engine" there's also hypothetical plasma-engine with absurd power requirement.

Well, whether or not you want a pseudo-chemistry minigame, check the reason why the first resources system was scrapped to avoid the same error. The resources being "more realist" wont necessarily solve the problem.

Because to make a good game, a feature must be integrated in its core, not an optional free-DLC. For example you can hardly balance the prices/reward of unmanned mission if you do not know if you need satellite relay first. Same and worst for many other mods. The price of any mission would increase abruptly if you needed to care about Reentry.

My premise is as valid and logical as yours. I'll rephrase it but I suspect you do not see it because you are a little wrapped up in the idea that any single step toward "realism" mean "better". And often pro-realism are being condescending because they think they are the educated one while other use guess word. But it's not they do not know science, but because fictional resources can be anything. We are talking of game design here. One entire aspect of game design is to make something that look like reality using code far simpler than reality. It mean using simplified model where the center of mass is a point, not calculating every particle down to Planck's scale, and if your universe depend on biasing value to make it playable -which is the case for KSP- it mean using standoff value as parameter. You are arguing to introduce real chemical elements and value for ingame resources which aren't present. KSP's liquid fuel isn't one that exist, and oxidizer is called like that only because it serve the same roles. Those resources are based on fictional value because they needed to. The Kerbol system needed to be smaller (both to make launch & navigation shorter and to go easier on the computer) The Kerbol system needed to use custom mass/density to be playable. And so rocket & plane engine needed to have way lower thrust. What's important is that the equation work. Regardless if the value do not derive from real one. Take for example the equation ruling the relation between Thrust, Isp & atmospheric pressure. It is wrong. Varying atmospheric pressure do not increase fuel consumption, it decrease thrust. Myself I would like for it to change to make Aerospike engine work, and if that change require to use fake value or biased equation, so be it. To make a step in your direction and be less "contrarian" to you, IF the new aerodynamic system end up using an equation where some parameters are based over real one, like AIR density. Okay, why not ? But it will still not matter how much Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Radon, and Hydrogen is in the atmosphere, or what Liquid Fuel is made of. Thus Air, Liquid Fuel, Monopropellant and Xenon are "game resources". Their chemistry don't matter unless you want a pseudo-chemistry minigame, which don't need to be realistic. Only fun an vaguely linked to the real concept. The key word being "if you can use real world chemistry". As said above, complexing game-logic only matter if the gameplay you are aiming for call for it, and if the system is compatible. What you describe is basically a pseudo-chemistry minigame which, in my opinion isn' in the "Scope" of KSP. What some people call "not terribly complicated" can still be seen as "terribly boring" by other, and pointless unless we where on a road to "realism" everything, which is not the case KSP isn't and will never be Orbiter 2.0. Thus why I think we are better keeping the system simple. Some planet & asteroid have the resources, other don't, you need to design your rocket to make use of it without unbalancing the game or it looking unrealistic, that's all there is to it. That was my humble opinion on the matter. The developer have their plans, and right know they are seemingly thinking of "asteroid only" which don't sound satisfying for most.