Fix unrealistic explosion for parts

[Vlk]

Hey, watching the 5 days left countdown video, i just realised that unrealistic explosions always bothered me. I'm talking about parts that don't have fuel, exploding with a big fireball.

like the air intake here:

It is totally unrealistic (which is not always a problem, i know... but i think now it is), it confuses me, and it is a little thing that makes the game feel unfinished

Not a big thing, i agree, but it should be easy to fix, and something that would improve game experience, i think.

I dont think it would be a problem if the damage would not be as visible, it is even more fun (the kerbal way ) if you loose a part without noticing it.

The minimum is that parts that dont have fuel, should only explode with scatters, but not "fire".

The sound effect should be different too, when there is only destruction, but no explosion.

But there are possibilities for improvements: like, making the explosion size depend on how much fuel was in the tanks, or mixing the "damaged", and "exploded" soundeffects together, so destruction of low fuel parts would sound more "scratched", and with less "boom".

[Whirligig Girl]

Now when crashing on the ground it doesn't make sense for air intakes to go boom. However, when re-entering at super high speeds, it's more like the intake is explosively melting/ablating into explosive oblivion of explosions.

[Capt Snuggler]

I'd like it if parts would spawn little orange particles just before they reach their heat limit. as if the part is ablating away. it would also make a good visual warning to the player about the imminent part failure.

Unfortunately I think the best way to show heat damage would require each part to have a "damaged" or "scorched" state, which would require a huge amount of art work. (but would be awesome )

Edited April 23, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Murph]

"Empty" fuel tanks, but which previously contained fuel, should explode with fire. In the real world, a nominally empty tank that has not been inerted or purged is a high risk for explosions due to the residual fuel vapour often being present in a fuel:air ratio which is excellent for producing an explosion. A full fuel tank, on the other hand, is much less likely to explode until the contents are vaporised and mixed with air or an oxidiser. In real world physics, a high energy impact often sets up the perfect circumstances for a subsequent explosion due to the vaporisation created in the impact. Half filled, and you can have the worst of both worlds, with a nicely explosive fuel:air mix above the fuel, and plenty of bulk fuel to subsequently vaporise and make things bigger.

Vapour explosions in slack or empty tanks are a very real concern in the aerospace industry, although the level of risk, and the need for inerting systems is still under debate around 20 years after the loss of TWA800. A320s and 747s have been identified as having a higher than typical risk, and flagged for "early action", but mostly inerting systems are only common on military aircraft. In a perfect world, they would all have inerting systems, but the real world is forced to accept that it's acceptable for the tanks to be potential bombs, due to the frequency of failure being sufficiently low. Next time you're sitting on a plane, contemplate for a moment that by the time you're half way through the flight, both wings are in a perfect condition to catastrophically explode from the tiniest of sparks.

Random lumps of metal, on the other hand, sure they should not explode with a big fireball. That said, it's a game, I see nothing wrong with just having everything explode with fire and smoke, unless the game gets a new mechanic where it actually matters in terms of consequences whether or not something would really tend to explode. Right now, it simply doesn't matter.

[Tex]

Those weird explosions always got me too... But I think that it would indeed look kinda strange if there wasn't any, either. I really want to see KSP get soft-body physics during crashes, THAT would be spectacular. Too bad I know it won't happen.

[DundraL]

Its also kind of needed atm. Would you have even known something had broken without that explosion? Better than wondering why you dont have any parachutes/ landing gear etc later... or wondering why your make- or-break mission returned no science etc.

[klgraham1013]

Its also kind of needed atm. Would you have even known something had broken without that explosion? Better than wondering why you dont have any parachutes/ landing gear etc later... or wondering why your make- or-break mission returned no science etc.

It could just be a poof of smoke instead of an explosion. Just a more reasonable indicator that damage has occurred.

[pizzaoverhead]

I'd like it if parts would spawn little orange particles just before they reach their heat limit. as if the part is ablating away. it would also make a good visual warning to the player about the imminent part failure.

The original version of re-entry effects shown on a pre-release dev stream actually contained this kind of particle effect. On top of the fire we have now, there were sparks and orange smoke, which looked pretty cool. They could re-purpose that effect for re-entry damage.

[technicalfool]

Personally I'd like to see one or a small handful of particle emitters spawned with an invisible, collisionless GameObject at the site of a part that went boom. Give the emitter a lifetime dependant on the amount of fuel in the part that went boom, and also have more emitters stick to any nearby parts, so you have clouds of "burning fuel", and flaming remnants spewing out of the top of the cloud, trailing fire and smoke behind them.

[pizzaoverhead]

Personally I'd like to see one or a small handful of particle emitters spawned with an invisible, collisionless GameObject at the site of a part that went boom. Give the emitter a lifetime dependant on the amount of fuel in the part that went boom, and also have more emitters stick to any nearby parts, so you have clouds of "burning fuel", and flaming remnants spewing out of the top of the cloud, trailing fire and smoke behind them.

Destruction Effects is a great example of the first part of this.

Imagine an uncontrolled reentry that looked like this:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Shrapnel and burning fuel clouds would be a great addition. It's always felt weird that a gigantic fuel tank can explode and disappear without affecting anything it was attached to.

[Feradose]

Those weird explosions always got me too... But I think that it would indeed look kinda strange if there wasn't any, either. I really want to see KSP get soft-body physics during crashes, THAT would be spectacular. Too bad I know it won't happen.

Soft body physics! I love the smell of burning computers. At least it would be absolutely spectacular...

[tntristan12]

For me, my biggest problem with the explosions is that a full rockomax fuel tank explodes with exactly the same amount of force as an empty fuselage. Also, I feel like splash damage is something sorely needed. Especially for those people who like to set up space battles, hitting one part should damage the parts around it. Especially if that part explodes with greater force. Might not be too noticeable when crash landing, but it would certainly be something you notice if a part fails on liftoff or you accidentally jettison a stage into another part of your rocket.

[peadar1987]

Area effects would also be great for determining damage to buildings. If one of Whackjob's monstrosities were to explode fully-fuelled on the pad, I would expect to see significant damage caused to the VAB and tracking station.