Has ISRU made the game better?

[Laie]

Pretty much the first thing I did (as soon as I was able to) was designing a go-anywhere vessel. In it's simplest form, it is two Mammoths, six tanks, and an ISRU kit. Can take off from anywhere but Eve, and has enough dV to reach the next minable surface regardless of where it took off from. I can't bring myself to actually fly this grand tour though.

I haven't gone to any other planet since 1.0. No matter what plan I start with, in the end I add a refinery to the vessel, then leave her in the VAB. ISRU is a big-s "YOU WIN" button, marquee and blinking. I can't bring myself to ignore it and play as if it wasn't there.

[Thomas988]

I really enjoy ISRU because it finally gives purpose to building bases and space stations outside of Kerbin. Getting the ISRU converter itself is an immense challenge, so I think it perfectly balances out any chance it could be "too OP."

Now if only I could find a nice way to throw it on one of my Mun rovers and get it landed on my Mun Base that would be fantastic.

[Captain Sierra]

Pretty much the first thing I did (as soon as I was able to) was designing a go-anywhere vessel. In it's simplest form, it is two Mammoths, six tanks, and an ISRU kit. Can take off from anywhere but Eve, and has enough dV to reach the next minable surface regardless of where it took off from. I can't bring myself to actually fly this grand tour though.

I haven't gone to any other planet since 1.0. No matter what plan I start with, in the end I add a refinery to the vessel, then leave her in the VAB. ISRU is a big-s "YOU WIN" button, marquee and blinking. I can't bring myself to ignore it and play as if it wasn't there.

That's your prerogative. Nobody's stopping you from playing that way and nobody's forcing you to play that way.

As someone who over-engineers the crap out of their major missions, I pactically NEED ISRU to make it work. Dunno about you but there's no way I can keep framerates close to acceptable when hauling 60 tons of mission payload and the fuel capacity for an entire Jool 5 mission and back. ISRU gives me options to carry a lot less dV with me. It also gives me a way to mine fuel and support my colonization missions without the need to ship it from Kerbin (extremely useful when I make my run for Laythe again in 1.0.x).

[Jason Patterson]

It's a single player game. Unless you're doing a challenge and the rules state that you can't use the thing, then there's nobody to say that you should or should not except for you.

For me, fuel lines make the game ridiculously easy. Once you've got asparagus, you can go anywhere and do most anything. If I want a challenge, I build rockets without fuel lines or at least as few as possible.

[John FX]

Can`t say I`ve bothered with ISRU. To roleplay something similar I like to have an orbital station with a large fuel reserve so I can dock semi-SSTO craft there, maybe assemble something then launch it etc. I wanted to use Karbonite with the particle collector but it does not want to play with my save it seems.

I think I got my mining bug eradicated with Kethane many moons ago. I made mining bases, shuttle craft and a whole infrastructure with reusable craft which meant that if I had to get a kerbal to plant a flag somewhere (except Eve) I launched them to LKO, put them in a shuttle, transported them to their destination where they would move to a dedicated lander, land, launch back to the station then return to LKo in the shuttle. There were drop pod escape craft on the station so they returned to Kerbin in one of those.

I can see both sides, on one hand resources give more gameplay designing bases, fuel craft etc and on the other, once you have made your mining craft, they remove some of the design needed to get to certain places.

I may try out ISRU in the future but currently it is at the back of the kitchen cupboard with the ARM update, a lot of spaceplane parts, an unused sandwich toaster, the exercise biike and the horrible vase from the mother in law.

[regex]

Haven't touched the ISRU portion of the game in my current career save (fully unlocked tech tree), so I can't say it's changed the game for me.

[PTNLemay]

I've tried it on a few contracts, I vastly underestimated the energy consumption though and I gave up. Flew the craft back without the needed ore to get Jeb ready for the next mission.

I can imagine it being pretty cool, but I'm going to need the more powerful solar panels or nuclear power before I can really try it out properly.

[problemecium]

I haven't really touched it either, but I like that it's there for when I do end up wanting it xD

[Alshain]

Not for me. Tried it once and gave up on it.

[mikegarrison]

I tried it as an orbital refinery, and found that it was more trouble than it was worth. Then I tried it as a Mun base, and found it was more trouble than it was worth. Then I tried it as a Minmus base, and found that worked reasonably well, because Minmus is already on the edge of the Kerbin gravity well, going from landed to escape velocity on Minmus is only a couple hundred m/s, and landing on Minmus for refueling is dead simple assuming there is any ore on any of the flats. (It does require KAS fuel pipes to have a productive refueling base, though.)

I have not yet tried taking an ISRU out of the Kerbin system. Except for maybe Jool or Eve where you have big delta-v requirements inside the planet's SOI, I'm not sure how useful it would really be.

[Jonboy]

Honestly I haven't really used stock ISRU yet. I had plans for a Laythe base with an SSTO that would shuttle fuel to orbit. But because of aerobraking, everything had to fit behind a heat shield, which got complicated.

[Yakuzi]

I hope it's the first step towards a career mode that actually makes sense, with actual time based overhead costs and incentive to invest in solar system infrastructure. For example, surveying planets for rare kirrimdium deposits, setting up a mining site and flying back a cargo load full to Kerbin for big $ profits or manufacturing exotic engines (and the ability to automate, this is kerbal space program after all).

[Laie]

Dunno about you but there's no way I can keep framerates close to acceptable when hauling 60 tons of mission payload and the fuel capacity for an entire Jool 5 mission and back.

For me, the part count came from the landers. Each of them needs power, RCS, control, and in my opinion a full science kit is also called for. Plus wheels, landing gear, engines... even a simple lander is 30 parts, and I brought two not-so-simple ones. And the drive section: Four decouplers worth of nukes for a whopping 0.2g and 20 parts. Also, struts. Lots and lots of struts. By part count, the mission was 20% struts. About 150 parts all told, eight of which were the tanks that held all the fuel to go there and back again. If it would have only been about the amount, three of the largest tanks would have sufficed; I went with eight orange tanks for structural reasons.

Upgrading them to eight large kerbodynes tanks would have allowed for another 20-30 nukes and 50% more TWR -- believe you me, it was not the weight of the tanks that held me back. I figured that going at 0.2g and 150 parts would be quicker than 0.3g and 200 parts.

What I'm trying to get at: of all the things that add to part count and lag, fuel tanks have been the least of my problems.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Laie

[G'th]

I believe it certainly has. It opens up avenues to stock players that they didn't have before, and it helps makes it more appropriate to design smaller and more efficiently when it comes to career and even science mode. And all the while it gives more purpose to some of the different things you can do in-game. Base building, sattelites, and rovers all become more useful with ISRU in stock.

However, I still long for the day when this evil tome that shall not be spoken of is made into either a mod or into the stock game by some dumb stroke of dumb luck on the 30th of February.

I would adore this kind of ISRU system.

[Red Iron Crown]

Less appealing for me than I thought it would be, to be honest. I really want to like it, but there are a few things that just spoil it for me:

1. You can only scan from a polar orbit, so making an all-in-one go anywhere ship requires you to either send a separate probe or put the ship into a costly polar orbit. Why not allow scanning from any inclination and only reveal the appropriate portion of the map?

2. It's way too biased towards crewed missions. While I appreciate some new things for engineer kerbals to do the system shouldn't be borderline unusable if operated without crew.

3. Diminishing surface deposits are foolish. If bases are meant to be encouraged then have those deposits stay rich forever.

4. Heat! This is more to do with the lack of real heat management parts, but it makes designing and testing ISRU systems much more difficult. Overheating leads to throttling, which leads to...

5. It's sloooow. I run my missions sequentially, so I end up waiting for tanks to fill. Time-based mechanics are supposed to be a no-no (MPL notwithstanding), and the scanning is instantaneous, I would much rather the tanks just filled at rates similar to fuel transfers, or instantly after checking to see that sufficient power generation is onboard.

6. It's energy intensive. We finally have some decent use for electricity but the demands are so high that current generation is not enough. Solar is intermittent and limits locations, RTGs drive the part count nuts, and fuel cells consume the very resources I'm trying to produce, which exacerbates 3 and 5 above and is worse still for asteroids.

7. I mostly play sandbox, so any cost savings are fairly irrelevant (and even in career ISRU comes so late that costs are mostly irrelevant). It is simpler and quicker for me to just build a bigger launcher to throw the fuel up from KSC, rather than the more efficient empty launch with ISRU-supplied in orbit refuelling.

So I think the system has some good things going for it (simplicity, instant scanning, appropriate part masses), it just needs a bit of rebalancing to make it more enjoyable to use.

Edit to add: 8. There's no elegant way to connect things on the ground for refueling. The best solution I've come up with is a claw-equipped tanker rover. It's like going to a gas station and using jerry cans to transfer fuel from the pump to your car, except that sometimes using a jerry can makes the world turn inside out. We need some transfer pipes like KAS or just allow transfer between landed craft within a certain distance.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Fireking883]

I used to always play with resource mods, and I still play with karbonite, so practically nothing has changed for me

[Captain Sierra]

Less appealing for me than I thought it would be, to be honest. I really want to like it, but there are a few things that just spoil it for me:

1. You can only scan from a polar orbit, so making an all-in-one go anywhere ship requires you to either send a separate probe or put the ship into a costly polar orbit. Why not allow scanning from any inclination and only reveal the appropriate portion of the map?

2. It's way too biased towards crewed missions. While I appreciate some new things for engineer kerbals to do the system shouldn't be borderline unusable if operated without crew.

3. Diminishing surface deposits are foolish. If bases are meant to be encouraged then have those deposits stay rich forever.

4. Heat! This is more to do with the lack of real heat management parts, but it makes designing and testing ISRU systems much more difficult. Overheating leads to throttling, which leads to...

5. It's sloooow. I run my missions sequentially, so I end up waiting for tanks to fill. Time-based mechanics are supposed to be a no-no (MPL notwithstanding), and the scanning is instantaneous, I would much rather the tanks just filled at rates similar to fuel transfers, or instantly after checking to see that sufficient power generation is onboard.

6. It's energy intensive. We finally have some decent use for electricity but the demands are so high that current generation is not enough. Solar is intermittent and limits locations, RTGs drive the part count nuts, and fuel cells consume the very resources I'm trying to produce, which exacerbates 3 and 5 above and is worse still for asteroids.

7. I mostly play sandbox, so any cost savings are fairly irrelevant (and even in career ISRU comes so late that costs are mostly irrelevant). It is simpler and quicker for me to just build a bigger launcher to throw the fuel up from KSC, rather than the more efficient empty launch with ISRU-supplied in orbit refuelling.

So I think the system has some good things going for it (simplicity, instant scanning, appropriate part masses), it just needs a bit of rebalancing to make it more enjoyable to use.

I approve of these suggestions.

This is a not-so-subtle hint for you to go make this a suggestion thread.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe it certainly has. It opens up avenues to stock players that they didn't have before' date=' and it helps makes it more appropriate to design smaller and more efficiently when it comes to career and even science mode. And all the while it gives more purpose to some of the different things you can do in-game. Base building, sattelites, and rovers all become more useful with ISRU in stock.

However, I still long for the day when this evil tome that shall not be spoken of is made into either a mod or into the stock game by some dumb stroke of dumb luck on the 30th of February.

[url']http://i.imgur.com/08hdJyj.png

I would adore this kind of ISRU system.

ISRU: Hard mode. I WANT IT!

[JoCRaM]

It has put a framework in place that modders will be able to use, and I think there are some things I will enjoy that will come out of that.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I always find it a bit of a challenge in itself, being as I don't build stations. I did build my tanker, though. It's part of a multi-stage transfer program to harvest Liquid Hydrogen. [i decided to make fuel cells use it, and I'm looking to find other parts that could utilize it as well]

[FlowerChild]

The options for the poll are really a bit off. It's entirely possible to think that it hasn't improved the game without thinking it takes all the challenge out of it. Personally, I don't think it improves the game because the investment in player time required isn't compensated for by the benefits provided.

7. I mostly play sandbox, so any cost savings are fairly irrelevant (and even in career ISRU comes so late that costs are mostly irrelevant). It is simpler and quicker for me to just build a bigger launcher to throw the fuel up from KSC, rather than the more efficient empty launch with ISRU-supplied in orbit refuelling.

I mostly play career, and will say that this point isn't just exclusive to sandbox

In career, if it takes you more time to save some funds than it would take you to earn them through doing contracts, then why bother?

I feel that's currently the case with the resource system. It's a cool thing to do once. However, after that the realization rapidly sets in that it's not really practical and you're probably better off just taking a few more contracts to make up for the cost of shipping the extra fuel to orbit.

Edited June 10, 2015 by FlowerChild

[regex]

I think what really makes me not want to try out ISRU is just how unwieldy the parts are. The refinery is half the size of an orange tank and the drills are ridiculously huge, which means my lander must be equally unwieldy/huge or be built in some awkward manner. Radial parts and smaller drills would have been welcome. Engineering challenge? I suppose, but I'd rather just not bother and instead spend that time figuring out how to make my nukes able to burn longer.

It should be noted that I'm quite happy with the ISRU API so far, though.

[KerikBalm]

I like it... but I think its too easy...

I'd prefer if the cumulative equipment was the size and weight of at least a full orange tank.

This would encourage surface bases and orbital refineries- as the drills+ convertor+ extra power would severly cut into payload fraction.

Of course, without fuel hoses, surface refineries are a bit clunky and rely too much on the kraken bait that is the claw.

Before 1.0, I used SSTOs to haul fuel up to orbit, and could even send fuel to moho, keeping everything fully reusable/recoverable. Moho's payload fraction wasn't great, but that was solved by using a tug to supply the first 1,200 m/s or so needed for the moho transfer (the tug would then retroburn and aerobrake back to LKO).

It got tedious after a while.

I still have SSTOs of similar capabilities... shipping fuel around still gets tedious...

I may send a fuel depot and lander... but then I don't want to use the lander much, because then I have to send more fuel to the depot...

Now I'm playing pretty much as before, but I've added ISRU fuel tankers for refueling the orbital fuel depots.

I don't bother with the tedium of going to minmus, fueling up there, waiting for minmus to be in the right position, then burn and drop down to kerbin for oberth before doing the IP burn.

I just release payloads full from the SSTO, dock a LV-N tug to it, and send it on its way.

ISRU means no refueling missions(launched from kerbin) to my orbital fuel depots - so my large missions where I put a lot of hardware down become self sustaining, and I can explore the whole body.

Less appealing for me than I thought it would be, to be honest. I really want to like it, but there are a few things that just spoil it for me:

1. You could always have a detachable probe, that isn't really seperate... With ISRU, you'll land, and can launch in a polar orbit to pick it up (and you can plan for a polar insertion for the same dV as a non-polar one.

Still, it would be nice to get partial scans from non-polar orbits

2. Borderline.... well, depends... In my case, I need over a Munth to bring less than an orange tank to my Mun fuel depot (until I docked a pod to it and stuck an engineer on it for ~10x more fuel output).

Something on Duna, that just needs to make enough fuel before the next launch window... no problem at all.

I run multiple missions at the same time, so it doesn't bother me so much

3. Agreed, but with the ISRU being so light, it favors a lander with all the mining equipment, so I set down at new locations each time -although I often try to stay in the same area when a high concentration is idendified

4. I haven't had any heat problems in 1.02. It was useless in 1.0

5. How is this different from point 2, which I interpret as basically its slow unless you have a good engineer?

6. All that seems fine to me... limited locations due to solar -> Eeloo and the outer planets seem like more of a challenge

7. Well, yea, building a single big rocket will be simpler than setting up an ISRU operation, and then using that to supply multiple missions. I don't see the problem

[Whovian]

I think what really makes me not want to try out ISRU is just how unwieldy the parts are. The refinery is half the size of an orange tank and the drills are ridiculously huge, which means my lander must be equally unwieldy/huge or be built in some awkward manner. Radial parts and smaller drills would have been welcome. Engineering challenge? I suppose, but I'd rather just not bother and instead spend that time figuring out how to make my nukes able to burn longer.

It should be noted that I'm quite happy with the ISRU API so far, though.

I'll have to agree. Though it might still be useful for mun-hopping science grinding.

I believe it certainly has. It opens up avenues to stock players that they didn't have before' date=' and it helps makes it more appropriate to design smaller and more efficiently when it comes to career and even science mode. And all the while it gives more purpose to some of the different things you can do in-game. Base building, sattelites, and rovers all become more useful with ISRU in stock.

However, I still long for the day when this evil tome that shall not be spoken of is made into either a mod or into the stock game by some dumb stroke of dumb luck on the 30th of February.

[url']http://i.imgur.com/08hdJyj.png

I would adore this kind of ISRU system.

Is that you, GregoriousT?

[Two]

I just made the grand tour Mun, Minimus, Ike, Duna (then Ike again for refuel) and back to Kerbin. This was possibly only because my rather small craft with only 3200 dV had an ISRU. Now the good thing about the ISRU is that it actually makes such things possible, the bad thing is that you could basically just remove fuel usage from all engines, because that is about the same effect.

Now the only challenge left is Eve.

[Gerandar]

if you think the ISRU is 100% needed to go interplanetary in 1.0 you probably are not that good at this game >.> seriously even a grand tour is doable without an ISRU.