Behaviour of overheated Parts upon re-entry

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Hello everyone.

Just a thought here:

During the re-entry-process, unprotected Parts will catch a tremendous amount of heat and explode.

How about instead of deleting the part after the explosion they would still be there but loosing all their linkages to other parts?

This would make re-entries a little bit more dramatic when you see all the rubble that originally was your craft drift away from you and eventually really burn up again some time later (or maybe not and let them hit the ground or disappear when they get out of range?).

Cheers

Edited October 9, 2015 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Pthigrivi]

I like this. It be great to watch de-orbited space stations break up and disintegrate.

[MKI]

I think thats a cool idea. Idk how stress intensive it would be on the system, or how things would re-act with stuff more or less bouncing around on your craft.

Maybe for certain items they should just pop off, other things that are more core to the ship should just stay exploding, cuse I can see a senario where a nose cone normally explodes, but instead of exploding it pops off and just kind of sits there still doing its job ya know?

[Rath]

Would be nice. How bout a shader for overheating parts that is red-hot but fades down to black. (Make this like bullet holes in FPS and it won't be processing intensive.

[FishInferno]

I like this, but I think the parts should still explode. Maybe after they get to a certain temp, the break off, and when they get to an even higher temp they explode?

[KrazyKrl]

I like this, but I think the parts should still explode. Maybe after they get to a certain temp, the break off, and when they get to an even higher temp they explode?

Well, since the thermal system tracks both skin & core temps of all parts now...

• Skin temp over max temp: Part connections to all parts fail, and part becomes no longer attached.
  
• Core temp over max temp: part explodes.

This may be a decent thing for the Unity 5 update also. (Updated physics.) You can simulate the aero for the disconnected parts via "primitives" (this part is a cylinder, cone, sphere, etc.); and since they are disconnected, you should be able to run less intensive stuff like collision detection at fewer ticks/precision.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I really like the ideas

[Alshain]

My only concern with this is having your cockpit destroyed when it impacts a detached thermometer. If the parts are deleted it doesn't mean an automatic end to your mission.

[nothingSpecial]

They also can turn black as they burn up in the atmosphere, that should look impressive even with simplicity/

[Pthigrivi]

My only concern with this is having your cockpit destroyed when it impacts a detached thermometer. If the parts are deleted it doesn't mean an automatic end to your mission.

Solid point. I don't know if this is a programming nightmare but perhaps detached parts could become non-permanent debris like jettisoned fairings?

[Alshain]

Solid point. I don't know if this is a programming nightmare but perhaps detached parts could become non-permanent debris like jettisoned fairings?

But that is almost as bad in the other direction. If I jettison a stage and it comes back and hits me, it should do damage. The problem is that a thermometer traveling and almost the same speed as your command pod could destroy it. Impact damage simulation in the game is horrendous. Until they fix that, this idea is a pipe dream. It's something I'd love to see but not in the game as it is right now.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeaaahhh... Maybe you're right. It could also be that because everything is moving roughly the same speed there wouldn't be large collision forces. Maybe I should try decoupling things on re-entry and see what happens haha.

[Rath]

It would probably be easier on the system, because explosions aren't nice to it.

[jwbrase]

I'd actually have 3 critical temperatures for a part:

1) Functional failure: If the part does anything special, that function stops working permanently (command modules stop providing control, kerbals in command modules or other crewed components die, engines will no longer produce thrust, decouplers won't fire if this temperature is lower than the other two temperatures, propellant tanks start to overpressure and begin venting propellant through relief valves, etc).

2) Structural failure: The part detaches from all attached parts.

3) Disintegration: The part explodes.

For light components that might do too much damage breaking fre, like thermometers, the disintegration temperature could be made lower than the structural failure temperature.

[Snark]

I'd actually have 3 critical temperatures for a part:

1) Functional failure: If the part does anything special, that function stops working permanently (command modules stop providing control, kerbals in command modules or other crewed components die, engines will no longer produce thrust, decouplers won't fire if this temperature is lower than the other two temperatures, propellant tanks start to overpressure and begin venting propellant through relief valves, etc.

I really like that idea. It opens up some more gameplay options ("Oh no, Jeb is stranded with a burned-out engine! "), it lets heat damage be less of an all-or-nothing affair. You could also make it proportional, I.e. different levels of damage, as in "this engine is 30% damaged". It would also give engineers something to do: they could repair the damaged parts. Perhaps not all the way, limited by engineer skill: a Level 5 engineer might be able to fully repair, whereas a Level 0 might only be able to fix 10% of the damage.

Partial damage would affect different types of components in different ways. For example, engines would have their ISP reduced, so a 50% damaged engine would get half the thrust while still using the same amount of fuel.

I don't really like the idea of detaching, it just doesn't speak to me. I'd prefer the damage, followed by disintegration.

One thing to I would really like to see: when a part disintegrates, make the violence of the explosion reasonably proportional to the size and nature of the part. I find it really jarring and immersion-breaking during reentry when my ship is engulfed by a massive camera-shaking fireball, spiking my adrenaline, and then the smoke clears and I discover that what blew up was ... an OX-STAT solar panel. Really? I love that the game is immersive enough to get my blood pumping like that, but when it does so over a little solar panel, I feel cheated and pretty quickly the thrill of a good explosion wears off. A frying OX-STAT should be a little puff of smoke at most, accompanied by a brief sizzle. The screen-shaking fireballs should be reserved for something that's actually large and/or filled with explosive material.

[mattinoz]

I'd actually have 3 critical temperatures for a part:

1) Functional failure: If the part does anything special, that function stops working permanently (command modules stop providing control, kerbals in command modules or other crewed components die, engines will no longer produce thrust, decouplers won't fire if this temperature is lower than the other two temperatures, propellant tanks start to overpressure and begin venting propellant through relief valves, etc).

2) Structural failure: The part detaches from all attached parts.

3) Disintegration: The part explodes.

For light components that might do too much damage breaking fre, like thermometers, the disintegration temperature could be made lower than the structural failure temperature.

I'd like to see 1.5) Integrity Failure - Part still attached but skin is broken and drag increases and lift decreases.

So more aggressive than function failure and is going to make flying (and failing with style) harder but still not craft destroying like 2 & 3 would be.

[Snark]

I'd like to see 1.5) Integrity Failure - Part still attached but skin is broken and drag increases and lift decreases. So more aggressive than function failure and is going to make flying (and failing with style) harder but still not craft destroying like 2 & 3 would be.

"Lift"? What is this "lift" you speak of? ...Ohhh, you must be one of those spaceplane people.

Joking aside, that's actually a great idea, but I think it dovetails nicely into "functional failure"-- I don't think you need a 1.5. Different parts have different kinds of functional failures, and what you just described is functional failure for a wing (or other lift-generating surface).

Example ideas for how different categories of parts would fail functionally:

- Engines: Isp reduced (with corresponding lowering of max thrust), gimbal range reduced

- Wings: Lift reduced, drag increased. (Actually, drag would be increased for pretty much everything, I suppose, but it would be especially pronounced for wings.)

- Control surfaces: Lift reduced, drag increased, range of motion decreased

- Reaction wheels: torque reduced, electricity consumption increased, generate heat when used

- Solar panels: generated power reduced, solar tracking speed slowed down (by more than the damage %, so a heavily-damaged solar panel gets locked in place and doesn't sun-track)

- Science instruments: science points reduced

- Parachutes: drag reduced

- Batteries: efficiency reduced (i.e. a piece of equipment that draws 1 EC of charge actually sucks 2 EC from the battery), generate heat when used

- Fuel tanks: N% of fuel vented

- Command pods: percentage of stored science reduced, plus affected as per reaction wheels and fuel tanks

- Probe cores: electricity consumption goes up; progressive loss of SAS features (gets "dumber" with increasing damage); torque reduced

- Antennas: data efficiency reduced (takes longer to transmit, more electricity per unit of data)

- Struts: strength reduced

Some parts have an all-or-nothing action, and there's not really a "50% damage" scenario for them, so they simply fail all at once:

- Extensible ladders won't extend

- Decouplers go ahead and fire (or perhaps get welded shut and become un-fireable)

- Fuel ducts fail all at once

[KrazyKrl]

"Lift"? What is this "lift" you speak of? ...Ohhh, you must be one of those spaceplane people.

Joking aside, that's actually a great idea, but I think it dovetails nicely into "functional failure"-- I don't think you need a 1.5. Different parts have different kinds of functional failures, and what you just described is functional failure for a wing (or other lift-generating surface).

Example ideas for how different categories of parts would fail functionally:

...

I'd replace a few of the suggested items with these:

Structural Components (Including all other parts): Reduced temperature tolerance and reduced impact threshold. Leads to exponentially quicker destruction as the severity of the damage increases.

Science Experiments: Unable to be collected via a scientist, or reset. Can still be activated. Any data read is saved until repaired by an engineer.

Parachutes: Max drag until failure gets reduced until the icon turns red for complete failure.

Fuel Tanks: Massively reduced fuel flow. Fuel tanks already have a flow restriction feature like this, when you use the transfer fuel feature.

Command Pods: IVA gauges graphically wander. EVA navball visibly wanders, but does not affect flight directly; including utterly wrong navball orentation (things like prograde and radial are unchanged). Staging ceases to work after critical damage. Pilot/Engineer on board affects severity of command pod errors, dependent on level.

Probe Cores: Navball wanders, loss of SAS, flight name slowly gets truncated; dependent on damage.

Scanners: Only can return a reading up to their health. (100% health = no loss. 50% health = 50% max deposit detection. 10% health = Deposits are only 10% or lower regardless of higher quality.)

As for the binary fails:

Anything that opens/closes or extends/retracts will cease to function, but will still be repairable.

Fuel crossfeed parts will cease to crossfeed. (This will probably get VERY absurd, due to fuel flow logic.)

Docking ports will not dock/undock. Docking ports (when undocked) will randomly disable docking magnets when attempting to dock to another docking port. The claw will become possessed, and will randomly activate.

Quite a few would be pretty hilarious to see. Like the random docking magnets, the possessed claw, a probe slowly forgetting its own name, or your navball wandering around.

[jwbrase]

I'd have a fair number more binary fails than either Snark or KrazyKrl mentioned: For example: as I understand it, real world engines with moving parts (jet turbines, rocket turbopumps, reciprocating pistons, etc) tend to fail when overheated in a fairly binary fashion: the engine works for a while at fairly nearly full performance, then some component suddenly catches fire (necessitating shutdown) or seizes (or even explodes). I'd tend to have control surfaces and reaction wheels jam completely as well. I'd probably do the same for solar panel rotation, though I'm not sure that solar panels wouldn't tend to fail aerodynamically before they failed thermally.

For parachutes I'd have max drag until the part reaches its disintegration temperature, but I'd have the "risky" and "safe" parameters for chute deployment become more restrictive as the chute takes more thermal damage. For fuel tanks, it might be fun to have the game actually model the vapor pressure of the fuel and have tank failures be pressure driven: for slow heating, safety valves vent pressure, allowing the tank to cool evaporatively and causing fuel levels to decrease. For rapid heating, pressure builds faster than the safety valves can release it, and the tank fails explosively.

[MAFman]

I would like to see burned-up parts darken, char, and shrivel like they do IRL. Metal would vaporize under that kind of heat - like it totally doesn't ingame. Fuel tanks should still explode though; you ARE still heating a combustible mixture far above its flash point.

[Zombie_Striker]

Maybe instead of creating extra ship (debris), larger parts such as orange tanks explode while smaller parts such as thermometer turn into particles (such as re-entre effects). If smaller parts turn into particles, there is no extra ship created and the main ship won't blow up if I use part-clipping.