Pilots: uses for them past early career?

[passinglurker]

The elephant in the room: Pilots aren't really important to real life space flight. They have been steadily replaced by automated systems (where they were even required at all), especially in non-NASA programs.

I think I like the OP's suggestion best so far, make pilots required to control things remotely. Though I guess with no lightspeed lag we could just park a pilot at KSC or in LKO and run everything from there.

This is essentially why I'm advocating throwing realism out the window for crew skills because realism in this case is very bring and favors robotic exploration. We've already had to induce several artificial reasons to go manned especially with scientists. Basically for everyone who says pilot efficiency doesn't make sense very little in this game makes as much sense as you are holding pilots to.

The way of thinking is pilots in some way influence flight parts be it thrust, isp, lift, drag, crash tolerance, heat tolerance etc. Scientists in turn influence science parts yielding more from experiments and perhaps should be expanded to boost antenna range when implemented. Finally engineers govern the utility parts fixing wheels repacking chutes (hard in real life so imagine doing it in microgravity or in a space suit) and boosting resource processing yields from isru and perhaps should be expanded to solar, alternator, and fuel cell yields as well to give them more to do early game. So see once you stop asking "how" (or accept that the answer is "it's a game") this all falls into an orderly pattern that makes intuitive sense.

[Red Iron Crown]

I was (and continue to be) very strongly against the kerbal in the seat affecting part stats. It breaks my suspension of disbelief too much, and goes against the game's ideal of "Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should." Plus there is an educational aspect of the game that is broken a bit by violating physics in this way. I'd rather see pilots go obsolete as they do now than have them affect part stats.

[monstah]

Pilot skill could affect PID tuning for SAS?

We all know it's crappy sometimes, and there are some methods for figuring out the best parameters based on mass, inertia moment, etc., and also methods for continually improving you parameters as the system handles better/worse. Pilot level could be the meta-parameter that directs how well the parameters converge.

Or, alternatively, level zero pilots have P controllers, level one have PD, level two have PID, three onwards feature algorithms for improving the parameters.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, it seems to me, based on its behaviour, that the SAS controller runs on pitch+yaw+roll instead of quaternions. RT2's computer does quats, and rotations are WAY smoother as a result (although it's been some months since I've used that mod, and my memory could be playing tricks).

That paradigm switch could also happen based on pilot level.

[Wjolcz]

Give the pilots the ability to check CoM, CoT and CoL during the flight. It would help to balance the plane when fuel is being used up.

It's kind of what they do IRL, right?

[pandaman]

Give the pilots the ability to check CoM, CoT and CoL during the flight. It would help to balance the plane when fuel is being used up.

It's kind of what they do IRL, right?

Nice. Makes some sense.

[Superfluous J]

(I need to add this so the forum knows I'm not just spamming a pic)

[regex]

http://pulpaudio.com/ksp/classgraph.jpg

And if you don't use ISRU all Kerbals are useless after a point, and Engineers never.

Too bad there isn't a way to deal away with professions and experience entirely.

[Pthigrivi]

Give the pilots the ability to check CoM, CoT and CoL during the flight. It would help to balance the plane when fuel is being used up.

It's kind of what they do IRL, right?

I like this, but you could even make this an Engineer perk to make them more useful early. Giving them some fuel-balancer capabilities as a compliment might be nice as well.

For pilots I could see some very basic skills like hold velocity, angle to horizon, hold x,y, and or z, but thats it. I think auto-landing and auto-maneuvering really removes the player from the experience. What I would most like to see are some of the information functions from Mech Jeb given to pilots, like projected trajectory and landing site factoring drag and aerocapture predictions. This would be hugely valuable information and wouldn't remove players from the roll of flying.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Wjolcz]

For pilots I could see some very basic skills like hold velocity, angle to horizon, hold x,y, and or z, but thats it. I think auto-landing and auto-maneuvering really removes the player from the experience. What I would most like to see are some of the information functions from Mech Jeb given to pilots, like projected trajectory and landing site factoring drag and aerocapture predictions. This would be hugely valuable information and wouldn't remove players from the roll of flying.

Oh, yeah. That too. Forgot to mention it.

[Pthigrivi]

So I managed to dig this up from ages ago:

"

Cross-Training: Really I think this comes down to being able to drive a kerbal's development as a user, deciding which kerbals take on which roles, and deciding which swath of skills each kerbal will need. The problem with this is how do people feel encouraged to specialize and mount multi-kerbal missions rather than just training up a super-jeb to run all their missions with?

My preferred solution is to give each kerbal a simple Elder Scrolls style skill tree. Each new recruit starts as a blank slate Cadet with no skills. Perhaps Jeb, Bill and Bob could arrive with one free level in their respective fields. After that, new exploration will reward kerbals with Experience Badges, 3 of which will earn one level-up. The trick is that though you can level up in any one field, each skill levels linearly, so gaining access to higher level skills will encourage a large degree of specialization.

Cadet (LVL0)

/ | \

Pilot I

- SAS

Pilot II

- Prograde, Antigrade

- Normal, Antinormal,

- Radial in, Radial out

Pilot III

- Toward Target, Away from Target

- Toward Maneuver, Away from Maneuver

Pilot IV

- Hold on Horizon

- Maintain Velocity

- Predicted flight path and landing site factoring drag

Pilot V

- Hold Position X, Y, and Z

- Aero-capture prediction

- Advanced Flight Data (COM, COL, Drag visible in flight)

Or:

Engineer I

- Repack chutes

Engineer II

- Repair Wheels, Legs, Solar Panels

- Pump resources around vessel

Engineer III

- Repair damaged or overheated engines

- Remaining Delta-V visible

- Split/equalize fuel flow

Engineer IV

- Place Struts and Fuel lines in flight

- Maintain COM via fuel redistribution

- Operate Drilling Rig (after ISRU)

Engineer V

- Place/Remove small Panels, Sensors, small

Engines, RCS etc (KAS)

Or:

Scientist I

- Collect Surface Sample

Scientist II

- Transmission Value +10%

- EVA Report +10%

- Sensors glow blue when near uncollected science

Scientist III

- Operate Science Lab

- Process data to 50% of total recovered value

- Take Core Sample from ground-scatter

Scientist IV

- "Collect Data" button gathers all available science from sensors without EVA

- Load samples into Materials Bay from Science Lab (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/110734-More-Compelling-Experiments)

- Process data to 75% of total recovered value

Scientist V

- Place sensor for impact experiment

- Perform resource richness test on surface samples for ISRU

- Can Process data to 100% of total recovered value

This way there's a strong incentive to get higher in a tree so you have the capability to drill for resources or do cooler science experiments, but you have the ability to give say, a level 5 scientist at least the ability to control SAS or do basic engineering tasks.

Gaining Experience: I like generally that experience is increased by exploration, but at the moment the system feels very opaque. In my view, making things simple and visually clear in-flight would be a huge help because you could see at a glance what you had and what you are going for. I imagine rewards being distributed this way, with badges being rewarded for the first time a kerbal completes each one of these tasks. Once 3 new badges have been earned, a kerbal may level-up in-flight without having to return to Kerbin. This is pretty critical for sending Kerbals on Jool 5 missions without feeling like you have to experience grind before leaving.

Liftoff! - 1 Badge

Landed on Kerbin - 1 Badge

Escape the Atmosphere - 1 Badge

Kerbin Orbit - 1 Badge

Munar Orbit - 1 Badge

Landed on the Mun - 2 Badges

Minmus Orbit - 1 Badge

Landed on Minmus - 1 Badge

(If a Kerbal has done all of the above, they would have earned 3 levels. I think this seems fair.)

Kerbol Orbit - 1 Badge

Visit an Asteroid - 1 Badge

Claw an Asteroid - 1 Badge

Duna Orbit - 1 Badge

Landed on Duna - 2 Badges

Landed on Ike - 1 Badges

(Having completed everything in Kerbin SOI and Landing on Duna will earn 4 Levels, but not 5.)

Dres Orbit - 1 Badge

Landed on Dres - 2 Badges

Moho Orbit - 2 Badges

Landed on Moho - 1 Badge

Eve Orbit - 1 Badge

Landed on Eve - 4 Badges

Landed on Gilly - 1 Badge

Jool Orbit - 2 Badges

Laythe Orbit - 1 Badge

Landed on Laythe - 2 Badges

Vall Orbit - 1 Badge

Landed on Vall - 1 Badge

Tylo Orbit - 1 Badge

Landed on Tylo - 3 Badges

Landed on Pol - 1 Badge

Landed on Bop - 1 Badge

(A Kerbal who's completed a Jool-5 will have earned 5 levels. Given how hard this is I think this is also still fair.)

Eeloo Orbit - 2 Badges

Landed on Eeloo - 2 Badges

This is set up to make getting a Kerbal to level 5 in all 3 disciplines technically possible, but one would need to visit every planet and moon in the game and claw an asteroid to get there. To my thinking if you've done this, you're a boss and have well earned a maxed kerbal. The other nice thing about the badges is they could be a nice and clear kind of experience record of where that kerbal has been and what he/she has accomplished.

"

So basically a scroll-over of a kerbal in flight will show how many badges they have (out of 3) or if a level up has been earned, and, for instance "Pilot I [upgrade], Scientist III [upgrade], Engineer 0 [upgrade]". At the Astronaut complex each kerbal would have a profile with a list of all earned badges so you could see where they've been and could plan on where to send them to earn new badges.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[monstah]

I'm in for trajectory predictions! Tho I still think a better SAS is in order, too.

[Snark]

The elephant in the room: Pilots aren't really important to real life space flight. They have been steadily replaced by automated systems (where they were even required at all), especially in non-NASA programs.

Well, there's that, though I have no problem with KSP deliberately being dumber than real-life automation in order to give the player something to do. That's why I don't use MechJeb-- the things it automates are precisely the aspects of the game that I like to do.

There's also the fact that the real pilot here is the player, so there's only so much you can do in game terms with a "pilot" character that isn't jarring.

I think I like the OP's suggestion best so far, make pilots required to control things remotely. Though I guess with no lightspeed lag we could just park a pilot at KSC or in LKO and run everything from there.

Well, it's still a win. I gather that the plan for remote-control is that you need to have LOS (directly or via relays) back to either Kerbin itself, or to a ship with remote-control capability that includes crew.

Keeping a communication chain all the way back to Kerbin is doable (and can be fun!), but takes some doing-- not just making sure that enough satellites are placed, but also the really long-range antennas are going to be heavy, bulky, and power-hungry. So if you want to send a mission to drop a bunch of uncrewed probes on Duna (or wherever), and be able to control them, then you have a choice: either have the expense and effort of maintaining a communicaiton network back to Kerbin, or just have a crewed ship in Duna orbit that can control the probes.

So if you make it that only a pilot can do that, then that gives a benefit right there. It's not a showstopper (just as not having a scientist on a science-gathering mission isn't a showstopper), but it provides an alternate choice.

[mattinoz]

Investigating the construction of the flight computer on the Apollo ship, apparently most of the launch itself was simply done using timers. There was no calculation done to go 'I am at this height and at this speed and the fuel is gone so I will Stage', all of the stages were pre calculated on the ground that stage 1 would last this amount of time and so therefore after 4 and a half minutes perform action A, after 5 minutes perform action B and so forth.

If any deviation from the preprogrammed sequence of events was needed then a human being had to regain control of the craft and do things by hand.

Maybe this could be the way the pilots are still useful when we have cores controlling the craft, The Cores have to be programmed on the ground for a precise sequence of events?

Maybe the RCS could be only controlled by pilots until you have the most advanced core?

Yes to me this is the sort of things that make the difference.

The game play would be better if the system targets why probe vs pilot are different.

Pilots are flexible and reactive to the situation.

Probes are planned and precise but have limited input to what situation they are in till they get very advanced.

So not allowing RCS translation controls to be used on probes till the most advanced units is one way to go.

I'd also suggest play it up further and give us tools for automating flights and timings then restrict probes to be only controllable by those tools.

[Snark]

In order for a ship to be controllable, it should have a functional control part. A pod with no pilot in it isn't functional. It's how the game works right now. We need one more check: if there's a part marked as 'habitable', don't consider control parts marked as 'automated' functional. It's simple.

I'd argue that it's not simple at all-- find me anything else in KSP right now where "having X somewhere on your ship means that Y won't work." Parts do what they do, and the interdependence of parts is minimal.

If such a feature were added, I for one really don't look forward to the endless stream of "why can't I control my ship?!" messages posted in Gameplay Questions and Tutorials. It also seems arbitrary and nonsensical-- I have an automated ship, and then docking a little crew cabin to it suddenly renders it unable to function? It's completely unintuitive and makes no sense. If it can control the ship, having a few pounds of meat present or not shouldn't stop it from working.

But it isn't THAT arbitrary - human passengers require human pilots, it's sort of understandable.

Except that human passengers really don't require human pilots, not in any technical sense. It's not as if an airplane's autopilot suddenly goes kaput the moment a person enters the plane. The only reason why human passengers "require" human pilots has nothing to do with the functioning of the vehicle-- it's about risk management and psychology, the desire for an extra level of safety.

And if there's one thing that KSP is absolutely not about, it's safety.

Regarding Isp changes and stuff. As people already mentioned, it's a big no-no since that ....storm when Squad was going to actually implement something like it. The main argument was 'it's magic; the next step would be kerbal witches piloting interplanetary brooms'.

Actually, the main argument was that huge numbers of KSP players hated the idea. Why they hated it (whether "it's magic!" or any other reason) is irrelevant-- all that matters is that lots of people (myself strongly included) really don't like the idea. I doubt that's changed.

[passinglurker]

Building like abilities for kernels would be interesting it would open an alternate process path where you focus on your crews in order to delay the expensive upgrade of certain facilities. Pilots get maneuver nodes at lvl 1 right after they prove themselves with a blind orbit around kerbin, then patched conics at lvl 2 after they complete a blind flight to the moon... yes yes I believe this works well with the progression as it presently stands though we can do away with the flag ceremonys. I do think dv read outs and pre tier2 r&d fuel pumping should be the pilots domain because unlike engineers even under this system they still ultimately go obsolete.

Speaking of engies... Having an engineer on the flight would allow you to set and use action groups with abort at lvl 1 the rest of the named ones at lvl 2 and the numbered ones at lvl 3. And maybe even slightly raise the mass, volume, and part count limits for flights they launch on.

Scientists get the least from this system basically just pre tier 2 surface samples maybe early eva...

[Snark]

Building like abilities for kernels would be interesting it would open an alternate process path where you focus on your crews in order to delay the expensive upgrade of certain facilities. Pilots get maneuver nodes at lvl 1 right after they prove themselves with a blind orbit around kerbin, then patched conics at lvl 2 after they complete a blind flight to the moon... yes yes I believe this works well with the progression as it presently stands though we can do away with the flag ceremonys.

Now that's an idea I like-- "I can either spend time grinding contracts to get cash to upgrade a building, or I can spend time sending my kerbal to lots of places to get experience to enable similar."

Yes, great idea! Gives good reasons for all the professions, and is also all about giving more choice to the player.

[passinglurker]

Since the change is relatively small and slides into the existing balance it might be possible to test it's viability with a mod which if successful could attract the devs attention.

[mattinoz]

Now that's an idea I like-- "I can either spend time grinding contracts to get cash to upgrade a building, or I can spend time sending my kerbal to lots of places to get experience to enable similar."

Yes, great idea! Gives good reasons for all the professions, and is also all about giving more choice to the player.

Also means you have an in game reason to keep Kerbals alive.

Could be expanded to make the base more lively.

Probe skill and active probe numbers could be tied to having trained pilots assigned to the tracking station.

Skilled kerbal assigned to the training centre could mean new hires start say 2 levels less than the trainer.

(Yes all probably just wishful thinking that Kerbals might one day matter, after all they don't even get a mention in the Wiki)

[passinglurker]

Also means you have an in game reason to keep Kerbals alive.

Could be expanded to make the base more lively.

Probe skill and active probe numbers could be tied to having trained pilots assigned to the tracking station.

Skilled kerbal assigned to the training centre could mean new hires start say 2 levels less than the trainer.

(Yes all probably just wishful thinking that Kerbals might one day matter, after all they don't even get a mention in the Wiki)

I Probably would not support tieing pilot skill to probe skill with this plan. Since it has the opportunity to offer CHOICE that means one who doesn't like kerbal skills and believes in remote exploration can opt to upgrade their facilities and render most of the kerbals obsolete

[Snark]

One of the things that I like about the idea of "high-level kerbals can perform building-like functions" (e.g. high-level pilot can see patched conics before the tracking station upgrade) is that it helps "smooth out the bumps."

Right now in KSP, upgrading buildings are a big stair-step function: it's an all or nothing thing, and it's hugely expensive to upgrade them. It means doing a long, slow grind to save cash to get the upgrade. I have nothing about long, slow grinds, but I like there to be incremental progress.

For example, you could consider climbing the tech tree to be a grind... but at least it's a bit at a time. Gather a bit of science, unlock a node. As much as people may complain about the science grind, imagine how much less fun it would be if you had to do "gather 1000 science points and then it unlocks ten nodes at once." Much more fun to feel incremental progress towards a goal.

The problem with building upgrades is that they're hugely expensive-- and they pretty much have to be, since there are only two upgrades to each one. It means there's no gradual satisfaction, no partial rewards at all until you've socked away enough cash for the upgrade.

Letting high-level kerbals get a sneak peek at the "good stuff" helps to smooth that out, I think-- you get the abilities (so you have some benefit pre-upgrade), but in limited fashion (so there's still a good reason to want the upgrade).

[monstah]

I think a pilot is a "Flight Specialist". KSC has its flight operators on wire, but the pilot feels the ship.

To me that means better ship handling, I guess. I like the idea of trajectory prediction, but that's something I guess flight control would have no problem doing by wire. Instead, I propose this idea, which SQUAD may already be cooking themselves: since they're doing RT-lite, pilots would be needed to do anything flight control would do, when outside range. Obviously, this doesn't apply in the current version, but creating maneuver nodes, for example, and then trajectory prediction, if that's a thing too.

[passinglurker]

I hope by high level you mean lvl 2 it's hard for the average user to go much further than munar orbit to earn levels without those patched conics

[fairytalefox]

I'd argue that it's not simple at all-- find me anything else in KSP right now where "having X somewhere on your ship means that Y won't work." Parts do what they do, and the interdependence of parts is minimal.

Man, think one more time. Fuel. Electricity. They aren't here, something around there stops working. It's, like, the core-est of all the core mechanics.

If such a feature were added, I for one really don't look forward to the endless stream of "why can't I control my ship?!" messages posted in Gameplay Questions and Tutorials. It also seems arbitrary and nonsensical-- I have an automated ship, and then docking a little crew cabin to it suddenly renders it unable to function?

Sorry? If you dock a ship with a little crew cabin to something, it means the ship has a pilot. Thus, if both ships were controllable before docking, they're still controllable after docking. Unless you've managed to remove the pilot after docking... which is technically possible but seems completely random, overcomplicated and unneeded.

So no endless streams of tears for ya. A few drops, maybe.

It's completely unintuitive and makes no sense. If it can control the ship, having a few pounds of meat present or not shouldn't stop it from working.

Except that human passengers really don't require human pilots, not in any technical sense. It's not as if an airplane's autopilot suddenly goes kaput the moment a person enters the plane. The only reason why human passengers "require" human pilots has nothing to do with the functioning of the vehicle-- it's about risk management and psychology, the desire for an extra level of safety.

Like I said, it's not completely counter-intuitive. One body in the trunk, other body in the driver's seat. For me, it makes some (although... yes, not too much) sense. And not very Kerbal. It's a weak point of the plan.

Actually, the main argument was that huge numbers of KSP players hated the idea. Why they hated it (whether "it's magic!" or any other reason) is irrelevant-- all that matters is that lots of people (myself strongly included) really don't like the idea. I doubt that's changed.

Yes, it was my point. Thank you for making it clear. I've mentioned magic just for reference.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the things that I like about the idea of "high-level kerbals can perform building-like functions" (e.g. high-level pilot can see patched conics before the tracking station upgrade) is that it helps "smooth out the bumps."

Hmmm. Patched conics is my first or second upgrade. I get top-level pilots, let me think... never?

I mean, I've got the idea, it's not necessarily fruitless, but not in it's current form. Atmospheric predictions, maybe? It's what that 'Trajectories' mod does. I doubt, though - putting mods based on heavy calculations into the stock game isn't very SQUAD'ish.

[passinglurker]

Hmmm. Patched conics is my first or second upgrade. I get top-level pilots, let me think... never?

I mean, I've got the idea, it's not necessarily fruitless, but not in it's current form. Atmospheric predictions, maybe? It's what that 'Trajectories' mod does. I doubt, though - putting mods based on heavy calculations into the stock game isn't very SQUAD'ish.

Like I said it has to be lvl2 tops to get patched conics with orbit of the mun being the furthest you can expect a player to go without them(or maybe swap the levels for nodes and conics? can they even be separated from each other?). really what this idea needs now is actual testing to work out the kinks in balance with practical experience. After lvl2 something like a dv readout or pre-tier2 fuel pumping to maintain balance in flight would work to fill the pilot skill tree out.

[cantab]

The original idea seems pretty sound. I would expect currently that if your ship has no pilots in command modules and a probe core, and the electricity runs out, then you lose SAS. Extending the same behaviour when radio contact is lost would be logical.