[Possible WIP, Need Opinions] True Science

[G'th]

Lately, I've been thinking about doing a mod for KSP. I've done moderately successful mods for Skyrim and Morrowind before, so I have the general know how to get a project started and to see it through to the end. However, I've always been troubled by what exactly TO mod for KSP. While I could do a parts mod, I found during my stints with those other games that the modeling process took up a disproportionate amount of my free time (and their communities were not the greatest, as I had great trouble with the conversion process and most would not actually help me and instead would just blindly refer me to tutorials I had already read) so I've been hesitant to do that.

So I decided to start thinking about what else I could do. And thats when it came to me that I could do something that I have, honestly been wishing someone would do for a while now. As I've been playing KSP more and more and my missions and spacecraft become more sophisticated, the more I'm beginning to run into that wall where you go somewhere, and you just have nothing to do other than to pretend you're doing something.

In my time playing this game, I have seen several people start up projects that seemed promising for providing that essential "Stuff to Do!" that stock KSP lacks, but never get off the ground or go somewhere and then end up in the "What could have been" pile. The Geology mod was a notable example. At the same time, there are a couple of mods, Interstellar being the biggest example, that provide some awesome experiments that you can do but require either utilizing the entire mod or stripping the mod to just get the science parts, which can be a bit of a hassle.

So, the mod I propose to do is essentially a complete overhaul of the Science system, bringing all of these great ideas that have cropped up over the years under one roof along with several of my own to create a the quintessential science mod. But whats included in that?

The first thing to do, and one that I think will be the first goal just to get my feet wet, will be to introduce a TON (in the order of hundreds) of experiments. Naturally, introducing such a large amount of experiments might require a lot of parts, and potentially a lot of bloat. So my idea is to condense it by making so that the actual science parts that end up being included are more general parts that can perform a wide variety of experiments. The same thermometer part might be able to perform 3 or 4 different experiments. The same Gravioli experiment could do up to 10 different experiments, and so on and so forth. If possible, what experiments the parts can perform will be locked to the tech tree, so that as you progress you'll unlock different experiment parts and new experiments for the ones you already have. Something I want to look into is experiments that take time to complete, possibly based off of the Research option for the science lab.

The point of this is to support a wider variety of mission types to a much larger variety of areas and situations, and more importantly, provide a reason to revisit areas even with the same experiment parts.

What will come along with this (and more than likely afterwords) will be a re-balance of the tech tree, because obviously that will have to be done to support the quantity of experiments being introduced.

Next, is an overhaul of how the Report experiment works for both IVA and EVA, as well as for Probes. I want to introduce a wider variety of situations for these reports to be taken in. Hitting Mach 1 for the first time. Flying an open spacecraft on an airless world. Airbraking in a gas giant versus a gentle dip into the atmosphere. Being at the rim of a crater versus the epicenter. And so on. Realizing this part will likely require coding, which is something I'll have to learn.

After that comes the part that I know will require extensive coding, and that is the overhaul for Surface sampling (which in turn will likely also be an overhaul of how biomes work). My idea for this has been that:

1. Surface samples should have weight.

2. Their values should randomized, and even more preferably determined by a much more in-depth "biome map" for samples. Essentially, you should have to search for valuable samples to bring home. Every surface sample will have some value, but you will have to search the area you are in to find more valuable ones. There will be certain areas of any given world that might not have any valuable samples. Some areas might have super valuable samples. The thing is, you can't make it so you can sit in one spot and just repeatedly click collect until you get a good one. But you also can't make the "map" for samples so well defined that you can cover a circle around 10m of your landing craft and end up with a 100 different samples.

So the idea then is to make it so that each variety of sample (from the practically worthless to the ultra rare) takes up a certain portion of the "map" that can translate to a very massive area for worthless samples (which will likely be present everywhere you go regardless, filling in the voids between the more valuable samples) and to a very specific 2-3m area for the ultra rare samples.

Giving a point to exploration without it being a grind is the key point. (and lets face it, if this is too grindy for you then you aren't likely bothering with science anyway)

In doing this, I also hope to change how biomes work. The "East Crater", instead of being a homogeneous area, would be an area that would produce a wide variety of results for experiments based on where exactly you are within the biome's area. The rim of the East Crater would produce different results compared to the epicenter. Some results will be slightly different. Others would be vastly different. And so on, for the different areas that may be present within the biome itself. Again, the point is to give a point to exploration and stop the current trend where you land in one spot and that covers the entire area. As such, different biomes will be more or less valuable than others. Mun's Midlands will be pretty basic. The Canyon will be fairly valuable. The Poles a lot more valuable. Areas with anomalies (which I intend to make their own mini-biomes) will be super valuable, but only for a few experiments.

Along this same line will be more experiments, but this time ones that require extensive coding. Things like my own take on Seismic experiments (Such as impactors, or readings that require multiple seismometers in a variety of locations such as seen in Interstellar, except more indepth), experiments that require specific situations or multiple copies spread out (again based on Seismic experiments), as well as experiments for craft development, among other things. Think Graphotron, except extended to do even more real science.

So thats my idea, as it stands in my head right now. What I would like is just some opinions from the community on whether or not this is something that's wanted, as well as what else you think might go well along these lines. I do realize that this is quite a bit to lay out without having even begun any work, however I do want to reassure anyone whose concerned about that (and I know there will be some who will be piping up with this issue) that I do know what I'm doing when laying this out like this. I have taken up and completed mods of this general scope before and worked on mods that were of an even larger scope, so long story short, I am prepared.

[Superfluous J]

While I personally would not do this, I think by now it's mostly due to the fact that I'm old and stodgy in my ways. However, I'd at least try it if it was complete and waiting and who knows, maybe I'd like it.

I do like some of the ideas, but the more complicated things get the harder they are to figure out. If my mission fails because I screw something up that's one thing. If it fails because on 3 separate occasions the mod didn't do what I thought it would or I didn't do what I thought I needed to do but the mod actually wanted me to do something different, then I'm going to uninstall. Especially if the mod doesn't tell me what I'm supposed to do.

Also, I hear "100 experiments" and I think "right click 100 things" and it makes me shiver involuntarily. If you have to land the seismometers in 3 places, right click them to turn them on, then right click each in turn to take readings, and then right click something else to store them then I'm gone before you can even put them on my ship. If you just land the seismometers, do an impact, and get better/worse science based on where you put them (without ever right clicking a thing) I'm far more likely to be into it.

[PugzInSpace]

This is a fantastic idea. I've also been thinking a lot on how to make the career mode a more satisfying experience overall. I often do find that wall where it feels like there is no point to return to the Mun or Minmus. You can do an experiment in one area on the Mun, and then 30% of the surface is no longer useful (depending on the biome). It seems to me that career mode, as it currently stands, has areas of really fast progression followed by areas of really slow progression. What you are suggesting could really even that out and provide a pretty consistent progression throughout the tech tree. That, in my opinion, would make a very satisfying career mode. Lately, I've wanted to start work on mod that would rebalance all of the parts in the game to make them a little less powerful and that would rebalance the tech tree so that you get things like the .625 m and airplane parts first. I think that idea along with yours could work well together.

I would also like to give you a bit of advice, if you'll accept it (not that I am really qualified to do so). You said that you wanted to see if your idea was even wanted by the community, and I know that the general goal with mod making is to provide something you think people in the community will get use out of, but I feel you will have a better experience overall if you make the mod that you want to make. Please don't turn a hobby into a chore just to please others.

I really look foward to seeing what you do with this idea

Edited November 4, 2015 by PugzInSpace
Grammar

[CobaltWolf]

Well, I certainly plan on releasing more science experiments as time goes on. I think I'd rather keep them under my wing but if I get enough I will probably start doing standalone releases. I also am planning on making a better ALSEP mod once I get past my incoming Fallout 4 related hiatus.

All in all, good ideas here.

[G'th]

While I personally would not do this, I think by now it's mostly due to the fact that I'm old and stodgy in my ways. However, I'd at least try it if it was complete and waiting and who knows, maybe I'd like it.

I do like some of the ideas, but the more complicated things get the harder they are to figure out. If my mission fails because I screw something up that's one thing. If it fails because on 3 separate occasions the mod didn't do what I thought it would or I didn't do what I thought I needed to do but the mod actually wanted me to do something different, then I'm going to uninstall. Especially if the mod doesn't tell me what I'm supposed to do.

Also, I hear "100 experiments" and I think "right click 100 things" and it makes me shiver involuntarily. If you have to land the seismometers in 3 places, right click them to turn them on, then right click each in turn to take readings, and then right click something else to store them then I'm gone before you can even put them on my ship. If you just land the seismometers, do an impact, and get better/worse science based on where you put them (without ever right clicking a thing) I'm far more likely to be into it.

I agree. And with these sorts of "complicated" experiments I fully intend for it to be as smooth a procedure to do. Interstellar does its seismic experiment by requiring a siesmometer on the surface and set to a certain mode (I forget what the phrasing was) and then all you have to do is impact the surface.

My version will be almost the exact same, but expanded to include full body readings (requiring multiple copies of the device spread out around the entire body) as well as partial body readings and even biome specific readings. Essentially the idea is that its really up to the player on how far you want to take it. YOu can land the device and just crash something into the surface with science increasing the closer you crash to the experiment, or you can go bigger and take a measure of the entire body. May be multiple impacts will give you more data. And so on.

I believe that any game when it comes to how "complex" it is should largely depend on how deep the player wants their game to be. It should be complex enough that those who like to crunch numbers and really grind out the most points can do so, while at the same time being intuitive and simple enough that a player who just wants to fly can do a simple experiment and be done with it. Balance wise, the simple route wouldn't give you a big boost, but would still be a viable option (with the increased amount of experiments that will be available in even the simplest of landers, there's still a lot of science to gather whether you go complex or just go through it), and the complex route would take a bit of effort to accomplish, but give a significant boost.

Automation would be a big part of it, and I think for the more complex experiments, like the ever present Seismic example, there shouldn't have to be any right clicking or really even any tedium on the players part other than fulfilling the experiments requirements. So, you land your seismometer and its ready to go. Just crash something into the surface, or, time warp a bit and get a reading of the natural activity. This could even be expanded to where experiments are constantly flinging reports regardless of whether you are there or not. So you land the same device and leave it. Then later you start crashing stuff into the surface. That same seismometer should still be feeding data, and combining with any other devices that have been landed since. For players with RT2, this could be expanded to where the device needs to be attached to a probe and connected and so on.

And even for simple experiments, automation would really be ideal, especially for Manned missions. Kerbals are more than just monkeys after all, let them do something. Things like EVA/IVA reports should collected periodically in any given biome and collected when transferring from one biome to the next. Surface samples would require player input, but considering the massive potential samples would have with this mod, that does balance out. After all, the point is to make it so there are actually things to do once you go somewhere. Finding the awesome samples is the simplest way to encourage long term activity on the surface of any particular body.

I also feel I should clarify with the whole "100 experiments" bit. In reality, I most likely won't have this amount of experiments initially, though I think in the end the amount of possible experiments will total this number. In reality, any initial release would likely just be an enhancement to the stock experiments, with additions here and there. The key point of an initial release at this time will just be a proof of concept for experiments that take time to complete as well as unlockable experiments via the tech tree. With just plain KSP code, most of the initial experiments will just be extra flavor rather than actual gameplay elements. As time goes on, the experiments will get deeper and may require new, specific parts.

This is a fantastic idea. I've also been thinking a lot on how to make the career mode a more satisfying experience overall. I often do find that wall where it feels like there is no point to return to the Mun or Minmus. You can do an experiment in one area on the Mun, and then 30% of the surface is no longer useful (depending on the biome). It seems to me that career mode, as it currently stands, has areas of really fast progression followed by areas of really slow progression. What you are suggesting could really even that out and provide a pretty consistent progression throughout the tech tree. That, in my opinion, would make a very satisfying career mode. Lately, I've wanted to start work on mod that would rebalance all of the parts in the game to make them a little less powerful and that would rebalance the tech tree so that you get things like the .625 m and airplane parts first. I think that idea along with yours could work well together.

I would also like to give you a bit of advice, if you'll accept it (not that I am really qualified to do so). You said that you wanted to see if your idea was even wanted by the community, and I know that the general goal with mod making is to provide something you think people in the community will get use out of, but I feel you will have a better experience overall if you make the mod that you want to make. Please don't turn a hobby into a chore just to please others.

Indeed. I also have an idea on the backburner for a tech tree overhaul that follows a more realistic progression, that simplistically can't even be explained properly because it would be such an indepth tree. I actually typed out the progression from start to finish and it was over 20000 characters according to the text editor here. Essentially it was flight first with progression that focused on "eras" in aeronautical and astronautical engineering, with transition periods and a choice to either continue aeronautics up to a certain point or push on with rocketry, go manned or unmanned, go for spaceplanes or continued capsule development, etc etc. Instead of parts being spread out willy nilly, the idea would be that you'd unlock the parts to create a certain kind of rocket and then the parts to unlock a certain kind of spacecraft.

It goes a little more indepth, but the idea was to prevent a situation where you'd have to do a Gemini flight to figure out how to make the Titan rocket that, in real life, launched the Gemini spacecraft. So if you had something like FASA installed, you'd unlock a node and you'd get everything to make the Titan ICBM, and then after that you'd get another node and you'd get everything to create the Gemini Spacecraft. The reasoning being that in real life, we didn't piece together spacecraft hodgepodge, but instead built what we needed to get the mission done. My idea was to keep it as open as possible so it could support anything from a 100% stock install to a 70+ mod install.

It also included a contract overhaul that would be paired with it. During the flight engineering portion, progression would be provided almost 100% by contracts (because in real life, aircraft were not developed for purely scientific pursuits. So progression came from being paid to go faster and higher) which would wind down as science comes more to the fore front through the rocketry and spaceflight eras (and the transitional eras in between) and then snaps back to a 50/50 once commercialization comes into play. I might take what I have typed up and upload it somewhere. I think its a very interesting read even though its a gigantohuge wall of text.

And as for your advice, I completely understand, and I'm eventually going to do it regardless. I just wanted to gauge how people would react to such a mod, and also crowd source some other ideas to go along with it.

Well, I certainly plan on releasing more science experiments as time goes on. I think I'd rather keep them under my wing but if I get enough I will probably start doing standalone releases. I also am planning on making a better ALSEP mod once I get past my incoming Fallout 4 related hiatus.

All in all, good ideas here.

Your science parts are a god send . Always nice to have more stuff.

[CobaltWolf]

I think part of the problem is that there's no way in game to convey a realistic progression through abstract 'science'. How does measuring the temperature of the Mun give me better engines? There is such a separation between 'science', the abstract... well, not abstract, but not necessarily useful thing, that both man and Kerbals seek, and engineering. Better engineering is what gets you better rockets, better parts, etc. And that is more often than not simply a product of giving R&D more time and money. Neither of which Kerbals really have in short supply. I guess my point is there is a disconnect between the motivating factor (get new parts) and the way we achieve it (conduct science). Nevermind that IRL a majority of the advancements in rocketry were done by the military then passed on piecemeal to NASA/ROSCOSMOS

[KillAshley]

I feel the same as CobaltWolf above, while i love the idea of what you're proposing, but what really is needed is a experiment system that defines the type of "science" you receive. A complete overhaul of the stock tech tree would probably have to happen to accommodate this, but getting a temperature scan at Mun should in no way allow you to unlock engines, and so on. If there was a way to create multiple different types of science that different experiments produce that can only unlock certain parts of the tech tree then that'd be something worth looking into, and something a lot of people have been wishing for for a long time.

Perhaps instead of a multiple experiments per part as proposed you could look at a more tiered approach where you must unlock "improvements" to the science parts that allow them to get results faster & increase the science given. That may be a bit more of an incentive for the progression rather than making parts do multiple things. Have all parts require time to gather the science or process the data and the lowest tier takes quite a while, whereas highest tier would be relatively fast in comparison. That would be helpful so that say with atmospheric scans you need to stay withing a certain altitude limit from the altitude you started the process at, or the scan will fail. Having a higher tier could not only speed up the time it takes to gather atmospheric samples, but increases the boundary significantly......just food for thought.

However the idea that surface samples would have weight and different "science" yields is a great idea, although i would also recommend a MM compatible cfg that defines planets & value ranges so that planet creators such as myself can modify our worlds.

[blackrack]

I think part of the problem is that there's no way in game to convey a realistic progression through abstract 'science'. How does measuring the temperature of the Mun give me better engines? There is such a separation between 'science', the abstract... well, not abstract, but not necessarily useful thing, that both man and Kerbals seek, and engineering. Better engineering is what gets you better rockets, better parts, etc. And that is more often than not simply a product of giving R&D more time and money. Neither of which Kerbals really have in short supply. I guess my point is there is a disconnect between the motivating factor (get new parts) and the way we achieve it (conduct science). Nevermind that IRL a majority of the advancements in rocketry were done by the military then passed on piecemeal to NASA/ROSCOSMOS

What this guy said, and I personally think the "science units" system is really stupid. I'm in favor of using a more traditional system where you have pre-requisites in the form of artifacts/samples you collect (that are directly in relation with whatever you're researching), some amount of money required, and some set research time based on how upgraded your research center is (you can still just timewarp so this doesn't matter much, unless someone creates a system where there are some game events you can miss if you don't have the right tech at the right time).

Also, the part of this video that starts at 1:00 looks really interesting for a science system

. Studying the planet using satellites and having actual information that makes sense, overlays and seeing some kind of activity/ecosystem/geology changes. Seasons would also help a lot in something like this, but I don't expect to see anything similar to this in KSP soon.

[CobaltWolf]

I would definitely like to see more persistent science... for example, perhaps you could make new ScanSat parts to track weather or something, to provide a trickle of science over time.

[PugzInSpace]

How does measuring the temperature of the Mun give me better engines?

That is pretty nonsensical. But I always justified it in my head that measuring the temperatures on the Mun and elsewhere could be factored into the development of new engines. A rebalance of the tech tree couldn't hurt. It doesn't make sense to me that you unlock a 5-segment SRB analogue before you even get the Mainsail. I can't think of why I would need such a powerful motor so early on, except to force some poor Kerbal into a Mk-1 one pod glued to the top of it.

[Superfluous J]

Okay, so taking the temperature of the Mun won't give better engines. What WILL it give? "Satisfaction" isn't a good answer.

How about ca$h? Then you use the cash to fund research and ... get better engines. Wait...

[CobaltWolf]

Okay, so taking the temperature of the Mun won't give better engines. What WILL it give? "Satisfaction" isn't a good answer.

How about ca$h? Then you use the cash to fund research and ... get better engines. Wait...

Well, hang on, you're on to something. Taking inspiration from the Kerbal States mod, there could be several ways to progress. Scientific achievement, which rewards you with funding. Military engineering, spy satellites, etc could be another path. And a third would be commercial launches. All are valid paths, and a good player would balance between all three. Money and time allow you to get better stuff. There are a lot of opportunities for new parts, contracts, etc.

[EladDv]

Sounds really interesting actually. About that contract system upgrades- i am starting to work on such a mod right now - it'll have corporations that you can hire for launching stuff into space or launch for them, Assembling your own Initiatives (really big contracts with a lot of upfront cash and demands) with boosts and funding from manufacturers with different personalities and relationships with you and more strategies, the only thing i was lacking was a science and tech tree overhaul. Now considering KSP today has way above 10k science in the system your science system would either need to be independent from science points and "fund" research with experiments and science missions OR just lower the amount of science given significantly.

If this get's off the ground i am able to help somewhat with code for it. although i can see most of the biome parts being done with maps and not code for simplicity's' sake i can see some areas where code will be important like detecting new science experiments and the point system overhaul

Edited November 4, 2015 by EladDv

[Kerbart]

I think part of the problem is that there's no way in game to convey a realistic progression through abstract 'science'. (...)

Yes. It wouldn't be impossible, but there are a few challenges:

• Science was added to the game as an afterthought. Things go downhill from here.
  
• Most of the science used in spaceflight is not tested in spaceflight. Because you know... you wanna know it works before you launch your multi-milion dollar rocket, not during the flight.
  
• Scientific data that is collected through flight (say, the density of the atmosphere, arguably orbits of moons and planets, etc) is shared online so there's no intrinsic motivation to figure it out yourself.
  

I can envision a version of KSP where:

• You get access to better equipment through testing it. Heavy weight metals at first, and low performing engines, and lighter materials later, together with better engines and fuel.
  
• Certain things are randomized (within limited bands) at the beginning of the game, like the mass of each planet, thickness of the atmosphere, the exact orbits, etc. You'll have to perform experiments to find out how much atmosphere kerbin has, what it's mass is, etc. In easy playing mode you can simply fullfill a contract by launching the right equipment within a valid envelope, in hardcore mode you'll just have to figure it out yourself by doing the right measurements and updating the in-game encyclopedia yourself.
  
• Only after "discovering" a planet it will show up in the tracking station. Your first Duna landing is going to be very exciting because you have no clue what the atmosphere is going to be like (send a probe with an atmo sensor crashing into the planet to find out)

I don't think you could even mod the game to make it work like that; it would have to be build from the ground up with such an approach. I think.

[Garibaldi2257]

I really like your idea so far G'th. and while I'm not a coder or a modeller, I am more than willing to playtest for bugs/help in any way I can.

[wasml]

I agree with you that science could use more depth and this sounds like an ambitious attempt to correct that. May I suggest experiments that required some planning to set up and that would then return a continuous trickle of science – like multiple seismographs or weather stations on a planet where ten well placed stations would have much better returns than one hundred stations all placed in one spot.

[Drew Kerman]

in regards to surface observations, I've always liked the idea put forth originally by Rover Science. Hope you consider rolling that in as I never got to really use it before it fell out of support of later versions.

[G'th]

Welp, now that people are starting to talk about a much bigger overhaul, I figured I may as well post my take on it, which can be found a the link below because it is huge and would have to be posted in like 5 posts on this forum.

Kerbal Aeronautic and Space Program

It is a lot to read, I know, but I think its a worthwhile one given what I propose. You may notice some quirks in how it was written, and that is because it was originally written using the KSP forum text editor. When I saw it was too long to post, I saved it in a text file.

And going further on the ideas present in that as well as whats been spoken about already, I think the idea of actual "Engineering Points" would be a good idea to incorporate. Perhaps the stock Science Point system could be changed into an Engineering Points system, with a brand new and more easily modifiable Science point system being introduced as a separate yet concurrent progression tree.

In the KASP above, I suggest providing early progression (which is driven by demonstrating KSP-engineering skills) almost purely through the contract system. Perhaps such an overhaul as this could work by granting engineering points both automatically and for accomplishing specific feats. Bonus points could also be derived from direct collection. Testing rockets should be a thing, I think, and perhaps most parts can have their own little "engineering experiments" that measure how they're handling the situation they're in. After all, and especially in the early days, rockets had all kinds of sensors on them to measure what was going on as they were operating. And of course, this system should be completely automatic (because that'd be too much to ask anybody to do during a launch).

Meanwhile, specific feats like breaking the sound barrier, surviving reentry, etc etc could give solid moderately large boosts once you accomplish them, while non-specific feats like basic altitude and speed progression give smaller boosts as you go. At the same time, going far and beyond the basic and expected feats at whatever point in the game you're at providing larger boosts than if you accomplished them when you were expected. Landing on the Mun when you're still in the Flight Era, or accomplishing an Eve Flyby when you're still doing Gemini, etc etc. All in an effort to still reward those KSP wiz's who can go farther with less, but without alienating those who can't or don't even know how to play the game at all.

The new science system would run side by side with this. Initial starts would just be the Crew/EVA reports and may be some very basic experiments like temperature and air pressure (which would be present automatically in cockpits as well as available as external parts). As you progress down this side, you'll start to see more in-depth atmospheric specific experiments become available. Then once you reach the spacecraft era, space specific experiments start to become available and so on and so forth.

Perhaps the science tree could be split into several branches representing various scientific fields. Atmospheric science would be the basic one you start with. Then it'd branch as Geology, Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, and so on specific experiments become available.

[nikokespprfan]

So I decided to start thinking about what else I could do. And thats when it came to me that I could do something that I have' date=' honestly been wishing someone would do for a while now. As I've been playing KSP more and more and my missions and spacecraft become more sophisticated, the more I'm beginning to run into that wall where you go somewhere, and you just have nothing to do other than to pretend you're doing something.

In my time playing this game, I have seen several people start up projects that seemed promising for providing that essential "Stuff to Do!" that stock KSP lacks, but never get off the ground or go somewhere and then end up in the "What could have been" pile.

So, the mod I propose to do is essentially a complete overhaul of the Science system, bringing all of these great ideas that have cropped up over the years under one roof along with several of my own to create a the quintessential science mod. But whats included in that?

[/quote']

Overhauling the science system is something I really like the idea of. But there are more different ways come up with by the community, and I think not all of them will go nicely together. In my opinion, you do not even need all ideas to overhaul the science system sufficiently. So maybe you could make multiple mods that are all compatible with each other, that each focus on one way to do the overhaul.

So the set of mods might look like this:

-Develop parts after you invented them in the R&D building.

-Look into the universe with telescopes and stuff.

-Different crew reports depending on the profession of the kerbal doing the crew report.

-Having "doing science" create random discoveries by chance.

-Perform more types of experiments.

-Having different kinds of science.

-Etc.

[EladDv]

i've read all of it G'th and really i like it but i have a couple of reservations about the scope.The whole "Era" system is a well thought and imo a good system but the main problem with it is scope- we have 250-300 parts in the game- most of them will not fall into eras- you will need to come up with a lot of new parts for it to work specific to each era like early aviation and early rocketry (since we can get to orbit with the first and second tech nodes today). now the contract system i dont know what you have in mind but it seems pretty unchanged and that's not the best for your project- it's gonna be hard to balance unless you redesign it completely. The science system is gonna be hard to pull off the way you described it and would take a lot of code to do so. In the end i cant see this going as 1 massive project but as 3 or more closely knit projects that are supposed to run together but dont have to

Edited November 6, 2015 by EladDv

[G'th]

^ I agree with the parts issue. And I can definitely admit that I came at it from the perspective of someone who almost never uses 100% stock.

My idea, which I do touch upon a little bit in there I think, was to re-purpose a lot of stock parts to fill in the gaps, with possible tweakscale integration to help keep the part count low. The way stock is, doing it this way wouln't look too out of place. Ideally, I think we could get away with almost no actual new parts being added. The only exception would be the flight part. This part of the game would require quite a few parts to really flesh it out well.

However, I think given the current non-focus on aircraft KSP has in general (even with Squads plane focused updates as of late) I think its acceptable to not flesh this era out for stock players. Most 100% stock players I see typically don't do spaceplanes, and if they are, its never something that isn't meant to even reach Mach 1 if its an actual aircraft.

After all, my intent is to never alienate any particular playstyle. While my system would introduce flight first, I don't thing it would be a good idea to force people to have to sludge through it if they just want to get to the rockets. Those that would install the likes of Firespitter are going to want to go through a really fleshed out flight first anyway, while those who won't more than likely would just as soon cheat their way past the flight era than actually play it.

As for contracts, my ideas mostly just went as far as integrating much of whats already been done with that system by other modders. Beyond restructuring the system so that it plays off the tech tree and makes it make a bit more sense (IE, kill the rather silly part test contracts altogether, and replace them with the Milestone > Culmination system along with general contracts for specific parameters, like Mach 1 for 5 minutes, Mach 6 and survive, etc) I haven't had much of an idea of how to overhaul the system.

Essentially progression in my system would work in 2 ways, basically depending on whether or not you go with a fleshed out Flight era. With a fleshed out flight era, the the start and early game becomes specifically about engineering. Creating planes, testing them, pushing the envelope. I just had a thought, as this could actually be heavily expanded if contracts were reconfigured to ask for specific plane configurations. Like planes with specific wing profles, different lengths, engine types, etc etc.

Then, once you start to see rockets, progression keeps going based on engineering. Creating rockets, testing them, and pushing what can be done. Then as time goes on, you progress into the scientific side of things, with science becoming more of the focus. More time goes on, commercialization becomes a thing, and engineering sees a greater focus again, this time with things like spaceplanes (the essential "rocket/plane hybrid" point) and tourism and colonization capabilities needing to be tested. Time goes on, science comes back to the forefront. More time, engineering as you start to go interstellar. And so on.

On the flip side, for those who don't decide to flesh out flight, progression goes as normal, but the game doesn't become "difficult" until you hit rocketry, and progression goes as above.

Also, just to note, I am going to start work on this relatively soon. Been wanting to get some updates for my STS program out and internet issues have been preventing that.

Edited November 7, 2015 by G'th