Suggestion: Possibility of Malfunctioning Parts?

[DomAzaris1996]

I have an idea for a new feature. I got the idea from Apollo 13.

Basically, each part would have a percentage of change of failure during flight... So a new part would have say a 5% chance of malfunctioning, and a reused part (if implemented in future versions) has say 10%, then if used again 15% and so on...

Also by the cost (if there ever is a cost in parts), the higher cost/better quality, the less chance there is of it malfunctioning?

Just thought it would make the game more realistic

Cheers,

Dom.

[Bluejayek]

Realistic? Yes. Fun? No.

How would you like it if you go all the way to the mun, fly back, and your parachute malfunctions. Oops.

Or you fly to the mun, then launch for minimus, and a landing leg fails.

[DomAzaris1996]

Realistic? Yes. Fun? No.

How would you like it if you go all the way to the mun, fly back, and your parachute malfunctions. Oops.

Or you fly to the mun, then launch for minimus, and a landing leg fails.

well maybe so, but even if only the reused part malfunctions... otherwise people wont use new parts cos they would cost too much...

[jayther]

Heh, like those parts that are found lying on the side of the road (the parachute). x]

[UmbralRaptor]

Not as long as you\'re flying the missions yourself. If you\'re assigning large numbers of missions, that the game resolves while you\'re doing other things, then it could be fun. Ditto if it\'s optional.

If part failure rates are at all significant ('significant' is much lower than you might expect, possibly under 1%, depending on how often failure is rolled for), this will force highly constrained designs and acceptance of lots of missions failing regardless of what the player does.

[Awaras]

This might be OK if you had the ability to perform an EVA and repair the malfunctioning part. However, I think that most players would just get pissed and hit \'restart flight\'...

[sss]

mm, i thought of that, but really, if you make a big mission and somthing really bad fails, it can be EXTREMLY annoying.

[Awaras]

They could make a \'hardcore\' campaign mode where you can\'t restart flights, parts can fail and if a part malfunctions you are in real trouble... It would force the player to design ships with backup components for safety, extra parachutes, that sort of thing. Combine that with the ability to repair components by performing an EVA and I think I would enjoy playing that way.

[Max Grant]

i dunno about youse guise, but I cause PLEN-TEE of my own failures all the time, and they are plenty exciting and usually with violent explosions. I sort of endorse this notion, but between the slapdash Wile E. Coyote engineering that this game explicitly encourages, and the Buzz Lightyear vibe of the characters themselves, this game has all of the slapstick of those old film reels of wacky (and unworkable) airplane designs that they always play when someone\'s doing a documentary on the Wright Brothers. I was looking at some sequence of screenshots, and I thought it would be a blast to put some of that rinky-dinky piano stuff to a clip of Kerbal creations blowing up, flying off in unexpected directions, falling over flat on the pad, and so forth.

I mean, I\'ve had launches where one of my boosters just falls off, FALLS THE F**K OFF, leaving me in a world of hurt and etcetera. I have also done launches where my main liquid engine is inexplicably left behind on the pad. And now that I\'ve played with the fixed camera mod, it is really enjoyable to switch to one of those views and watch my whole rocket shake like a three-day drunk. One recent launch I did, I re-launched about six times with various canards and strakes tried out because inevitably, the moment I detached my SRBs my ship would enter a near-perfect axial spin, which I\'ve never seen happen before, and I COULD NOT get rid of it. I got it with three boosters. I got it with four boosters. I got it with strakes, canards . . . I eventually settled on a four-way symmetry with the canards mounted lower on the final stage, and that finally killed it.

So, I\'m not sure we need to request additional programmed failures.

Interestingly enough I just spent about 3 days going through every Wiki article I could find on the space program. Invariably the explosions and disasters in the real space program turn out to be because some doofus forgot to close a switch, remove a tool, or in some of the more painfully (and unnecessary) events, people routinely ignored a known, dangerous problem because it didn\'t hit them the first 8-10 times they let it slide -- until it literally blew up in their (and their poor pilot and crews\') faces. So most of the time, problems with rocket equipment are due to technician error or engineering boondoggle.

[DomAzaris1996]

They could make a \'hardcore\' campaign mode where you can\'t restart flights, parts can fail and if a part malfunctions you are in real trouble... It would force the player to design ships with backup components for safety, extra parachutes, that sort of thing. Combine that with the ability to repair components by performing an EVA and I think I would enjoy playing that way.

I like this idea! A hardcore game where you cant just end flights if the Kerbals are alive, perhaps (Yes i know it may lag out the game but still), and the parts are prone to malfunction.

... But yeah I was thinking it would be in a different game mode but i forgot to mention it... I wouldnt put it in a creative/sandbox mode like the game is currently in :]

[AD-Edge]

Realistic? Yes. Fun? No.

Depends on your idea of fun.

I mentioned this very thing in an older thread C7 had, ill quote it below:

Could also be handy when recovered parts come into play and the game gets its more \'serious\' mode, and depending on whether you put money into restoring the part or simply throwing it into a new rocket (to save on money etc) would determine if the part would continue to operate in a smooth and timely fashion.

You could even implement into the animation system a way for a particular animation to \'fail\', especially if its an old part which has been used several times and the recovered without repair. Or simply a part on a spacecraft which has been in operation for ages (or in some hardcore future version of the game it could be a rare event that a brand new part fails in its animation somehow)

For example, landing on the Mun or some distant planet when one of the landing gears fails to descend properly. Or trying to release a satellite into space and a cargobay door jams. Or coming in for your landing in a space-shuttle-like-vehicle, when one of the landing wheels fails to descend XD

Implementing a system like that would make the game even more dynamic than it currently is, especially in terms of disastrous mission endings and the hilariousness which would ensue from manning missions with terribly maintained parts in a space program quickly (and literally) going down-hill.

So yeh, part failure for certain people wouldnt be fun, but I know that as the type of gamer I am I would enjoy it, and I actually hope that this very thing does eventually get implemented.

Plus it can be implemented into the game in a \'proper\' way - ie the chances of failure on a part in new condition is so low that it will almost never happen (as in real life, sometimes things go wrong with parts even if theyre brand new, its just unlikely).

But then if your cutting corners and using parts which havent been repaired, or are 2nd hand, or are just recovered and then slapped onto a new rocket and used over and over again - then the chances of a failure on that particular part(s) increases until it could pose a serious threat - at which point you only have yourself to blame, for allowing the part to be used on the rocket (etc)

Its this kind of thing which could add some interesting dynamics to the \'campaign\' mode, or some interesting events to the sandbox game we currently have.

Either way though, malfunctioning parts are something I hope to see in KSP oneday soon

[togfox]

Id play with malfunctions but im a nut case. If my lifter needs 8 rockets then id design in 10 and disable fuel to 2 of them (or not). If i need 3 chutes then ill build in 4.

Add some drama to a perilous voyage.

[jayther]

Hm, if there is the possibility of malfunctioning parts, perhaps there should be some sort of test phases (for test burns and whatnot) to make sure the parts that are being reused are still working without having to do an actual launch.

[togfox]

KILL JOY!!!

=P

[jayther]

Hahaha x] Of course you can always skip test phases. x]

[DomAzaris1996]

Hm, if there is the possibility of malfunctioning parts, perhaps there should be some sort of test phases (for test burns and whatnot) to make sure the parts that are being reused are still working without having to do an actual launch.

Yeah I think that a test facility would be amazing! Not only could you test old parts, but you could build a stage, and it could show the stage weight, burn time, and how much thrust is produced

[togfox]

You do realise you\'re asking for a simulation of a simulator ... ???

[Jmaa]

Nope.

I already said it but it is a horrible idea, at least if you play manual.

It add nothing to the game, and is totally unnecessary.

[flaillomanz]

The only way that I would find this acceptable is if

a) it looks friggin\' awesome

OR

it\'s something minor, like a landing gear retracting or activating on its own, or a fuel leak, or a drop in thrust, or the sudden activation of a RCS thruster, or a malfunctioning SAS module...

[Vostok]

5% is quite a high failure rate, maybe something less high, individual to each part. But more importantly, if this was ever implemented, an option to disable it is a MUST. People want confidence in their rockets, and enough seems to go wrong anyway without part malfunctions.

[DomAzaris1996]

5% is quite a high failure rate, maybe something less high, individual to each part. But more importantly, if this was ever implemented, an option to disable it is a MUST. People want confidence in their rockets, and enough seems to go wrong anyway without part malfunctions.

Yeah thats fair enough, in above replies there was suggestions of a \'hardcore\' game mode, which i thought was a good idea :]

The only way that I would find this acceptable is if

a) it looks friggin\' awesome

OR

it\'s something minor, like a landing gear retracting or activating on its own, or a fuel leak, or a drop in thrust, or the sudden activation of a RCS thruster, or a malfunctioning SAS module...

Yeah I was thinking those things, but also (in the previously mentioned hardcore mode) things like shorts in the engines which causes them to stop completely...

You do realise you\'re asking for a simulation of a simulator ... ???

Yeah basically I think im just hoping for a few different game modes, like sandbox/creative, intermediate, and hardcore/realistic

Think I\'d enjoy it once I perfect my rockets

[Ted]

I have had numerous problems in this game, from stages being ordered incorrectly (which I normally don\'t find out about until I reach the Mun), all the way to running out of fuel as I\'m landing on the Mun. Each time it happened I normally just laughed out how ridiculous the situation was and tried to see if it was fixable, so I think that random failures would be an excellent idea.

As long as there was a slim chance that they would happen and most of them were fixable via EVAs, then they would only add more fun to the game. They definitely shouldn\'t be mission ending problems though.

Also, the tech tree that is to be implemented could allow research into lower failure rates etc.

Lastly, surely this should be on the Development board?

[Mrmisquito]

What are you guys talking about? This problem with parts breaking during launch happens all the time! (Rocket folding in half, causing it all to kablooey)

[Awaras]

What are you guys talking about? This problem with parts breaking during launch happens all the time! (Rocket folding in half, causing it all to kablooey)

Yes, but we want them to break SOME MORE!!!!!!! ;P ;P ;P ;P

[Endeavour]

If this is put in it better be an optional thing. I have come very close to breaking every part of my computer and multiple windows just from my own mistakes. If things start randomly breaking half way there, I might go insane