Shouldn't "TweakScale" and "KER" be part of the stock game?

[JeeF]

I can't imagine playing KSP without Tweakscale and KER mods. I mean, seriously, in real life rockets are designed not on what parts are available, but parts are designed on the go to fit the needs. And engineers at NASA don't just guess how much fuel and thrust an engine needs to have in order to put a rocket in orbit. "Well, let's try with 2 engines and see if it's enough... any volunteers?"

These 2 tools are essential, the bare minimum, the vast majority uses them anyways, why not add them to the stock game?

Devs, any plans on something similar to these mods for stock?

And in case you're wondering "But if the tools already exist, why should the devs add something similar to the stock game?", this takes the load off modders needing to update their mods every time there's a new KSP update. Any thoughts?

 

TY

[Guest]

Regarding KER:

TL;DR of it is, it's a tough thing to program, they're not just going to buy or integrate a piece of GPL'd software as easily and simply as you (may) think it should be, and something like KER is probably (in all likelihood), on the way.  Be patient.

As for Tweakscale, probably not, I imagine.  it will remain a mod.

Edited April 9, 2016 by regex

[JeeF]

I'm in IT professional, I know coding. Also, I work as a producer in the gaming industry, publisher side. So my 2 cents here are actually based on experience with player feedback, player retention, player happiness. A happy player is a player inviting his friend to buy the game too. I don't actually care about these things being added to the game to satisfy myself, since I'll always mod my games to bits. I'm just trying to help you guys bring more players in. The more players you have, the longer the game lasts, the more content and mods we'll have. I'm very passionate about KSP and I'd like it to be alive and active for many years to come.

With that in mind, I imagine it would be VERY complicated to create a code decent enough to calculate all possible designs, engines rotated in different angles, opposing thrusts, different fuel levels and mods. I get it. But I also know how important it is for the game, nobody plays without dV readings. Some may say "well thats not realistic/its cheating" but honestly having to launch dozens of rockets till you get it right by trial and error is plain ridiculous and 10x more unrealistic. 

With that in mind, a solution for now to please everyone till they have enough time and manpower to work deep on this issue is to release a simple dV reading, nothing fancy, giving somewhat accurate readings, a round up number as if it was manually calculated by an engineer with a pencil, napkin and a few minutes. Could be something like 2.3-2.5 TWR, 4.5-4.7 km/s dV, just so we have an idea of what the rocket is capable of without having to launch it countless times to find out the hard way.

"Oh but it adds to the challenge" - Sure, the same way slicing off your right arm would add to the challenge of using your TV remote. Why complicate things, why reinvent the wheel. The time spent manually calculating dV or trial-and-error could be much better used creating something new, going somewhere new, trying a new challenge, building something different. If the guy who invented the calculator kept it to himself and left everybody else doing math by hand to "add to the challenge", mankind would be evolving much slower.

 

On the Tweakscale front, any official squad answer on the matter? I mean, seriously... if monitors and tvs were sold only either in 14" or 40" sizes people wouldn't be very happy about it, it's just not productive nor intelligent. When it comes to rocket science, NASA and space travel, a part is as big as it needs to be.

 

Thanks for the link, Regex, but I'm not interested in 10 pages of personal opinions from forum members, but an official answer from a developer. (If I can get that lucky)

Edited April 9, 2016 by JeeF

[MalevolentNinja]

Squad has already agreed to adding a DeltaV readout to the stock game, it just hasn't been added yet.

As far as TweakScale, that is a much more user-preference mod. I used to use it now I don't. I enjoy the challenge of working with the default part selection.

Some cons to TweakScale

1) it fundamentally changes the game play. Why do I need to unlock 2.5m or 5m parts in career mode when you can just scale up 1.25m parts to work?

2) TweakScale can be ridiculously overpowered. How do you determine the ISP and thrust of a Spark scaled to a 5m engine?

Edited April 9, 2016 by MalevolentNinja

[Guest]

Had you actually read the topic you would have seen a developer reponse.  Oh well, can't help everyone...

[ModZero]

54 minutes ago, MalevolentNinja said:

1) it fundamentally changes the game play. Why do I need to unlock 2.5m or 5m parts in career mode when you can just scale up 1.25m parts to work?

That's actually already solved both in TweakScale and procedural parts — scales can be restricted by tech level. While personally I'm not a fan of either, that's mostly due to aesthetic and some minor stability issues , and stockifying would give it opportunity to improve on these.

56 minutes ago, MalevolentNinja said:

2) TweakScale can be ridiculously overpowered. How do you determine the ISP and thrust of a Spark scaled to a 5m engine?

You just do't do it for engines, one of my complaints about TS is that it includes by default configurations for everything and the kitchen sink and messes up mods that weren't necessarily developed with TS in mind.

TBH if I had to pick, I'd much rather have procedural fuel tanks, that would enable me to reduce part counts, and a stock version would hopefully have some fancier texturing options.

[Warzouz]

1 hour ago, JeeF said:

Thanks for the link, Regex, but I'm not interested in 10 pages of personal opinions from forum members, but an official answer from a developer. (If I can get that lucky)

About dV and TWR. From what @NathanKell explained : fuel flow will be redone in near future. and dV is linked to fuel flow (from what I understood). So there is no point in adding dV NOW, but they'll probably do it right after fuel flow is changed.

[JeeF]

1 hour ago, MalevolentNinja said:

Squad has already agreed to adding a DeltaV readout to the stock game, it just hasn't been added yet.

As far as TweakScale, that is a much more user-preference mod. I used to use it now I don't. I enjoy the challenge of working with the default part selection.

Some cons to TweakScale

1) it fundamentally changes the game play. Why do I need to unlock 2.5m or 5m parts in career mode when you can just scale up 1.25m parts to work?

2) TweakScale can be ridiculously overpowered. How do you determine the ISP and thrust of a Spark scaled to a 5m engine?

1) Limited by tech level. Also, part size shouldn't be what a new tech level unlocks, but better technology. You can resize a crappy engine, it will still be a crappy engine, only bigger. Better performance comes with better tech, at least it should be. It's kinda how R.O. works with RP-0, I haven't played stock in ages so I don't even remember, but that's a discussion for another time.

2) I've always played with Realism Overhaul + RSS, engines cannot be re-scaled, so I didn't even consider it. But some parts really do need re-scaling, like tail fins, ailerons, batteries, landing legs, etc. Those are the only things I re-scale, as I use procedural fuel tanks. When you play the game with a set of mods for so long, you end up forgetting what the original game looks like. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to (or even be interested in) playing stock KSP, it's just too damn easy.

 

About dV and TWR. From what @NathanKell explained : fuel flow will be redone in near future. and dV is linked to fuel flow (from what I understood). So there is no point in adding dV NOW, but they'll probably do it right after fuel flow is changed.

Nathan clearly agrees with us. I'd like to hear some feedback from a developer who thinks the opposite, so I can understand this better.

Edited April 9, 2016 by JeeF

[Guest]

We need the fuel flow fixed b4 dv readouts. Balancing fuel flow for spaceplanes is a pia without a fuel balancing mod.

[Foxster]

I think dV & TWR is a nobrainer and it looks like it might make it into the stock game one day. Meanwhile we have some great mods for this, with more coming. So, we are very lucky here in not being dependent on a single mod author, because the loss would be a game-breaker for a lot of people. 

Tweakscales is a little more problematic. It doesn't make much sense in a realism sense, except I suppose you would tend to make parts that fit a rocket and not use only standard sizes but that wouldn't be by use of a slider. It also dumbs-down the game a bit because it takes away the challenge of making craft work from a limited set of parts. Additionally, it would also be a nightmare for the dev's to test and balance for each release if all parts could have a huge range of properties. So this might be one best left to a mod.     

[bonyetty]

No!

[Red Iron Crown]

This isn't a 1.1 discussion (there is nowhere near enough time to implement and test such features for 1.1). Moved to Suggestions and Development Discussion.

[Just Jim]

With all due respect to the OP, some of us just don't want them.  I like doing it the old fashioned way.

[Kerbart]

7 hours ago, JeeF said:

I can't imagine playing KSP without Tweakscale and KER mods. I mean, seriously, in real life rockets are designed not on what parts are available, but parts are designed on the go to fit the needs. And engineers at NASA don't just guess how much fuel and thrust an engine needs to have in order to put a rocket in orbit. "Well, let's try with 2 engines and see if it's enough... any volunteers?"

Actually, rockets are built to a standard size. There are a few exceptions where rockets were designed and built for a specific mission, but in modern aerospace the rocket designs are standardized and not custom built to spec.

Putting together a rocket like lego? Have you ever looked at how Atlas rockets are configured? Pretty Kerbal, to be honest.

[Renegrade]

Meh @ delta-v indicators and tweakscale (although I wouldn't mind being able to procedurally tweak between the different existing tank sizes as discrete steps instead of having a unique model for every silly tank).  I'd much rather have stock KIS/KAS-like functionality and at least a basic KAC functionality (for example, I have a craft on the way to Minmus via lazy routing, and it will take it 2 days 22h in Earth time to get there.  I don't wanna waste that much in-game time -- all those launch windows zooming past -- but if I want to launch other active missions in parallel, I'm going to have to remember to check on it around day 53.5 .. and I better not be in max warp at that time.  If I could just add a simple 'stop warp and notify in 2.91d' alarm, it'd be so much easier).

(In case anybody's wondering about why that Minmus mission is so long, Minmus is approaching it's DN but it's still a bit away from it, so I just arced the craft past Minmus' orbit a bit and it's falling into Minmus' SOI as it passes.  Very slow, but it's really just a probe core with an empty EAS seat on the top..)

39 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

This isn't a 1.1 discussion (there is nowhere near enough time to implement and test such features for 1.1). Moved to Suggestions and Development Discussion.

Couldn't we at least get more decimal places in the VAB mass indicator though?   In certain oldschool languages, a formatting change like that would literally involve changing a single character in a single file ("%.1f -> %.3f" - #Cmasterrace).

I can and do rapidly calculate delta-v by hand/tiny external scripts, but the VAB mass indicator is kinda approximate and is really bad for tiny craft (I've been designing a tiny crew-rescue EAS-1-based probe and it's 0.66375 tons (based on some detailed notes I have on the part masses from previous KSPs and EVA kerbals) fully loaded, which the VAB unhelpfully calls "0.6t" when unloaded.

[Red Iron Crown]

1 minute ago, Renegrade said:

Couldn't we at least get more decimal places in the VAB mass indicator though?   In certain oldschool languages, a formatting change like that would literally involve changing a single character in a single file ("%.1f -> %.3f" - #Cmasterrace).

I can and do rapidly calculate delta-v by hand/tiny external scripts, but the VAB mass indicator is kinda approximate and is really bad for tiny craft (I've been designing a tiny crew-rescue EAS-1-based probe and it's 0.66375 tons (based on some detailed notes I have on the part masses from previous KSPs and EVA kerbals) fully loaded, which the VAB unhelpfully calls "0.6t" when unloaded.

File a feedback issue for this. 

[Renegrade]

Just now, Red Iron Crown said:

File a feedback issue for this. 

Roger, will do!

[Rocket In My Pocket]

A request for stock Tweakscale?

Now that's a new one! Lol.

I don't see it happening though.

[Nich]

When I first started playing I thought tweak scale should be stock.  You are right you can never optimize a design (which drives me crazy) however in KSP there is rarely a need to.  As the parts are over powered for the universe anyways.  Now if you went and hacked 50 isp off every engine you would definitely need to play a lot cleaner.

[JeeF]

1 hour ago, Nich said:

When I first started playing I thought tweak scale should be stock.  You are right you can never optimize a design (which drives me crazy) however in KSP there is rarely a need to.  As the parts are over powered for the universe anyways.  Now if you went and hacked 50 isp off every engine you would definitely need to play a lot cleaner.

To be honest I'd love if they made a real solar system stock. In 15 minutes you have tech to orbit Kerbin and in 1 hour of gameplay you're landing on other planets, it's too easy.

But I'm guessing some people like KSP as it is and I may be overstepping my wishes here. I'll continue using mods instead.

Edited April 9, 2016 by JeeF

[Rath]

KER very much yes.  Tweakscale, no way I hell.

[John JACK]

KSP is a lego game. You have limited number of limited parts and have to improvise to get what you need. That's fun.
If you could just rescale every part to your needs, it will be too easy and not challenging enough.

And tweaking scale is absolutely not realistic. As wise men say, you can not scale nature. Every rocket part is a product of research, development, testing, making tools and jigs to actually make it. Changing size means that total mass, cross-sections, strains and loads will be all different too, and engineers have to recalculate everything. Unified mass ratio of all tanks and wing parts in KSP is an oversimplification for sake of easier gameplay.
Even batteries does not rescale. There is one best and most popular type of Li-Ion cell, 18650, near thumb-size. A powerbank or flashlight use one-two of them. Laptop or power tool battery may have up to dozen. Tesla car use several hundred of the same 18650 cells.

As for engineering readouts, it must be done, and it will be done the best way possible.

[pandaman]

For me neither should be integrated into stock as they are. 

They both have functions and features that would IMO be very beneficial for stock, but they also have features that may be too OP, out of scope or not appropriate to the 'stock game' as Squad see it.

The best approach would be for Squad to include some features 'like' those in the mods, but properly integrated into the gameplay and UI.

[Glaran K'erman]

IMO TweakScale could be implemented, just not in it's current form. Has it ever been suggested to add a base fee of funds and/or science when tweaking a part? I've long thought this would discourage players from abusing the system while maintaining full functionality. A second option is to limit the range of tweaking, for example only allowing a 1.25m part to be resized to either .625m or 2.5m.
I'll agree than Tweakscale can be overpowered in situations like Science/Sandbox modes where funds are not an option. But in a career, resize a Spark to 5m and get back to me on the price vs stats, I think you'll find a less tweaked option better. Which is part of my point, Tweakscale gives diminishing returns after a certain amount of scaling - finding yourself moving on to other parts that meet your needs. The argument that Tweakscale lets you use a handful of parts for everything is nonsense. I'll agree there are issues but its utility should be recognized.

[fatcargo]

As long as game has API that will allow TweakScale to work and enhance, i'm happy. It has some features that require too much attention for game devs to make it stock. It should remain a plugin. TScale with PWizard, EdEx and MFT are my "must have" list for SPH editor plugins.