Engineer Kerbals Need to be Expanded Upon

[Trekkerjoe]

I have managed to log 153 hours into this game. I am already setting up a mining operation, and besides the odd contract that required me to have engineers on a space station, I have only ever used them for mining efficiency. They do have a few useful skills, such as repacking parachutes, wheels, and landing legs; but I basically use them as filler.

They need more utility, so here are a few abilities I wished they had:

     -The ability to repair the surface mounted solar panels. (Kerbals have a way of trampling them.)                                                                                                                        -The ability to manipulate the parts on a dead probe, like enabling a battery or toggling a solar panel.                                                                                                              -The ability to make adjustments to parts that normally can only made in the editor, such as closing single use panels, or adjusting action groups, or changing the thrust of SRBs before they are fired.

These three abilities could possibly fill the three empty levels and greatly increase the utility of engineers, however, It will have to be carefully balanced to prevent them from getting overpowered...

Tell me what you think.

[pandaman]

Hi @Trekkerjoe, welcome to the forums.

You will find there has been quite a bit of discussion about the roles of Pilot, Engineer and Scientist and their usefulness, or lack of it,  and crew skill levels too, ever since the career mode was introduced.

I would agree that there are several more 'repair' type tasks that could be included in the engineers skill set, but I tend to think unless they carry the spare parts they can't repair anything very complex.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Agreed, Engineers tend to feel pretty underwhelming compared to Pilots/Scientists.

Love the ideas!

[Red Iron Crown]

16 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Engineers tend to feel pretty underwhelming compared to Pilots/Scientists.

Well, engineers never go obsolete like pilots/scientists do, so they at least have that going for them.

More fixable things would be great for them, though.

[michal.don]

16 hours ago, Trekkerjoe said:

They need more utility, so here are a few abilities I wished they had

Hi there,

I thought the same for the whole time I played stock. What really changed my view on engineers was the moment I installed KIS and KAS. Since then, the game was a completely new story and engineers became the most important part of my space program because of their construction skill. I don't know whether you have any mods installed, but if you are looking for more options for engineers, KIS and KAS might be the thing you are looking for.

Anyway, I agree that more activities and abilites for engineers in stock would be nice.

Michal.don 

[Alshain]

11 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Well, engineers never go obsolete like pilots/scientists do, so they at least have that going for them.

More fixable things would be great for them, though.

Lol, it's hard to go obsolete when they start obsolete.  I can't remember the last time I let an engineer in one of my missions.  Probably not since 0.90.  Pilots and scientists at least have some early game use.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

Well if you don't use ISRU or ever break anything I could see engineers not being all that useful. vOv

[Alshain]

Well, yeah I use Kethane if I want ISRU, though I really don't bother with ISRU at all much anymore, but if I wanted to do mining operations I would never use something as ridiculous as the stock system.

But as for breaking things, as the OP pointed out, there isn't much they can fix.  Landing legs don't break that often, maybe for newer players but I rarely see that happen (don't they just explode now anyway?), wheels I don't really use because rovers in this game are incredibly boring, and again they just explode rather than breaking. Finally, having an extra seat for them just isn't worth it over adding a second set of chutes IMO.

If they could do more as the OP suggested, like repairing solar panels, I would put one on every space station.  It's not even unprecedented in realism, solar panels have been replaced on NASA missions before.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Alshain

[KerikBalm]

What is so ridiculous about the stock system, but not present in Kethane?

I bring along engineers a lot for two purposes: ISRU efficiency (particularly deep space), and chute repacking.

A 2nd set of chutes, really? What if I'm biome hopping on Duna... a pair for the lowlands, a pair for the midlands, a pair for highlands (don't forget drogues, especially for highlands)... oh and a trip to the poles.... or I could... take an engineer....

Wheel repair is also very valuable... while I always find legs just explode, my rover wheels still very much get damaged without exploding, and need repair.

Maybe its because I'm trying to make wheeled 2.5m diameter vehicles that deploy from ramps of the mk3 cargo bays... and the only solution is multiple sets of the smallest wheels to take the weight.

AFAIK, kerbals can already deploy solar panels on a dead probe while on EVA. What I would like is if EVA engineers could retract the "non-retractable" solar panels. As far as repairing them... well they need another intermediate animation for a damaged but repairable state... because when they break and scatter their panels while flying through the atmosphere... well there's no repairing that.

[Alshain]

13 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

What is so ridiculous about the stock system, but not present in Kethane?

I'd be happy to discuss this elsewhere but I have a feeling taking it much further would de-rail the thread (I have a bad habit of getting lost in that kind of discussion).  Suffice to say, I find stock ISRU inadequate so I don't use it.

13 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

A 2nd set of chutes, really? What if I'm biome hopping on Duna... a pair for the lowlands, a pair for the midlands, a pair for highlands (don't forget drogues, especially for highlands)... oh and a trip to the poles.... or I could... take an engineer....

That's fine if that is how you play.  I don't like to exhaust an entire planet/moon in a single mission, I like my game to last a little longer than that.  That's just personal preference though.

13 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Wheel repair is also very valuable... while I always find legs just explode, my rover wheels still very much get damaged without exploding, and need repair.

Well, I haven't used them much, like I said, I don't do rovers either.  However, the wheel/leg stress thing they implemented in 1.1 seems counter intuitive to the wheel/leg breaking functionality.  As far as I've seen they are more prone to exploding before breaking, which that in itself could stand to be fixed.

 

13 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

AFAIK, kerbals can already deploy solar panels on a dead probe while on EVA. What I would like is if EVA engineers could retract the "non-retractable" solar panels. As far as repairing them... well they need another intermediate animation for a damaged but repairable state... because when they break and scatter their panels while flying through the atmosphere... well there's no repairing that.

Well the issue there is the panels being non-retractable was added to make sure the other panels got some use (and to justify their added cost).  Yes, for missions without an engineer they would still be useful but you still risk countering the whole purpose of non-retractable panels in the first place.   As for repairing them, you don't have to assume it's the same panels.  I don't know if you ever saw any of the video from the first Hubble repair mission (I HIGHLY reccomend When We Left Earth, best NASA documentary ever, well worth the very cheap cost) but they just replaced them with new panels.  I can't remember her name unfortunately, but there is a rather famous picture of the astronaut holding the panels waiting for confirmation to release them, and then she just lets go and they float away.  KIS/KAX implemented in stock would definitely make this better as you could then have inventory management, but just imagination of that occurring would also be acceptable.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I HIGHLY reccomend When We Left Earth, best NASA documentary ever, well worth the very cheap cost

A bit off-topic but I have to agree with this. No dramatizations or CGI, just real footage and interviews with the people involved. A must see for any space enthusiast.

[Alshain]

4 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

A bit off-topic but I have to agree with this. No dramatizations or CGI, just real footage and interviews with the people involved. A must see for any space enthusiast.

I've bought like 4 copies now for various people.  My Brother and I are both enthusiasts, and my Grandfather actually welded the Mission Control cabinets used throughout the Apollo missions (the cabinets that hold the computers you see in the video clips) so I got him a copy, don't remember who I gave the 4th one to.  He didn't know what they were for when he made them, but later he recognized his work during broadcasts.  He has always taken great pride that his generation landed on the Moon.

(Sorry, back on topic now)

Edited July 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Waxing_Kibbous]

9 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I've bought like 4 copies now for various people.  My Brother and I are both enthusiasts, and my Grandfather actually welded the Mission Control cabinets used throughout the Apollo missions (the cabinets that hold the computers you see in the video clips) so I got him a copy, don't remember who I gave the 4th one to.  He didn't know what they were for when he made them, but later he recognized his work during broadcasts.  He has always taken great pride that his generation landed on the Moon.

(Sorry, back on topic now)

Cool, my grandfather worked at Bell Aerospace

http://www.niagara-gazette.com/news/local_news/bell-plant-designated-as-historic-aerospace-site/article_8e078246-34ba-5fdb-bc4e-c3c945de4e81.html

Amazing how many small specialized manufacturing plants there are that are involved in various high profile projects

[Trekkerjoe]

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

AFAIK, kerbals can already deploy solar panels on a dead probe while on EVA. What I would like is if EVA engineers could retract the "non-retractable" solar panels. As far as repairing them... well they need another intermediate animation for a damaged but repairable state... because when they break and scatter their panels while flying through the atmosphere... well there's no repairing that.

Did not know that kerbals could do this. There were so many missions I reloaded because I didn't know this. Thank you for letting me know.

 

I did consider the concept of replacing shattered solar panels, but besides having it use up ore, it might be too much to introduce an inventory system just for the engineers.

[Brownhair2]

7 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

What I would like is if EVA engineers could retract the "non-retractable" solar panels.

This would actually be amazing

I know this isn't stock, but KAS/KIS makes engineers much more helpful

Edited July 11, 2016 by Brownhair2

[KerikBalm]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

That's fine if that is how you play.  I don't like to exhaust an entire planet/moon in a single mission, I like my game to last a little longer than that.

...

Well, I haven't used them much, like I said, I don't do rovers either.  However, the wheel/leg stress thing they implemented in 1.1 seems counter intuitive to the wheel/leg breaking functionality.  As far as I've seen they are more prone to exploding before breaking, which that in itself could stand to be fixed.

...

Well the issue there is the panels being non-retractable was added to make sure the other panels got some use (and to justify their added cost).  Yes, for missions without an engineer they would still be useful but you still risk countering the whole purpose of non-retractable panels in the first place.  

#1) Exhausting Duna for science doesn't mean game over. I've got a massive station in duna orbit. I've additionally modded the ISRU (can you point me to a thread where you've already discussed your issues with stock ISRU?) to produce Xenon gas there (works in any atmosphere.. Xenon would be retained better than lighter gases after all). I've put up some major infrastructure there so I can use it as a major hub. Tugs, Duna ISRU craft, Ike ISRU craft, surface research bases for duna and ike, orbiting labs for both as well. Reusable surface to orbit craft, which rely on repacking chutes. The outer planets still await (I've got OPM).

2) Yes, I don't like the exploding mechanic at all. I'm just saying, the wheel repair is still useful, but I've never had a landing strut get damaged but not explode. This mechanic needs work

3) I don't care so much about their cost, but the non retractable ones are less massive, and thats why I use them at times. The only time I really care about that mass: small probes, when there won't be an engineer to retract them. Larger craft: I go with gigantors often.

The only time I want to retract anyway is just before landing to avoid them being damaged by a wobbly landing (can't eva to do that before, so it needs to either retract on its own or have more EC storage)... retract when docking because of worry about damage, or retract in the atmosphere.

To me it would still be an advantage to have them automatically retract without needing to send out an engineer to prep a craft for docking/landing/atmospheric travel.

There's still the difference of heat tolerance. Even before deployment, those non retractable ones have a much lower heat tolerance (i guess the casing of the retractable ones is supposed to be their heat protection). Even if you could retract the non-retractable ones for aerobraking, they'd probably still burn off if you try to aerocapture. So to me, there would still be plenty of difference even if engineers could eva to retract them. Plus they'd be kind of a pain to have to eva to each of them and click on them, even if there were no other relevant differences.

[Alshain]

2 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

#1) Exhausting Duna for science doesn't mean game over. I've got a massive station in duna orbit. I've additionally modded the ISRU (can you point me to a thread where you've already discussed your issues with stock ISRU?) to produce Xenon gas there (works in any atmosphere.. Xenon would be retained better than lighter gases after all). I've put up some major infrastructure there so I can use it as a major hub. Tugs, Duna ISRU craft, Ike ISRU craft, surface research bases for duna and ike, orbiting labs for both as well. Reusable surface to orbit craft, which rely on repacking chutes. The outer planets still await (I've got OPM).

2) Yes, I don't like the exploding mechanic at all. I'm just saying, the wheel repair is still useful, but I've never had a landing strut get damaged but not explode. This mechanic needs work

3) I don't care so much about their cost, but the non retractable ones are less massive, and thats why I use them at times. The only time I really care about that mass: small probes, when there won't be an engineer to retract them. Larger craft: I go with gigantors often.

The only time I want to retract anyway is just before landing to avoid them being damaged by a wobbly landing (can't eva to do that before, so it needs to either retract on its own or have more EC storage)... retract when docking because of worry about damage, or retract in the atmosphere.

To me it would still be an advantage to have them automatically retract without needing to send out an engineer to prep a craft for docking/landing/atmospheric travel.

There's still the difference of heat tolerance. Even before deployment, those non retractable ones have a much lower heat tolerance (i guess the casing of the retractable ones is supposed to be their heat protection). Even if you could retract the non-retractable ones for aerobraking, they'd probably still burn off if you try to aerocapture. So to me, there would still be plenty of difference even if engineers could eva to retract them. Plus they'd be kind of a pain to have to eva to each of them and click on them, even if there were no other relevant differences.

 

In regards to cost, I didn't necessarily mean monetary cost, but overall cost.  Mass is part of the cost of using the retractable part, heat tolerance is part of the cost in using the non-retractable part.  Personally I like the distinction as they are.  However, if you want them back to being fully automatic, I could write you a patch to do that.  I can't do it EVA only though.

[KerikBalm]

yea, as they are now, its fine. I could change the .cfg file to make them self-retract easily enough.

It was just an idea for a lvl4 or lvl5 engineer skill

[juanml82]

It really depends on play-style, but engineers are the most useful jobs, IMHO. Scientists turn obsolete the moment you max out the tech tree. Pilots turn obsolete the moment you unlock the okto probe core

[Alshain]

Don't forget that probes are getting a nerf in the next patch (sort of).

[Wjolcz]

I'd prefer KAS

[regex]

I think Kerbal "classes" were one of the poorest game design decisions made for KSP because there are so few individual tasks to divvy up to the individual "classes".  If we want to make the Engineer better while at the same time not obsoleting the Scientist and Pilot we need to roll the classes back into one: "astronaut".

[pandaman]

16 hours ago, regex said:

I think Kerbal "classes" were one of the poorest game design decisions made for KSP because there are so few individual tasks to divvy up to the individual "classes".  If we want to make the Engineer better while at the same time not obsoleting the Scientist and Pilot we need to roll the classes back into one: "astronaut".

I would tend to agree with this too.

a simple(ish) variation would be to allow astronauts to learn specific 'tasks' (like - repair wheel, hold prograde, reset experiment) or, perhaps more simply, gain skill levels from the three existing disciplines.  This could be linked to the Courage and Stupidity traits so, for example, a high stupidity Kerbal  would find it more difficult to learn more advanced Science skills, but a high bravery score gives an advantage when learning Pilot skills.

[SchwinnTropius]

3 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I would tend to agree with this too.

a simple(ish) variation would be to allow astronauts to learn specific 'tasks' (like - repair wheel, hold prograde, reset experiment) or, perhaps more simply, gain skill levels from the three existing disciplines.  This could be linked to the Courage and Stupidity traits so, for example, a high stupidity Kerbal  would find it more difficult to learn more advanced Science skills, but a high bravery score gives an advantage when learning Pilot skills.

Would be a perfect way to incorporate those stats into the gane as well, as opposed to them being simply visual and for the LOLz.