İs it so hard to implement assigning crew to command seats in VAB/SPH

[Matuchkin]

Just now, Epox75 said:

What I meant is that both installing a mod or adding weight when a kerbal boards are not a solution. If SQUAD finds a way to avoid controlling a whole rocket from a single command seat, then an implementation of this feature is more than welcome. If the implementation would be like the mod that gives the possibility to people, for instance playing in Career mode, to launch a kerbal in orbit without a command pod, then I don't think that this is what SQUAD wants from the game and on this I agree with them. 

Ah, I think I know what to do! Say, you can board a command chair from the VAB/SPH. However, you can only control rocket engines, SRBs or reaction wheels from a command pod. In a command chair, however, you will only be able to control things like wheels, headlights, jet/plane/propeller engines, control surfaces, and other parts that can mostly be used in rovers or planes and will be generally useless if in space.

[HebaruSan]

9 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Ah, I think I know what to do! Say, you can board a command chair from the VAB/SPH. However, you can only control rocket engines, SRBs or reaction wheels from a command pod. In a command chair, however, you will only be able to control things like wheels, headlights, jet/plane/propeller engines, control surfaces, and other parts that can mostly be used in rovers or planes and will be generally useless if in space.

I'm sure that would never result in complaints of, "How dang hard is it to run one more wire from X to a button on the seat?? SQUID PLS FIX"

[Matuchkin]

Just now, HebaruSan said:

I'm sure that would never result in complaints of, "How dang hard is it to run one more wire from X to a button on the seat?? SQUID PLS FIX"

It's better than not being able to put a kerbal on that seat at all. And it displays the efforts to stop overpowered usage more clearly.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Matuchkin

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

Ah, I think I know what to do! Say, you can board a command chair from the VAB/SPH. However, you can only control rocket engines, SRBs or reaction wheels from a command pod. In a command chair, however, you will only be able to control things like wheels, headlights, jet/plane/propeller engines, control surfaces, and other parts that can mostly be used in rovers or planes and will be generally useless if in space.

I think adding another arbitrary rule to alleviate the problems with a current arbitrary rule is going about this the wrong way.

[Matuchkin]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

I think adding another arbitrary rule to alleviate the problems with a current arbitrary rule is going about this the wrong way.

But how else to fix this meta-arbitrary-rule problem?

[panzer1b]

The entire "exploit" concept has been beaten to death and i think its about time everyone lets it go.  For one, the seat abuse exploit (if you even consider it an explout in the first place) is already in the game, just requires an extra pointless step before takeoff, at most an annoyance, not going to discourage use of external seats normally anyway.  All this does is add pointless clicking and wastes time when transferring kerbals to teh seats.  Extremely agrevating when testing vessels as you have to reseat the kerbals every single time when trying a new iteration of your design. 

Also worth mentioning is that KSP, allowing such creative freedom is always going to have methods that allow something "unrealistic" or outright cheap (like the good old kraken drives which still exist to an extent).  That and for now its singleplayer, one person's exploit is another person's creativity.  Take part clipping, myself i liberally abuse it if and when im trying to make something look a particular way, and not once do i consider part clipping in of itself a cheat, more like a mechanic that allows me to actually build what i want to build in the shape and look i want it to be in without resorting to part mods.

Until multiplayer is actually implemented, specifically some sort of competitive multiplayer, i dont think anyone should care about exploit or not, if you dont like a certain building style (say part clipping as example), you are free to not use that style in your gameplay.  Same thing with seat abuse, if you feel that placing a kerbal on a seat and landing on tylo with that is unrealistic, then just dont use a command seat.  While i know this is all speculation on our part, if the lack of this feature really is to discourage exploits, then you should do something about the command seat itself to make it balanced and not keep a very useful and convenient feature out of the game in the form of no spawning kerbals in seats.

[HebaruSan]

24 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

Until multiplayer is actually implemented, specifically some sort of competitive multiplayer, i dont think anyone should care about exploit or not, if you dont like a certain building style (say part clipping as example), you are free to not use that style in your gameplay.  Same thing with seat abuse, if you feel that placing a kerbal on a seat and landing on tylo with that is unrealistic, then just dont use a command seat.  While i know this is all speculation on our part, if the lack of this feature really is to discourage exploits, then you should do something about the command seat itself to make it balanced and not keep a very useful and convenient feature out of the game in the form of no spawning kerbals in seats.

For my part, I don't think it's a question of play style or what anyone personally likes or dislikes, because of course your craft designs don't affect me. Personally, I have installed and used TakeCommand before, and found it convenient for certain purposes.

Rather, this is a question of the design decisions that structure and balance the game mechanics and available parts, because what SQUAD does with stock determines the default behavior that all players get before they install any mods. I'm not even saying the seat should or must have its current limitations, just that it's entirely justifiable for it to have them if SQUAD wants it to, both from a game balance perspective (408 kg discrepancy to account for between otherwise equivalent setups) and from a realism perspective (safety of launching crew to space in open air) if we wish to invent such reasons. I'll even admit that a smarter version of the same limitation concept would be preferable, such as if crew actually did die when strapped to the side of a supersonic rocket, since then we could test crewed rovers while still having reasons to use command pods for rockets. But the status quo is really not that bad.

The game now has an orbit editor built-in, so launches are no longer strictly necessary, depending on your play style. Does that mean the launch gameplay should be obliterated and replaced with a popup box in the VAB that asks you to input your desired orbit altitude? Of course not, because the primary experience is intended to include launches. Similarly, the command seat is intended to provide the player a trade-off design choice between less mass and greater functionality.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

But how else to fix this meta-arbitrary-rule problem?

Not have the rule in the first place.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

People say that using the seat is an exploit because it's lightweight compared to a command pod.

But the seat:

Doesn't stow any flags (and no part adds this to it in stock)

Doesn't provide an infinite supply of EVA propellant (and no part adds this to it in stock)

Doesn't take crew reports (and no part adds this to it in stock)

Doesn't store experiments

Doesn't provide torque

Doesn't store monopropellant

Doesn't store electric charge

Doesn't provide thermal protection

Doesn't have a radar altimeter (and no part adds this to it in stock)

Doesn't provide an aerodynamic shape

Doesn't provide complete protection from accidental spaghettification

Doesn't have attachment nodes, and thus cannot be stacked on top of each other without a frame.

Can't teleport it's occupant to another location on the ship via the "transfer crew" function (and no part adds this to it in stock)

If this feature is implemented, they will presumably be unable to hold tourists because the tourist could be knocked free of the ship, a condition which the game does not allow.

Meanwhile a command pod can do/has all of these things in one convenient part.

Even putting aside roleplay, these tradeoffs seem to make it pretty balanced.

If someone wants to use a combination of parts that has less features but also less mass for a particular mission, more power to him!

There are situations in which a combination of parts are technically better in every way except part count! (Ex: 2Mk1 lander cans vs. 1 Mk2 lander can). Seats are not one of them, so why this arbitrary rule?

I see no gameplay reason why I shouldn't be able to launch with a Kerbal in a command seat.

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[Columbia]

On 11/17/2016 at 0:29 AM, Epox75 said:

Then download the mod. Isn't that the same way to think?

What?

That's directed to the developers, not the people using it. Tell me, how is that the "same way to think"?

17 hours ago, Epox75 said:

What I meant is that both installing a mod or adding weight when a kerbal boards are not a solution. If SQUAD finds a way to avoid controlling a whole rocket from a single command seat, then an implementation of this feature is more than welcome. If the implementation would be like the mod that gives the possibility to people, for instance playing in Career mode, to launch a kerbal in orbit without a command pod, then I don't think that this is what SQUAD wants from the game and on this I agree with them.

I just read your response to Matuchkin.

I'll emphasize what @panzer1b said:

Quote

The entire "exploit" concept has been beaten to death and i think its about time everyone lets it go.  For one, the seat abuse exploit (if you even consider it an explout in the first place) is already in the game, just requires an extra pointless step before takeoff, at most an annoyance, not going to discourage use of external seats normally anyway.  All this does is add pointless clicking and wastes time when transferring kerbals to teh seats. 

Quote

Also worth mentioning is that KSP, allowing such creative freedom is always going to have methods that allow something "unrealistic" or outright cheap (like the good old kraken drives which still exist to an extent).  That and for now its singleplayer, one person's exploit is another person's creativity. 

And yes, the exploit is already in game. It's just an added burden that doesn't directly address the issues we're having with them. And limitations do need to be imposed, but that's a whole other story. Certainly not this kind of limitation.

And how is it the same way to think? Adding weight is a part of a probable solution, but your analogy implies that it's useless.

Also, what would happen if it became an exploit? Oh no, a draggy seat prone to burning has become slightly more usable. The world will burn.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Columbia

[klgraham1013]

As far as I'm concerned, this "exploit" is more about a player's willpower than any actual problem.  The game currently allows me to clip 8 X200-8 fuel tanks into each other, giving me an orange tank that's only a meter tall.  Why is clipping an accepted mechanic, but having all command seats crewable not?  It's a single player game.  Let the player decide how much they want to bend the rules.

Edited November 18, 2016 by klgraham1013

[monstah]

8 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

People say that using the seat is an exploit because it's lightweight compared to a command pod.

But the seat:

Doesn't stow any flags (and no part adds this to it in stock)

Doesn't provide an infinite supply EVA propellant (and no part adds this to it in stock)

Doesn't take crew reports (and no part adds this to it in stock)

Doesn't store experiments

Doesn't provide torque

Doesn't store monopropellant

Doesn't store electric charge

Doesn't provide thermal protection

Doesn't have a radar altimeter (and no part adds this to it in stock)

Doesn't provide an aerodynamic shape

Doesn't provide complete protection from accidental spaghettification

Doesn't have attachment nodes, and thus cannot be stacked on top of each other without a frame.

Can't teleport it's occupant to another location on the ship via the "transfer crew" function (and no part adds this to it in stock)

If this feature is implemented, they will presumably be unable to hold tourists because the tourist could be knocked free of the ship, a condition which the game does not allow.

Meanwhile a command pod can do/has all of these things in one convenient part.

Even putting aside roleplay, these tradeoffs seem to make it pretty balanced.

If someone wants to use a combination of parts that has less features but also less mass for a particular mission, more power to him!

There are situations in which a combination of parts are technically better in every way except part count! (Ex: 2Mk1 lander cans vs. 1 Mk2 lander can). Seats are not one of them, so why this arbitrary rule?

I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to launch with a Kerbal in a command seat.

I absolutely agree with everything you said in regards to the "it's an exploit" (not that I have any problems with people playing it how they want, just that I don't feel bad about using it myself).

However, when I look at that list, and then look at the thread title, I wonder... maybe they are implemented differently in code. Maybe the real question has been mentioned only in the first posts and then forgotten; it's not "why don't they let us do that", but rather "is it so hard to implement". And maybe, the answer is, "yes, it is".

Sure, that was a mod that did it, but the fact it was a mod and not just a module manager patch means there's something that has to be changed in code. And the fact that the maintainer can't get it to work on 1.2 might mean that, maybe yes, it's hard. Which is a shame  

[magnemoe]

On 15.11.2016 at 4:36 PM, PilotMax said:

Maybe they didn't because they don't think it should be in a realistic or semi-realistic game. The only non-abusive use for this that I can see is testing rovers.

Testing rovers is important, they require extensive testing unlike smaller rockets. However I always have probe on them.

You have some light plane designs who works realistic with the seat. 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

8 hours ago, monstah said:

... "is it so hard to implement". And maybe, the answer is, "yes, it is"...

Yah that would make sense, considering that there isn't any way to "launch" kerbals themselves. Perhaps some quirk makes it hard to spawn kerbals without them being in a part first. Of note is that (AFAIK) kerbals are the only moveable objects (aside from shapes from the object thrower) that do not have a part file. Even the asteroids have a "potatoroid" file. Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, Kerbals just have a cfg and the rest is kind of built into the rest of the game.

 

[Azimech]

Seriously you guys telling us a pod is a fine replacement for a chair ... can you imagine a Dodge Charger with a pod?

 

 

No?

Me neither.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Azimech

[Pds314]

On 11/16/2016 at 5:12 AM, Epox75 said:

The reasons why SQUAD didn't implement this function could be many. First of all there's a very light mod for it as @Red Iron Crown posted before and with this mod you can literally launch a rocket with a command seat that weights basically nothing and is utterly unrealistic. I don't think this is what SQUAD from the vanilla game. 

 

Uh. Actually this isn't that unrealistic. I'll bet the command seat of early biplanes was lighter than that. Heck, in an ultralight, the entire vehicle could be lighter. The thing that should balance this is safety and longevity. A command seat has no food, no water, no extra oxygen, no heat shielding, no magical torque generators, no windscreen, no bed, etc. The fastest anyone has ever gone in an open cockpit and lived was 570 mph, so they probably can't go supersonic without killing the pilot.

 

IRL, the reason we make cockpits is safety, longevity, and MOAR BUTTONZ! Also, not all cockpits are ridiculously heavy. A Cessna Skyhawk seats 4 in a plane weighing 550 kg. Most of that is not the cockpit.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Pds314

[klgraham1013]

23 hours ago, Pds314 said:

Snip

Good explanation, and another example of how life support would add gameplay.