Convert-O-Tron (ISRU) modes produce in parallel for increased output. Intended?

[Z3R0Gravitas]

New to the game, starting at 1.2.2, I found it surprising that they worked like this (when I tested the 250 on the launch pad). Lf+Ox mode supplemented the output rate (and ore consumption) from the individual Ox and Liquid fuel modes. (The referenced control window, for clarity.)

A friend who's been playing KSP for longer said this definitely didn't used to be the case, and thought it a bug. So is this deliberate, accidental or other...? Thanks.

[Speeding Mullet]

12 hours ago, Z3R0Gravitas said:

New to the game, starting at 1.2.2, I found it surprising that they worked like this (when I tested the 250 on the launch pad). Lf+Ox mode supplemented the output rate (and ore consumption) from the individual Ox and Liquid fuel modes. (The referenced control window, for clarity.)

A friend who's been playing KSP for longer said this definitely didn't used to be the case, and thought it a bug. So is this deliberate, accidental or other...? Thanks.

I found a post after much researching why this would be the case on Reddit from a year ago which confirms that whatever the reason it's been in the game for a long time without someone correcting it.  That leads me to think it may well be a planned part of the part.  Perhaps @RoverDude might be able to advise, as he's a real resource specialist among many other things.

SM

[Z3R0Gravitas]

4 hours ago, Speeding Mullet said:

I found a post after much researching why this would be the case on Reddit from a year ago which confirms that whatever the reason it's been in the game for a long time

Ah, well found, the last couple of comments there (1, 2), from 18 months back. So whether or not it changed in between, it used to do this too. Ok.

On the subject of Convert-o-trons, when trying to figure out their production rate (relative to drills), I found that basically all the specific info on their Wiki pages are totally wrong (the 250). E.g. they *do* now receive an engineer bonus (like the drills). I removed the counter-claim from that page (to see if it would spur an experienced contributor into action), but the numbers and mechanics involved are still too fresh and complex for me to be sure of updating it all myself, as yet.

Think any experienced players might be motivated to update it? It must be misleading/confusing a lot of new players. It doesn't seem like the only outdated info there, I guess the original contributors have mostly moved away from it...?

Edited January 12, 2017 by Z3R0Gravitas

[sal_vager]

Most likely it's the engineer bonus, we'd have to have your save to see your exact setup, Kerbals etc.

[Z3R0Gravitas]

16 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

Most likely it's the engineer bonus

Sorry, what is? I don't track... That the convert-o-trons produce in parallel is down to the presence of an engineer? Should they not produce in parallel?

I'm running stock and seems like it's not only me. If you put a unit on the launch pad, with a 1 star engineer (with a full ore tank and space for fuel to go) do you not see different consumption rates (when switching additional modes on), too? (Thanks for reply.)

Edited January 12, 2017 by Z3R0Gravitas
clarity

[sal_vager]

36 minutes ago, Z3R0Gravitas said:

Sorry, what is? I don't track... That the convert-o-trons produce in parallel is down to the presence of an engineer? Should they not produce in parallel?

I'm running stock and seems like it's not only me. If you put a unit on the launch pad, with a 1 star engineer (with a full ore tank and space for fuel to go) do you not see different consumption rates (when switching additional modes on), too? (Thanks for reply.)

Not sure I'm following what you mean by 'supplement' here, and the engineer bonus was added in 1.2.2 so it's still pretty new (and breaks asteroid mining).

With no bonuses from engineers I'd expect two convert-o-trons on lf+o to output twice the liquid fuel and oxidiser then one (obviously) but if I have one converter on lf+o and the other on fuel alone I expect it to give me 3x the fuel as I'd get from one converter and 1x the oxygen.

Testing it here shows what I expect, I'll have to try with different engineers as well.

Edit:

It's a pain when you only have two numbers past the decimal, but my results look okay.

[Z3R0Gravitas]

52 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

Not sure I'm following what you mean by 'supplement' here

I'm talking about when using a single convert-o-tron unit. It can have multiple modes running at once, without them impacting each other's production rates. Is this expected? See Gif:

 

[sal_vager]

15 minutes ago, Z3R0Gravitas said:

I'm talking about when using a single convert-o-tron unit. It can have multiple modes running at once, without them impacting each other's production rates. Is this expected? See Gif:

 

Oh I see, well I don't think that's quite right

It does make the converter produce a lot more heat though, you'll need plenty of radiators to keep it under control, it could be used sparingly as an overdrive mode for those of us who don't like the wait.

It doesn't appear to have ever been reported on the bug tracker, so if you'd like to please report the issue there, I might actually start mining instead of my preferred strategy of sending refuelling drones from Kerbin in my own games, until this gets fixed that is.

[Z3R0Gravitas]

39 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

It doesn't appear to have ever been reported

....Wah. That's a pretty massive bug to have gone unnoticed for so long by anyone on the team... Never accidentally having started a different mode without stopping another first? 4 ISRUs for the price, size and (most importantly) mass or one. Makes a rather big difference as to the component composition of all of one's (mining) basses, from mid-game onwards, surely? Or, I guess most players just hit fast forward and don't think twice...?

Anyway, I have (created an account and) added it to the bug tracker, normal priority. That likely to be seen (and possibly be dealt with)?

[sal_vager]

16 minutes ago, Z3R0Gravitas said:

....Wah. That's a pretty massive bug to have gone unnoticed for so long by anyone on the team... Never accidentally having started a different mode without stopping another first? 4 ISRUs for the price, size and (most importantly) mass or one. Makes a rather big difference as to the component composition of all of one's (mining) basses, from mid-game onwards, surely? Or, I guess most players just hit fast forward and don't think twice...?

Anyway, I have (created an account and) added it to the bug tracker, normal priority. That likely to be seen (and possibly be dealt with)?

You were supposed to be able to run the monoprop conversion along with fuel and oxidiser (or both), so it looks like the button for lf+o was set to a normal button, instead of what's called a 'radio' button that deselects other buttons in its group.

I'll make sure the devs know about your report, thanks for posting it, as for not being seen, maybe it was intended all along, we haven't heard from RoverDude yet, and he's the guy behind KSP,s ISRU.

[Val]

I never considered it as a bug, since I thought it was balanced by proportional heat and electricity demands.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Val
Clarification and better grammar.

[Z3R0Gravitas]

6 hours ago, Val said:

I never considered it as a bug

Well, from a logical point of view, having parallel production hardware for each type of output makes sense (arguably). But space grade tech that has two entirely redundant pipelines for oxidiser and fuel seems kind of excessive.

The ISRUs (that aren't called ISRUs anymore, except when they are) are confusing in general, though, and I wasn't sure if this was somewhat deliberate, to give expert players something complex to figure out (and a big boost resulting from that). I mean, in the VAB/SPH, the Convert-O-Tron info-tips talk about engineers increasing their "efficiency", but their input-to-output ratio is locked (at 100% for the 250 and 10% for the 125), while it's their rate that is modified. Then, of course, there's no mention of how big those engineer rate bonuses are (or just how much worst the 125 is compared to the 250). And the statistic numbers (e.g. "-Ore: 0.55/s", "ElectricCharge: 30.00/s) relate only to a "100% load" status (of an individual converter mode), not to the base rate, or any of the engineer bonus related rates. Those are all (far) lower than that (at 100% 'thermal efficiency'), except with a 5 star engineer, when the convertors can operate at 125%.
Long ramble short - might the Convert-O-Tron component tool tips be clarified or simplified at all? (Or are they a deliberately abstruse aspect of the game?)

[RoverDude]

8 hours ago, Val said:

I never considered it as a bug, since I thought it was balanced by proportional heat and electricity demands.

This is the correct answer.

Stock has no mechanism for converter swapping, so the cost of running multiple modules simultaneously is increased cost.

[sal_vager]

Maybe it'd make more sense to have liquid fuel, oxidiser and monoprop only, and remove the combined LF+O option, that would treat the converter as having three separate reactions in one device.

[Superfluous J]

I always just assumed that - because LFO was the most likely thing to want - the Kerbal part builders made it so you could opt to make it twice as fast.

[klesh]

5 hours ago, sal_vager said:

Maybe it'd make more sense to have liquid fuel, oxidiser and monoprop only, and remove the combined LF+O option, that would treat the converter as having three separate reactions in one device.

 

I like this option best.

[Z3R0Gravitas]

19 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Stock has no mechanism for converter swapping, so the cost of running multiple modules simultaneously is increased cost.

Hey, thanks for the reply.  Sorry my little question's got a bit out of hand, heh. So are the Convert-O-Trons based on a (old) mod then? (That had separate converter units?)

[RoverDude]

On 1/13/2017 at 5:49 AM, sal_vager said:

Maybe it'd make more sense to have liquid fuel, oxidiser and monoprop only, and remove the combined LF+O option, that would treat the converter as having three separate reactions in one device.

This too was a very specific design choice   Harvester and I had a lot of chats on this.  Be happy to go over the details in slack.

The super short version - we felt that the need for people to be able to make LFO at the correct ratios as well as just LF (to support nukes) without 'dumping' oxidizer (and wasting reaction mass) was worth having the dual converters.   Player feedback during 1.0 experimentals confirmed this, so that's why they are the way they are.

22 hours ago, Z3R0Gravitas said:

Hey, thanks for the reply.  Sorry my little question's got a bit out of hand, heh. So are the Convert-O-Trons based on a (old) mod then? (That had separate converter units?)

The Convert-O-Trons (and really, all resource mechanics in stock) are based on Regolith (which was a resource mod I wrote prior to joining the dev team after 0.90) that was integrated into stock.

Edited January 14, 2017 by RoverDude

[fourfa]

On 1/12/2017 at 5:55 AM, Val said:

I never considered it as a bug, since I thought it was balanced by proportional heat and electricity demands.

Agreed, there's been talk forever about the four independent channels of ISRU.   Each with its own costs