Kerbin Infrastructure and Improvements

[Spricigo]

16 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Already tried it, it isn't good enough

The only thing I can say is "try harder".

The extra initial science is not enough to unlock the entire tech tree, but is more than enough to get the parts for whatever contract you may get that early. And, with science rewards cranked up, will be quick and easier to unlock the rest.

I'm not saying it's the perfect solution, but is a workable solution.

[Spricigo]

9 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Remember you can still Play the game as is will the research lab Their you don't have to edit parts it's jut a option

Again, that's not the problem. The devs will need to work more, thus it cost more to Squad, to implement your idea with the research lab than to implement the idea without the research lab. 

It's a simple matter of cost/reward, the research lab (in my opinion) significantly increase the cost to implement your idea without significantly increasing the potential* rewards.

*and the fact the rewards are only potential is important. 

[Cheif Operations Director]

54 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

Again, that's not the problem. The devs will need to work more, thus it cost more to Squad, to implement your idea with the research lab than to implement the idea without the research lab. 

It's a simple matter of cost/reward, the research lab (in my opinion) significantly increase the cost to implement your idea without significantly increasing the potential* rewards.

*and the fact the rewards are only potential is important. 

The Rewards are we can oversee design down to the smallest detail and not just overall construction of a rocket. Also SQUAD doesn't need to add rocket engines/variants that already exist only add brand new types of engine for example no more reliant and swivel scenarios. the reliant engine or swivel, one of the two wouldn't even need to exist if this had been implemented from the begining. Practically everything in Making History we could create on our own. Vostok could be made out of a Stayputnik probe and then ever dated to support crew We could build our own LEMs Our own Soyuz Craft the N1 Apollo Hyperaccurate Gemini External Fuel tanks etc with this, all squad would need to put about as much effort as they did 1.2 or maby Making History to implement this. If we had gotten this instead of making history Then almost all mods involving parts would be useless. We could design what ever space stations we wanted, and we don't need to hear can you add so and so part, James Webb, Hubble, and more could all be designed. I only use fuel tanks and engines as a example because they would be the easiest. You merge a bunch of existing parts into one big part wothnits own values, the player adjust the dimensions and stats and the texture if they so choose. I would even propose that SQUAD at parts for visual appeal only like portholes and such, This would transform Kerbal space program into the traditional game we all love but also a physics and space program simulator even more so. If engines can be scaled up and down and adjusted with cooling pipes to as such improve efficiency and such sure it's complicated and I would expect it to be dumbed down like build rockets in KSP currently is. Even if we got parts for increased efficiency like cooling pipes a nuclear engines wouldn't overheat that quickly which would increase Maneuver node effectiveness which would increase Delta-V, The Player community is restricted by platform and mods (involving parts) as much as they are now. Eventually most KSP Players would use the "Research Lab" st one point or another, and e fact that when making a new part in the Lab it doesn't interfere with parts in game I could have A Normal and Scaled up RS-25 Engine on the same Rocket. This Improvement would allow squad to focus on improving Physics, Asteroid Belts, meteor showers and more in LATER Updates instead of always needing to add a new stock part or improve a so called bad texture, which only half of the community will like. If a centeral Server similarly to Simple Planes was created to share parts the people who enjoy this type of creativity could upload a part for others to download then highly  sophisticated parts would be created and people who enjoy texturing would work on it too, this could a version of multiplayer not in game but in design of the game. The players would OWN Kerbin Infrastructure. I'm not suggesting multiplayer or anything that wasn't mentioned in the original post but they are POSSIBILITES/REWARDS Of a "Research Lab" Although the part about all parts being editable and creative new parts which goes for telescopes and new crew modules is a EXAMPLE of what could be done. Even a way to create new parts with no template just draw and image and fill (although they will be ugly) using a form of symmetry and drawing tools maby it could be a paid DLC (only the research lab part of The Infrastructre Suggestion) and if SQUAD Wants to keep developing new parts for the game after it isn't a problem. My point is instead of us begging squad for new parts let's just make them ourselfs IN GAME with no mods... Thoughts?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Cheif Operations Director

[Spricigo]

Yes lots of "possibilities". But it don't matter.

Not without taking in account all the coding, testing and maintenance necessary to make it happen. And even after that, much of that possibilities may still not translate in reality.

Also how much computational resources will be required to run all that extra code. 

 

Another point is that functionality is not necessary for your original idea of an improved infrastructure. All that energy Is being put away from what should be the main argument behind your proposal: how extra launchpads, runaways and landing zones can make the game better. How it can be integrated with other parts of the game.

 

[Cheif Operations Director]

45 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

Yes lots of "possibilities". But it don't matter.

Not without taking in account all the coding, testing and maintenance necessary to make it happen. And even after that, much of that possibilities may still not translate in reality.

Also how much computational resources will be required to run all that extra code. 

 

Another point is that functionality is not necessary for your original idea of an improved infrastructure. All that energy Is being put away from what should be the main argument behind your proposal: how extra launchpads, runaways and landing zones can make the game better. How it can be integrated with other parts of the game.

 

Ok maby landing zones will give some credits back for the parts you recover on it so it's more cost effective to land it in a designated area just like in real Life it also makes Falcon 9 style landing harder/better. Extra Launchpads are more for appearances but  can be used for doing a few launches in a row and being able to get a decent  Rendezvous. Runways could refuel your craft if you leave them parked for 2 real minutes. That way you can transport let's say cars and such across Kerbin without having to build a Giant plane or one that has half of it as a ore refinery. As someone suggested investing in Seaports and Railways could reduce science and credits needed too spend on parts and research, Repairing Baikonuber Cosomdrome (BCD) Could allow for a new space program on the same save (so you could make a craft Their and then transfer it to KSC and vise verse so your craft logs are not overflowed as much. If you chose this your craft logs would be better organized. Factories could also reduce cost and many give you a free part once every 15 times it's used. (So if I use 15 Thrusters I get 1 free) Relay Stations connected to a launch facility (excluding tracking center) could launch two rockets at the same time and keep them in perfect sync by keep them at their designated distance until the "craft lock" launch is deactivated. The second craft would be A.I. But experience your every pogo problem and Air Resistance problem, it would effectivly be a "shadow craft" when it comes to control. This way docking and  Rendezvous could be a bit better BUT no more that two craft this way the game doesn't go completely crazy and also for multi part space stations they still need to do a Rendezvous this would only make it better.

Thoughts?

Edited December 11, 2017 by Cheif Operations Director

[Cheif Operations Director]

34 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

Yes lots of "possibilities". But it don't matter.

Not without taking in account all the coding, testing and maintenance necessary to make it happen. And even after that, much of that possibilities may still not translate in reality.

Also how much computational resources will be required to run all that extra code. 

 

Another point is that functionality is not necessary for your original idea of an improved infrastructure. All that energy Is being put away from what should be the main argument behind your proposal: how extra launchpads, runaways and landing zones can make the game better. How it can be integrated with other parts of the game.

 

Also do you think my "Research Lab" Will take less or more time than Making History 

I think it's less complicated that you think is basically a image editor that calculates its size and find is minimum and maximum capabilities and lets you toggle them. It's merges parts when you ask it too but in the end the final product has to be one part. If you chose too do your graphic design you have the ability to do so. That's really is it's dumbed down 3d Photoshop that calculates size and gives togglable statistics. Additional Parts you make for crew parts and telescopes are just bunch of buttons to toggle on and off. Turn on crew part and you get a controls available to that type of part all you MUST do to select a class engine tank crew part OR other if you want complete freedom

Edited December 11, 2017 by Cheif Operations Director

[Spricigo]

2 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Also do you think my "Research Lab" Will take less or more time than Making History 

A lot more than creating new parts to Making History.

The devs already have the tools and knowledge to create parts. It's a tested&true method to produce new parts.

You proposal instead requires 1) creating new tools for part creation 2)that need to be simple enough to be used by people without much knowledge 3)run on whatever machine/system KSP is installed 4)  run Inside KSP and along God knows how many mods.

It's clearly a longer and more tortuous path.

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, Spricigo said:

A lot more than creating new parts to Making History.

The devs already have the tools and knowledge to create parts. It's a tested&true method to produce new parts.

You proposal instead requires 1) creating new tools for part creation 2)that need to be simple enough to be used by people without much knowledge 3)run on whatever machine/system KSP is installed 4)  run Inside KSP and along God knows how many mods.

It's clearly a longer and more tortuous path.

True but as stated it's a dumbed down 3d Photoshop when ever you chose  THEN hit the calculate statistics button and edit them . Etc, I got to go and look forward to discussing this later and finding a way to iron out this suggestion but I Got to go 

[NSEP]

Interesting idea, adds in an extra end game kind of goal.

[Cheif Operations Director]

15 hours ago, Spricigo said:

A lot more than creating new parts to Making History.

The devs already have the tools and knowledge to create parts. It's a tested&true method to produce new parts.

You proposal instead requires 1) creating new tools for part creation 2)that need to be simple enough to be used by people without much knowledge 3)run on whatever machine/system KSP is installed 4)  run Inside KSP and along God knows how many mods.

It's clearly a longer and more tortuous path.

I'm back

Yes that is all true just like they had to do with making history

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

I'm back

Yes that is all true just like they had to do with making history

Nope.

They don't need to create part creation tools, those are already available.

Neither they can learn how to deal with then, they used that tools before. People without the proper knowledge will not even come near the process so it don't need to be 'dumbed down".

They will be using high performance machines, not the potatoes that some KSP players have.

Its the difference between doing a surgery  in hospital and doing it in a lumber mill.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Spricigo said:

Nope.

They don't need to create part creation tools, those are already available.

Neither they can learn how to deal with then, they used that tools before. People without the proper knowledge will not even come near the process so it don't need to be 'dumbed down".

They will be using high performance machines, not the potatoes that some KSP players have.

Its the difference between doing a surgery  in hospital and doing it in a lumber mill.

The creation tool already exist, offset, gimble, and re root they would need To add parts light porthole, cooling pipe, and such but they are like spells in clash of clans they IMPROVE troops damage similarly a a cooling pipe would increase SpecificImpulse by let's say 25 points. A porthole would allow Kerbals to see through like a window. Those are examples. The Research Lab  is a VAB that is called Research Lab. Instead of creating rockets though it makes a type of new part that you create. This is similarly to the transform mode in photo shop. Finally you just edit the statistics of the part after the size and volume of the part has been determined This way no ridiculous Specific impulses and Volume numbers are existent. That's it. The more advanced version allows you too at parts I suggested like the porthole, and let you crate parts from crafty 

[Spricigo]

3 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

The creation tool already exist, offset, gimble, and re root 

In that case let me autualize the metaphor:

Is the difference between doing a surgery in a hospital with all the proper surgical instruments and doing it in a lumber mill and only a rusty and dirty hammer.

 

Those 'tools' are nothing but toys, barely enough to build our toy rockets with parts that already exist. 

[Cheif Operations Director]

20 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

In that case let me autualize the metaphor:

Is the difference between doing a surgery in a hospital with all the proper surgical instruments and doing it in a lumber mill and only a rusty and dirty hammer.

 

Those 'tools' are nothing but toys, barely enough to build our toy rockets with parts that already exist. 

For my suggestion what other tool would you need

[Cheif Operations Director]

.

[Cheif Operations Director]

18 hours ago, Spricigo said:

In that case let me autualize the metaphor:

Is the difference between doing a surgery in a hospital with all the proper surgical instruments and doing it in a lumber mill and only a rusty and dirty hammer.

 

Those 'tools' are nothing but toys, barely enough to build our toy rockets with parts that already exist. 

What other tools would you need, I fail to see which ones

[Rocket In My Pocket]

12 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

What other tools would you need, I fail to see which ones

This one:

https://unity3d.com/

Simplifying what the dev's do to create things down to something user level that would run on any ones machine, isn't an easy task by any means. As an example they've been spending the last several months just making a user focused system that lets players make custom scenarios for the upcoming "Making History" DLC. This is much simpler than what you are proposing 

[Cheif Operations Director]

1 minute ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

This one:

https://unity3d.com/

Simplifying what the dev's do to create things down to something user level that would run on any ones machine, isn't an easy task by any means. As an example they've been spending the last several months just making a user focused system that lets players make custom scenarios for the upcoming "Making History" DLC. This is much simpler than what you are proposing 

What does Unity have to do with this? Im Asking honestly 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:

What does Unity have to do with this? Im Asking honestly 

Unity is the game engine that KSP is made on. It's the tool that the dev's used to create the game.

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Unity is the game engine that KSP is made on. It's the tool that the dev's used to create the game.

Yes... Like I've said it's a VAB that makes parts instead of rockets. So call It Part Assembly Building. Only thing is you add a node at the part just like in orbit which lets you change dimensions 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

5 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Yes... Like I've said it's a VAB that makes parts instead of rockets. So call It Part Assembly Building. Only thing is you add a node at the part just like in orbit which lets you change dimensions 

This would require the creation of all those parts that make up the part itself, most likely you would have more "sub-parts" that create other parts than there are parts in the entire game atm. So take the amount of time it took Squad to make all the parts we have currently and double or even triple it. This isn't even taking into account the systems behind it, the UI, tutorials to explain it to new players, play-testing, part balancing, inevitable bugs, etc...

It's also a feature that few players would have interest in or ever use really, why make your own engines for example when the stock ones do everything you need already?

So basically: Lots of work for very little reward. Not shooting your idea down, just being realistic. It's very easy to dream too big when someone else has to do the actual work to make that dream a reality.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Rocket In My Pocket said:

This would require the creation of all those parts that make up the part itself, most likely you would have more "sub-parts" that create other parts than there are parts in the entire game atm. So take the amount of time it took Squad to make all the parts we have currently and double or even triple it. This isn't even taking into account the systems behind it, the UI, tutorials to explain it to new players, play-testing, part balancing, inevitable bugs, etc...

It's also a feature that few players would have interest in really, why make your own engines when the stock ones do everything you need already?

So basically: Lots of work for very little reward. Not shooting your idea down, just being realistic. It's very easy to dream big when someone else has to do the actual work to make that dream a reality.

Oh no! You mis understand... The part editor edits existing parts, you add a node to adjust the With and use symmetry to make it constistant to your needs

Have you ever played simple planes?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

7 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Oh no! You mis understand... The part editor edits existing parts, you add a node to adjust the With and use symmetry to make it constistant to your needs

Oh well, in that case; there is a mod for that. Tweakscale.

As far as making it stock, same issues as before; lots of work for little gain; the stock parts provide you with everything you need and more.

The majority of players don't understand what most of the engines and stuff are actually for in the first place, let alone have any desire to tweak them. I've been playing for years and I've never touched Tweakscale or had any desire to do so...could be personal preference though.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Cheif Operations Director]

Just now, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Oh well, in that case; there is a mod for that. Tweakscale.

As far as making it stock, same issues as before; lots of work for little gain; the stock parts provide you with everything you need and more.

The majority of players don't understand what most of the engines and stuff are actually for in the first place, let alone have any desire to tweak them. I've been playing for years and I've never touched Tweakscale or had any desire to do so...could be personal preference though.

 

Ok but a good amount of players understand the BASICS of Rocket Science for example I need a 25 foot diameter fuel tank with four KS-25s to the correct scale. and I play on console so I can't download mods

[Rocket In My Pocket]

1 minute ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

-snip-

SimplePlanes? Oh, OK; that's more like the 'Procedural Parts" mod.

The Dev's have said before that they want to stick to "lego-style" building, so they've avoided stock procedural parts as best they could. (The fairing being an exception as making one out of pre-built parts would be close to impossible.)

I think a broader solution to many of your problems would be having mods available on console lol...or you getting a PC at some point.