A re-purposing of science

[mcwaffles2003]

I would like a use for science beyond progressing the tech tree

An in-game wiki whose contents are revealed as the relevant data is discovered. Each part should contain its own page  with details to its specifications and perhaps a bit of lore (company that built it, silly facts about it, the stuff in the tool tips, etc). Each biome should also have a bit of data about it as well as the celestial bodies as a whole. This could be done via having the whole wiki written out and each facet of it (whole pages and sections of each page) hidden until a condition is met, where the data then appears as if it were added in.

I feel this kind of in game reference would serve both as being useful and fulfilling to fill out. We wouldn't need to go to the internet to find things like the height/characteristics of an atmosphere for a planetary body since we could just send a probe to it with a barometer/thermometer and let it fall through the atmosphere while relaying the data back to the KSC. Upon data transmission we could look into the wiki and have something like the following graph appear:

 

Now I dont know how many of you have played with kerbalism since its 3.0 update came out where science is done in a continuous and gradual manner as opposed to the one click and its done way but I personally like it. I think this should be possible if the base game is going to have continuous monitoring of background resources anyway (I believe thrusting while warping/not focused was confirmed, correct me if I'm wrong) . This might be over reaching but I believe implementing a similar system of continuous data collection could be fun, challenging, and would allow for sensible impartial data completion. For instance, the graph above could partially fill out for the atmosphere heights where data was collected/transmitted. If you sent a probe to Eve and it burns up at 75 km down, you would only see the 75 km - 90 km portion of the atmosphere and the rest could remain blank. 

Another example, maybe once a gravity scan is done we could see something like a diagram of the boundaries of the SOI of the scanned body with the altitude of things like stationary orbits placed in tables

Parts, like engines that have been researched, could have wiki pages with a table of ISPs and thrusts for each acceptable fuel type or a list of compatible nozzles (if KSP 2 goes full KSPIE)

I feel this kind of dynamic info source could bring a new type of life to the game. A more earnest adventure of discovery. And maybe when every entry is filled out we can say that's when the game is finally "beaten" and all the accomplishments have been fulfilled or something. Ultimately creating a form of goal in a career mode (beyond filling out the tech tree), something to constantly strive for, where a form progress is traceable, tangible, and applicable.

I'm not a great programmer, but personally this doesn't seem like it would be THAT hard of a task to create and would bring a lot to the game. It would give players a "direction" without being a guiding hand, it would give us reference to know whats going on without giving spoilers to things we haven't attempted yet, and it would make science finally feel like we're doing something more than just filling out a dumb tech tree that when it is completed then science loses its entire appeal and becomes unnecessary weight to any future craft... All it should require is a written out wiki and a set of conditional statements for unlocking relevant hidden information.

 

Video example of kerbalism mechanics I am referencing:

6:18

Spoiler

 

 

 

To any of those with disagreements or constructive critisisms, please discuss below. I'd really like to know what people think

Edited March 17, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Incarnation of Chaos]

I like the idea of the game having something like the civilapedia that's gradually filled out by discovered planets, atmospheres, tempatures. I also like the idea of the primary bodies being hidden along with other solar systems, needing telescopes to gleam more about them. Technology should also be linked to discovery; like geothermal power becoming easier to research upon discovering a active moon or planet.

But science being done with experiments over long periods of time wouldn't mesh well with the KSP experience. I'm not against some experiments that have to take readings over time, but temp, pressure, atmosphere experiments shouldn't have to be ran more than once.

That all being said; there's plenty of room for both. I wouldn't mind an atmosphere scanner or a temperature satellite that could be launched for a finer resolution of data with a science reward given over time. Even something like the Mars reconssiance orbiter would be awesome; with it being required for accurate surface maps since telescopes are limited by angular resolution.

But the key is none of this gets in the way of just loading up a rocket and flying blind by the seat of my pants to another planet; just helps it all along. (Interstellar missions I do think should require prep work, so this mostly applies to the Kerbol system)

[mcwaffles2003]

25 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But science being done with experiments over long periods of time wouldn't mesh well with the KSP experience. I'm not against some experiments that have to take readings over time, but temp, pressure, atmosphere experiments shouldn't have to be ran more than once.

I personally wouldn't like the experiments having to be run for long periods of time so much as having some need to complete a goal. Though I will say, having to do so does create some more challenge to building a rocket and having to do so has changed the way I build. For instance thermometer/barometer need to go through the whole range of altitudes for full science points, whereas mystery goo or surface samples could still be an instant collection. I just think adding some more intuition building into the process could be more involving and fun. Not to mention with constantly active experiments there's no more waiting for a condition to change and racing to press a button in time, the experiment just continues taking readings

25 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But the key is none of this gets in the way of just loading up a rocket and flying blind by the seat of my pants to another planet; just helps it all along. (Interstellar missions I do think should require prep work, so this mostly applies to the Kerbol system)

I'd hope the experience not be invasive, but involving and enhancing. I just would really like to see science fulfill a more discovering role than that of a chore to get the next tech node. It will still have that purpose, but after the tree is filled it means there will be a purely fun aspect of science. If you bring it along to help gather data it can help your approach to a planet or help you discover some nuances to the kerbol world (non-story based lore). Perhaps on approaching a planet and doing a surface sample of it and its moon it could be revealed that they are made of similar content and  at one time a collision cause a piece of the planet to break off forming the moon, similar to our story on earth so far. It would make it feel like we're having a more active and immersive role in the universe to me. And if none of this interests the player then they don't need to bring science, they can still build and fly, just the details of the worlds they explore will remain somewhat hidden.

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[shdwlrd]

I agree that there needs to be a reason to do all the science outside of just unlocking a tech tree. But to what extent should science equate to tech and to general knowledge?

There needs to be science that contributes to general knowledge. But there also needs to be science that opens up different sections of the tech tree. And the tricky part is combining the two.

A temperature readings from Kerbin's surface is useless in creating an ablative material strong enough to enter Eve's atmosphere. But temperature readings in orbit can lead to the need for better radiators.

A surface sample can tell you about the regolith, but you might find traces of a material you need to open the another node of the tech tree.

I can come up with other examples, but you should get the idea.

 

[mcwaffles2003]

55 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I agree that there needs to be a reason to do all the science outside of just unlocking a tech tree. But to what extent should science equate to tech and to general knowledge?

There needs to be science that contributes to general knowledge. But there also needs to be science that opens up different sections of the tech tree. And the tricky part is combining the two.

A temperature readings from Kerbin's surface is useless in creating an ablative material strong enough to enter Eve's atmosphere. But temperature readings in orbit can lead to the need for better radiators.

A surface sample can tell you about the regolith, but you might find traces of a material you need to open the another node of the tech tree.

I can come up with other examples, but you should get the idea.

 

I agree that things like measuring the surface gravity on kerbin to unlock a tech node for engines is a bit ridiculous as is  tech unlocking in general. A more "realistic" mechanic in my view would be running engines for x amount of time in various conditions mixed with finances progressively unlocking more engines but that sounds a bit convoluted and more difficult to explain. For the sake of simplicity I dont mind the current tech tree unlocking mechanism, just ultimately I would hope science have a more impactful and long lasting application.

 

Also, I'm surprised no one else has tried kerbalism. I highly recommend it and there are even configs which only apply the science mechanism.

Spoiler

 

Seriously I hope some of you give it a try. It's a bit different but I find it delightful

Edited March 17, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Curveball Anders]

After reaching the science I need I redirect it to cash and/or rep.

 

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I agree that things like measuring the surface gravity on kerbin to unlock a tech node for engines is a bit ridiculous as is  tech unlocking in general. A more "realistic" mechanic in my view would be running engines for x amount of time in various conditions mixed with finances progressively unlocking more engines but that sounds a bit convoluted and more difficult to explain. For the sake of simplicity I dont mind the current tech tree unlocking mechanism, just ultimately I would hope science have a more impactful and long lasting application.

 

Also, I'm surprised no one else has tried kerbalism. I highly recommend it and there are even configs which only apply the science mechanism.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Seriously I hope some of you give it a try. It's a bit different but I find it delightful

The point I failed to get across is that science should be used as either a catalyst for something to be researched, help speed up or complete research, or to fill in info gaps for unexplored planets. (I'm not including the Kerbol system, I'm making the assumption that it has been well explored at the beginning of KSP2.)

Yes, I agree with you. Science needs a purpose outside of just unlocking the tech tree. If the R&D lab needs different materials tested in orbit to move along the current research. Ooo, something to do. You have to leave in orbit for a few month, so be it. You can do other things while waiting, or just speed up time. 

Yes, it could fall into that routine trap, but if you keep the routine experiments local to the SOI of the colonies, they could be setup or completely relatively quickly.

Just to be fair, I don't play science or career modes. I hate how the tech tree is laid out. If the tech tree was laid out more sanely, I would actually try it.

[mcwaffles2003]

 

19 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Just to be fair, I don't play science or career modes. I hate how the tech tree is laid out. If the tech tree was laid out more sanely, I would actually try it.

Have you tried any modded careers? There are other more sane tech trees out there

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Have you tried any modded careers? There are other more sane tech trees out there

No, I haven't tried any modded careers. It left that bad of an impression that I'm not willing to try it again, modded or not. I know that there are mods for KSP1 that change around the tech tree. But none of them are setup close enough to how I would like to see them. Since there's sandbox, I haven't deemed it worth my time to learn how to rearrange it.

Honestly, if KSP didn't have a sandbox mode, I would have left it behind a long time ago. That's how bad I think Squad botched both the career and science modes. I sincerely hope that PD does something that represents a good, common sense progression through the technologies being presented in the game.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

No, I haven't tried any modded careers. It left that bad of an impression that I'm not willing to try it again, modded or not. I know that there are mods for KSP1 that change around the tech tree. But none of them are setup close enough to how I would like to see them. Since there's sandbox, I haven't deemed it worth my time to learn how to rearrange it.

Honestly, if KSP didn't have a sandbox mode, I would have left it behind a long time ago. That's how bad I think Squad botched both the career and science modes. I sincerely hope that PD does something that represents a good, common sense progression through the technologies being presented in the game.

I've played sandbox mode a bit but the lack of direction mixed with the utter onslaught of new items makes designing difficult (I bob around between mods a lot)

RP-1 / RSS has a very sensible tech tree but playing the campaign is pretty challenging (though its put together far better than the stock campaign), then simple mods like probes before crew mixed with KSPIE and kerbalism seemed a bit better than stock as well though the campaign is the same.

When it comes down to stock career mode though, overall I'm with you. I feel like its the biggest failure in the game. The randomness of the contract system makes anything outside the progression contracts feel more like a chore, the rpg equivalent of "fetch 40 elderberries for me" quests. They add nothing to the game nor have any building effect to a space program, you just end up with 50 satellites bogging your game down. Instead there could be a much more fleshed out progression system that constantly prepares the player for the next step. For example, there is no "establish a communications network" contract preparing the player for going to the moon or other planets. There are contracts to establish a space station but what do you do with it? By the time you have one you're nearly done with the tech tree so the lab you put there is barely useful which was the only purpose given to having a station in the first place.... and now I don't need any more science modules so why am I bothering to unlock them? There's no "send x amount of fuel to the space station then dock and refuel with it" contract preparing players for deep interplanetary missions, instead were supposed to complete those in one shot straight from the ground at KSC? 

Sorry, rambling at this point, but tl;dr the career mode is the most disappointing feature to me in this game. Asking for a better science/tech tree relationship seems like asking a lot when this is the bar we're at so that's why I'm just advocating what I brought up in this thread. If career mode isn't going to take the reigns to guide players through the game then at least let science do it with some tangible objective like "fill out all the info for this planet" and if its done well maybe we could get some dark souls esque lore through what we discover where all the clues can create an undefined but cool picture so there's plenty of room for interpretation and no set narrative to a game that isn't about a narrative.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

18 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I agree that things like measuring the surface gravity on kerbin to unlock a tech node for engines is a bit ridiculous as is  tech unlocking in general. A more "realistic" mechanic in my view would be running engines for x amount of time in various conditions mixed with finances progressively unlocking more engines but that sounds a bit convoluted and more difficult to explain. For the sake of simplicity I dont mind the current tech tree unlocking mechanism, just ultimately I would hope science have a more impactful and long lasting application.

 

Also, I'm surprised no one else has tried kerbalism. I highly recommend it and there are even configs which only apply the science mechanism.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Seriously I hope some of you give it a try. It's a bit different but I find it delightful

Kerbalism is a compatiblity nightmare, and doesn't handle it gracefully either. It shoves it's own modules on modded parts instead of even caring about how they're supposed to work; which is fine honestly. I get a mod maker having a vision and deciding to override the behavior of anything else to preserve that, but it's also meant that at least for me i wouldn't touch it with a 50-foot pole.

Also there's the small matter of my main rig being down for the past month (I'm going thru KSP withdrawl pls help meh!).

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I've played sandbox mode a bit but the lack of direction mixed with the utter onslaught of new items makes designing difficult (I bob around between mods a lot)

RP-1 / RSS has a very sensible tech tree but playing the campaign is pretty challenging (though its put together far better than the stock campaign), then simple mods like probes before crew mixed with KSPIE and kerbalism seemed a bit better than stock as well though the campaign is the same.

When it comes down to stock career mode though, overall I'm with you. I feel like its the biggest failure in the game. The randomness of the contract system makes anything outside the progression contracts feel more like a chore, the rpg equivalent of "fetch 40 elderberries for me" quests. They add nothing to the game nor have any building effect to a space program, you just end up with 50 satellites bogging your game down. Instead there could be a much more fleshed out progression system that constantly prepares the player for the next step. For example, there is no "establish a communications network" contract preparing the player for going to the moon or other planets. There are contracts to establish a space station but what do you do with it? By the time you have one you're nearly done with the tech tree so the lab you put there is barely useful which was the only purpose given to having a station in the first place.... and now I don't need any more science modules so why am I bothering to unlock them? There's no "send x amount of fuel to the space station then dock and refuel with it" contract preparing players for deep interplanetary missions, instead were supposed to complete those in one shot straight from the ground at KSC? 

Sorry, rambling at this point, but tl;dr the career mode is the most disappointing feature to me in this game. Asking for a better science/tech tree relationship seems like asking a lot when this is the bar we're at so that's why I'm just advocating what I brought up in this thread. If career mode isn't going to take the reigns to guide players through the game then at least let science do it with some tangible objective like "fill out all the info for this planet" and if its done well maybe we could get some dark souls esque lore through what we discover where all the clues can create an undefined but cool picture so there's plenty of room for interpretation and no set narrative to a game that isn't about a narrative.

Yeah the fact there's no basic set of aircraft parts at the beginning with propeller engines, canvas wings and the like is pretty large omission; along with you unlocking Afterburning Turbofans at the next node. Logical progression would be from low TWR fabric and stick craft, to moderate TWR monocoque prop planes (Think ~30's era aircraft), then finally high TWR heavily reinforced prop planes along with more exotic engines like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine 

These would represent the cresendo of Propeller craft until Turboshafts introduced later, and would introduce early Turbojet engines like the Jumo 004, Rolls Royce Welland and the GE J31, along with whatever the USSR was (Likely a copy of German engines). Then you'd enter into the 50's era of engine technology, progressing into the highly experimental and bleeding edge Hypersonic and SABRE-like engines.

Rocket Technology would be more fleshed out at the beginning; we didn't start the space race with solid boosters! Something like the A-4 or V-2 would be your starting rocket, and you'd gradually unlock extentions for it until it became more viable to have a clean sheet design. Then you could introduce our beloved kerbal engines, tanks, and some better probes; manned flight happening more mid-game than from the very beginning.

Contracts should be overhauled; exploration contracts should be designed to trigger the next series upon arriving at the first body instead of waiting for all of the set to be completed. More scanning, relay contracts should also be present, IRSU and space stations should be positioned more tactfully.

There's a lot of low-hanging fruit here; i think we're all agreed on that.

[shdwlrd]

11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Sorry, rambling at this point, but tl;dr the career mode is the most disappointing feature to me in this game. Asking for a better science/tech tree relationship seems like asking a lot when this is the bar we're at so that's why I'm just advocating what I brought up in this thread. If career mode isn't going to take the reigns to guide players through the game then at least let science do it with some tangible objective like "fill out all the info for this planet" and if its done well maybe we could get some dark souls esque lore through what we discover where all the clues can create an undefined but cool picture so there's plenty of room for interpretation and no set narrative to a game that isn't about a narrative.

Science and career modes go together even though they can be played separately. But that's not the point of the thread.

I agree, the science mechanic needs to be reworked and expanded upon. But how do you make it so it's not so much of a chore.

Certain things need multiple observations to get a good picture of what's happening. Certain things just need time to complete. Experiments that requires player interaction needs to produce science even when the player doesn't interact with it.

Science that requires multiple observations should slowly fill in the missing information and slowly give you science. The science that just takes time to complete, there's not much you can do but wait. The science that requires player interaction should sporadic produce science when the player isn't around.

The MPL should be nerfed, and just used to run, and pre-process the experiments. (I'm assuming that it would be included in KSP2.) It shouldn't be used as a true lab. That needs to be done on Kerbin or a colony if in a different star system. Yes, it can produce science on its own, but very little.

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by shdwlrd

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Kerbalism is a compatiblity nightmare, and doesn't handle it gracefully either. It shoves it's own modules on modded parts instead of even caring about how they're supposed to work; which is fine honestly. I get a mod maker having a vision and deciding to override the behavior of anything else to preserve that, but it's also meant that at least for me i wouldn't touch it with a 50-foot pole.

It's honestly not too bad, my kerbalism playthrough has about 80 mods included in it and the modders are releasing remote tech compatibility with the next update. Just need to be aware of the compatibility chart:

https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/wiki/Home-~-Mod-Support

 

7 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Yeah the fact there's no basic set of aircraft parts at the beginning with propeller engines, canvas wings and the like is pretty large omission; along with you unlocking Afterburning Turbofans at the next node. Logical progression would be from low TWR fabric and stick craft, to moderate TWR monocoque prop planes (Think ~30's era aircraft), then finally high TWR heavily reinforced prop planes along with more exotic engines like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine 

These would represent the cresendo of Propeller craft until Turboshafts introduced later, and would introduce early Turbojet engines like the Jumo 004, Rolls Royce Welland and the GE J31, along with whatever the USSR was (Likely a copy of German engines). Then you'd enter into the 50's era of engine technology, progressing into the highly experimental and bleeding edge Hypersonic and SABRE-like engines.

Rocket Technology would be more fleshed out at the beginning; we didn't start the space race with solid boosters! Something like the A-4 or V-2 would be your starting rocket, and you'd gradually unlock extentions for it until it became more viable to have a clean sheet design. Then you could introduce our beloved kerbal engines, tanks, and some better probes; manned flight happening more mid-game than from the very beginning.

I understand the want for chronological uniformity, but prop planes at this point are more complexto put together than jets are as liquid fuel rockets are slightly more complex than SRBs and the point of the early game is for building intuition for new players instead of following history to create a steadier difficulty ramp.

 

7 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Contracts should be overhauled; exploration contracts should be designed to trigger the next series upon arriving at the first body instead of waiting for all of the set to be completed. More scanning, relay contracts should also be present, IRSU and space stations should be positioned more tactfully.

There's a lot of low-hanging fruit here; i think we're all agreed on that.

Agreed :)

 

6 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Science and career modes go together even though they can be played separately. But that's not the point of the thread.

I agree, the science mechanic needs to be reworked and expanded upon. But how do you make it so it's not so much of a chore.

I think it's largely a chore because its a requirement solely for tech development. This makes science an obstacle to the objective of new parts. I believe the more open ended gathering of science to fill out new data may be less of a chore since that makes science the objective and not the obstacle to an objective. Also, the open endedness of filling out the data while also providing the guidance of what data needs to be filled create an environment that's neither constraining nor lacking direction.

 

6 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Certain things need multiple observations to get a good picture of what's happening. Certain things just need time to complete. Experiments that requires player interaction needs to produce science even when the player doesn't interact with it.

Science that requires multiple observations should slowly fill in the missing information and slowly give you science. The science that just takes time to complete, there's not much you can do but wait. The science that requires player interaction should sporadic produce science when the player isn't around.

This is why I bring up kerbalisms method. You need to be aware of certain types of data collection more than others and organize your spaceship around that. You need to be prepared to handle the constant transmission cause an electricity drain to your vessel over long periods. Also, for instance, data from samples cant be processed until the samples are brought back, they also accrue mass over collection. 

 

6 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

The MPL should be nerfed, and just used to run, and pre-process the experiments. (I'm assuming that it would be included in KSP2.) It shouldn't be used as a true lab. That needs to be done on Kerbin or a colony if in a different star system. Yes, it can produce science on its own, but very little.

Instead of nerfed, I believe it should be more specialized as in it's used for processing certain types of science instead of just multiplying any sciences returns. Instead of being a multiplier it could simply serve as a step in a process of science, like a refinery in a logistic network from raw materials to finished goods.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

It's honestly not too bad, my kerbalism playthrough has about 80 mods included in it and the modders are releasing remote tech compatibility with the next update. Just need to be aware of the compatibility chart:

https://github.com/Kerbalism/Kerbalism/wiki/Home-~-Mod-Support

 

I understand the want for chronological uniformity, but prop planes at this point are more complexto put together than jets are as liquid fuel rockets are slightly more complex than SRBs and the point of the early game is for building intuition for new players instead of following history to create a steadier difficulty ramp.

 

The reason they're so complex is because currently you have to use the robotics system, know how torque works, and manually adjust blade pitch to get anything off the ground; a propeller engine rolled into a single part wouldn't have nearly as many issues. You would still have to have a tutorial covering torque and blade pitch though, and KSP2 already committed to far better on-boarding so that's a non-issue.

Also that's the thing; i don't need a compatibility chart for my current install. And what kerbalism considers compatible isn't always what i want, and i can't change that without breaking the entire suite of mods along with it.

 

[mcwaffles2003]

44 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

The reason they're so complex is because currently you have to use the robotics system, know how torque works, and manually adjust blade pitch to get anything off the ground; a propeller engine rolled into a single part wouldn't have nearly as many issues. You would still have to have a tutorial covering torque and blade pitch though, and KSP2 already committed to far better on-boarding so that's a non-issue.

Honestly, I hope so. If that ends up being the case then I am on board with that 100%

45 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Also that's the thing; i don't need a compatibility chart for my current install. And what kerbalism considers compatible isn't always what i want, and i can't change that without breaking the entire suite of mods along with it.

I hear ya. This is why I have been hoping KSP 2 comes with some form of life support. Under the hood it would mean constant monitoring of resources on craft. This should lead to modders not needing to make different and incompatible systems. A standardized system of measurements and resources would also go a long way IMO. Then we wouldn't have things like LH2 vs Liquid Hydrogen happen.

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Instead of nerfed, I believe it should be more specialized as in it's used for processing certain types of science instead of just multiplying any sciences returns. Instead of being a multiplier it could simply serve as a step in a process of science, like a refinery in a logistic network from raw materials to finished goods.

That was kind of what I was thinking for the MPL. But I would be agreeable for that type of usage for the MPL.

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

This is why I bring up kerbalisms method. You need to be aware of certain types of data collection more than others and organize your spaceship around that. You need to be prepared to handle the constant transmission cause an electricity drain to your vessel over long periods. Also, for instance, data from samples cant be processed until the samples are brought back, they also accrue mass over collection. 

You have to be aware of the power usage and such if you create something other that a basic craft, so that is no big deal. But the real killer is the amount of power that is required to send/relay data is ridiculous. Add to problem with transmitting science is that you can't continue where you left off it must be sent 100% at that moment to get credit for it. If were talking about the technology from the '40's and '50's I can understand it. But from the '60's on, there were ways to control the data flow and restart data transmission with little to no data overlap or loss. So the little underpowered probe, should be able to send your data in several chunks and get credit for it. I don't know if kerbalism handles data that way, but that mechanism should be stock. Yes, samples need to be returned to Kerbin or a colony for further processing and to get credit for it.

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I think it's largely a chore because its a requirement solely for tech development. This makes science an obstacle to the objective of new parts. I believe the more open ended gathering of science to fill out new data may be less of a chore since that makes science the objective and not the obstacle to an objective. Also, the open endedness of filling out the data while also providing the guidance of what data needs to be filled create an environment that's neither constraining nor lacking direction.

Well, yes and no. You're right, science shouldn't be the sole method to unlock new tech. New tech should be unlocked by the amount of funds you can throw into the R&D and time, with science to open it up, or helping it out. Filling in missing info, for anything outside of the Kerbol system, that should be true. (Again, the Kerbol system should be well known when KSP2 is released.)

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

You have to be aware of the power usage and such if you create something other that a basic craft, so that is no big deal. But the real killer is the amount of power that is required to send/relay data is ridiculous. Add to problem with transmitting science is that you can't continue where you left off it must be sent 100% at that moment to get credit for it. If were talking about the technology from the '40's and '50's I can understand it. But from the '60's on, there were ways to control the data flow and restart data transmission with little to no data overlap or loss. So the little underpowered probe, should be able to send your data in several chunks and get credit for it. I don't know if kerbalism handles data that way, but that mechanism should be stock. Yes, samples need to be returned to Kerbin or a colony for further processing and to get credit for it.

Kerbalism handles data in a continuous manner so interruption isn't a problem, you receive partial credit depending on how much you've sent. Also with data theres no advantage to returning the rocket vs transmitting. The trade off is sample experiments can not be transmitted at all, which makes more sense to me. Why does returning a probe with temperature data on it return less science than simply transmitting? That's ridiculous... More experiments would be nice too. I almost always play with DMagic's Orbital science.

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

Well, yes and no. You're right, science shouldn't be the sole method to unlock new tech. New tech should be unlocked by the amount of funds you can throw into the R&D and time, with science to open it up, or helping it out. Filling in missing info, for anything outside of the Kerbol system, that should be true. (Again, the Kerbol system should be well known when KSP2 is released.)

Orbits and such, yes. biomes and atmospheres, IMO, no. I'd rather KSP start where KSP 1 starts so it still seems like a whole story as opposed to a continuation. All in all I'm hoping for a more robust, thought out, expansive, prettier, and versatile version of KSP (with modded multiplayer)

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

You have to be aware of the power usage and such if you create something other that a basic craft, so that is no big deal. But the real killer is the amount of power that is required to send/relay data is ridiculous. Add to problem with transmitting science is that you can't continue where you left off it must be sent 100% at that moment to get credit for it. If were talking about the technology from the '40's and '50's I can understand it. But from the '60's on, there were ways to control the data flow and restart data transmission with little to no data overlap or loss.

Not quite. You can disable "require full transmission" on the antenna. You'll end up with LESS credit (returned science) you will still get SOME credit. And if you're not doing a flyby, you can take the experiment again and transmit it over and over to eventually get full (transmittable) credit.

Not that any of that makes any real life sense, but hey it's possible to do

[shdwlrd]

14 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Not quite. You can disable "require full transmission" on the antenna. You'll end up with LESS credit (returned science) you will still get SOME credit. And if you're not doing a flyby, you can take the experiment again and transmit it over and over to eventually get full (transmittable) credit.

Not that any of that makes any real life sense, but hey it's possible to do

Thank for that little tidbit, I didn't know you could do that. 

[mcwaffles2003]

Ok, I'm confused

29 people have taken the poll

8 people have said they either disagree with the idea (don't know why) or they would do it in another way (Don't know those other ways)

Only 4 have even spoken

So what does it take to really start a conversation about this?

Edited March 21, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So what does it take to really start a conversation about this?

Multiple people with a good clear idea of what they want.    It also helps if they disagree.
 

I haven't voted, but I'm mostly in the 'I agree science is KSP is ridiculous - but I haven't heard something seriously world-changing on what to replace it with'.  Really, this so far sounds like ScanSat for experiments which... Yeah, makes sense, but I'm not sure how much it really changes things.

[Lord Aurelius]

I like the overall idea, although I would probably decouple science points from research entirely and have research done entirely with funds. In terms of continuous transmission, I like the idea of long term experiments so long as the time to get credit isn't too long (minute or less with high time warp).

Also really like the idea of some planet details being hidden until an appropriate experiment has been done, although I would probably start the game like KSP1 does with all the planets discovered and orbits/basic info known that could be realistically known from ground based telescope observation. Info like what the planets actually look like up close/height maps and temps/detailes gravity would require sending a probe to get.

I would also like to see some science experiments be prerequisites some technologies. For example, early upper stage/vacuum engines require atmospheric pressure data on Kerbin, and crew capsules/probe cores/orbital hardware requires temperature/radiation experiments.

[mcwaffles2003]

13 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I would also like to see some science experiments be prerequisites some technologies. For example, early upper stage/vacuum engines require atmospheric pressure data on Kerbin, and crew capsules/probe cores/orbital hardware requires temperature/radiation experiments.

What about having a mix of conditional statements to unlock techs? Or even individual parts? For instance:

To unlock the terrier engine you must first:

• Reach orbit with a 1.25 m class rocket and " X " amount of mass (represents capability to even use the engine)
• Bring a pressmat barometer to above 70 km (understand the atmospheric pressure conditions that make it useful)
• Pay " X " amount for prototyping before mass production

Or

To unlock LT-2 Landing strut you must first:

• Reach low munar orbit with 1.25 m class rocket (demonstrate you are capable of reaching another body to land on with a rocket that would need these struts)
• Send impactor to munar surface (demonstration of reaching that bodies surface and gathered data on its characteristics)
• Ascend to at least 500 meters on kerbin and proform a landing with LT-1 Landing Struts [no parachutes allowed] (demonstrate you can perform a controlled landing)

 

This would generate a sensible progression of parts to players and make their entry into the career more intuitive. Essentially you don't get parts until you've progressed to a point where you would need them in the first place, you demonstrate you are capable of utilizing them, and are willing to spend gathered resources (currency) to acquire them. This would get people to leave the kerbin system as well if some parts have conditions based on getting to other planets and incentivize the use of sending scouting probes > probe landers > crewed landers; mimicking more realistic space exploration schema.

 

Perhaps it could even be possible to replace money with just parts rewards and that becomes the underlying progression model for a career, but maybe that's too far though.

Edited March 22, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Incarnation of Chaos]

57 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What about having a mix of conditional statements to unlock techs? Or even individual parts? For instance:

To unlock the terrier engine you must first:

• Reach orbit with a 1.25 m class rocket and " X " amount of mass (represents capability to even use the engine)
• Bring a pressmat barometer to above 70 km (understand the atmospheric pressure conditions that make it useful)
• Pay " X " amount for prototyping before mass production

Or

To unlock LT-2 Landing strut you must first:

• Reach low munar orbit with 1.25 m class rocket (demonstrate you are capable of reaching another body to land on with a rocket that would need these struts)
• Send impactor to munar surface (demonstration of reaching that bodies surface and gathered data on its characteristics)
• Ascend to at least 500 meters on kerbin and proform a landing with LT-1 Landing Struts [no parachutes allowed] (demonstrate you can perform a controlled landing)

 

This would generate a sensible progression of parts to players and make their entry into the career more intuitive. Essentially you don't get parts until you've progressed to a point where you would need them in the first place, you demonstrate you are capable of utilizing them, and are willing to spend gathered resources (currency) to acquire them. This would get people to leave the kerbin system as well if some parts have conditions based on getting to other planets and incentivize the use of sending scouting probes > probe landers > crewed landers; mimicking more realistic space exploration schema.

 

Perhaps it could even be possible to replace money with just parts rewards and that becomes the underlying progression model for a career, but maybe that's too far though.

That's basically turning the Tech Tree into the Contract system; which i'd honestly say is the last thing I want to see.

[mcwaffles2003]

6 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

That's basically turning the Tech Tree into the Contract system; which i'd honestly say is the last thing I want to see.

I hear that, but my gripe with the contract system is the randomness of it and how its mostly useless outside cash rewards you receive, I like the progression part (specifically the progression contracts) of it. I feel like it might not be that bad if the requirements are all set, there's no specific order they need to be completed in, and all of the contracts are constantly active in the background AND steps to unlocking parts end up being either useful in the long run or do well to train someone for their next endeavor.

Edited March 22, 2020 by mcwaffles2003