"explosive bolts" feature.

[tomk]

Hi,

I don't know whenever this type of functionality actually is planed or not, however I would like to pitch it: "explosive bolts". In real world sometimes there is a need to disconnect a part immediately without the need to actually stop for service. One example might be propellers on helicopter to allow eject seats to engage without flying pilots into those. Those things usually are not meant to come together again, and honestly I think this was really missing from original version. Radial decouplers are a good thing, but those are meant for disconnecting and pushing apart stuff, wheres explosive bolts are only severing hard link with parts and let physics do the rest. For example having a long range ssto and needing to use radial decoupler (while occluding it from the view) for a drop tank seems less realistic than simply an eternal tank hanging under a fuselage that can be separated by few explosive bolts. Another example is carrying things for transportation together, but then not being able to disconnect those without use of decoupler or some other kung-fu. We all know 3 part challenge and people smashing parts onto hills just to get the dry mass down, or how people jump through hoops to have stuff attached in cargo bay, or having to use decoupler (that again was meant for pushing away propulsive parts) for what is a cube satellite carrier and radial decoupler being larger than a cube satellite it self. 

This could be made an option, when selecting two parts together in hangar and marking "attached by explosive bolts" that would expose another staging event. Also in real world those don't really carry that much weight penalty - usually in tens or hundred of grams. 

 

ps, maybe an engineer could reattach those ? but hey, it's just a whisfull thinking idea  

Edited February 15, 2023 by tomk
missued "separatron" where I should have used "decoupler"

[Snark]

44 minutes ago, tomk said:

In real world sometimes there is a need to disconnect a part immediately without the need to actually stop for service.

How is this different from the various decouplers and separators that KSP already has?  They do exactly this, right?

44 minutes ago, tomk said:

For example having a long range ssto and needing to use separatron (while occluding it from the view) for a drop tank seems less realistic than simply an eternal tank hanging under a fuselage that can be separated by few explosive bolts.

That sounds exactly to me like "attach an external tank hanging under the fuselage with a radial decoupler."  That's exactly what they're for.  How is this suggestion different?

[darthgently]

Maybe the idea is that "explosive bolts" would be incorporated all parts?  I don't like the idea.  A lot of data overhead that would be rarely used.  Existing decouplers, as you note, have it covered

[JadeOfMaar]

8 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Maybe the idea is that "explosive bolts" would be incorporated all parts?  I don't like the idea.  A lot of data overhead that would be rarely used.  Existing decouplers, as you note, have it covered

Perhaps a physics-less stack separator/ omni-decoupler is in order.

[Kerbart]

24 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Maybe the idea is that "explosive bolts" would be incorporated all parts?  I don't like the idea.  A lot of data overhead that would be rarely used.  Existing decouplers, as you note, have it covered

Yeah, that seems to be the case. Hidden inside the text is this:

Quote

Another example is carrying things for transportation together, but then not being able to disconnect those without use of separatron or some other kung-fu. We all know 3 part challenge and people smashing parts onto hills just to get the dry mass down, or how people jump through hoops to have stuff attached in cargo bay, or having to use separatron (that again was meant for pushing away propulsive parts) for what is a cube satellite carrier and separatron being larger than a cube satellite it self.

Not everyone agrees with the lego-style modular approach, but this is a slippery surface. We always need electricity. Why not incorporate that in all parts? Wet wings? I feel like it's a great way to add complexity where we have a simple solution in place right now. What if parts are connected in a different way than you think they are, so you end up exploding the wrong bolts? So additional interfacing is required to prevent that from happening. Specialized parts for this keeps it simple.

[tomk]

26 minutes ago, Snark said:

How is this different from the various decouplers and separators that KSP already has?  They do exactly this, right?

Well, decoupler is a separate part that is designed for pushing things apart with a force in predefined direction, while as pyro fasteners are just replacing existing fasteners. The fact that people use decouplers and try offset those into the model is just making it less and less realistic, while also providing unnecessary flexibility to the joint, while pyro fasteners by definition hold two parts as well as standard fasteners.

26 minutes ago, Snark said:

That sounds exactly to me like "attach an external tank hanging under the fuselage with a radial decoupler."  That's exactly what they're for.  How is this suggestion different?

From engineering standpoint - pretty big. Let's maybe start that in real world a ksp style decoupler consists of "explosive bolts" and other parts that are meant for pushing objects apart ... while ksp does not have a very simple functionality that is used day to day like reusable attaching point, simple hooks, straps etc etc. 

5 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

What if parts are connected in a different way than you think they are

I don't think there is a single person here that did not experience staging error. Further to your point, I don't think that every single attachment shall be automatically detachable, but the parts that you chose during a design process.  Further further to your point, electricity is not needed to be present all the time - some explosives initiators can be triggered from things like piezo source, which could be initiated with as much as "hard smash on a FIRE button".

 

 

BUT

I wanted to pitch something that is more in line with real world designs however so far general consensus is that people don't want that. 

 

ps. I've edited original message, since I've used "separatrons" in place of "decouplers" - sorry, it was a long day.

[Snark]

FWIW, this would be a pretty easy functionality to mod into the game-- for example, in KSP1 terms, could just use ModuleManager to add ModuleDecouple to whatever parts are desired.  It wouldn't even need any code, just a ModuleManager config patch.  (Though the UI implementation could get a little cleaner with a small amount of code added.)

Essentially what the OP is asking for is literally identical to saying "I want every part to be a decoupler, rather than having decouplers as separate parts."

(If it was implemented in the game, that's literally, exactly what the functionality would be.  Your description is identical to what the decoupler parts already do right now.  The sole difference between the existing decouplers and what you're asking for is that the decoupling function would be built into the part itself.)

Personally, I tend to side with @Kerbart on this one, as a matter of gameplay design-- his post above is exactly how my own thoughts ran.  I don't like the idea of "every part has everything-and-the-kitchen-sink functionality built into it".  I like having limited designs per-part, as part of the design challenge.

8 minutes ago, tomk said:

I wanted to pitch something that is more in line with real world designs however so far general consensus is that people don't want that. 

Bear in mind that you're dealing with a tiny sample of people responding, so please don't be discouraged.  The microscopically tiny number of people who have answered here thus far is not big enough to be any sort of representative sample of players.

I'd also add that even though this idea isn't my personal cup of tea... I certainly wouldn't call it a bad idea.  Different people like different things, and I'm glad you raised the topic for folks to consider.

(And the good news, as I mention above, is that if this is functionality that you like, it would be really easy for someone to write a mod to do this.  So absolutely hang on to the idea, and if KSP2 doesn't do it, raise the topic in Add-on Discussions and I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't take you up on it and just goes ahead and writes the mod.)

[Kerbart]

1 minute ago, Snark said:

... (awesome @snark response) ...

Well there are some benefits:

• Every part has the ability to explode! Very Kerbal! ("But it's a controlled explosion" — really? *cough* every time? *cough*?) There's an exciting element of "what will explode, when, and how?" that will appeal to a large population of players. Maybe we should add a "stir the oxygen tank" mod too!
• Knowing Snark's generosity, and *if* they decide to make a mod, these will now be known as the @tomk bolts ("tombolts?")

[tomk]

@Snark we'll, mod is a certain way, thou I did had ksp melt down on me due to to many mods that I'm afraid of suggesting more mods. 

@Kerbartif we're going to attach blame by name (  ) I would suggest "tommybolts" - rolls of the tongue a bit easier ;D 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Perhaps a physics-less stack separator/ omni-decoupler is in order.

One does not simply tame the Kraken so easily.   There is only one master of the Omnidecoupler, and he does not share power!

What existing decouplers don't cover, EVA construction does

[Snark]

27 minutes ago, tomk said:

@Snark we'll, mod is a certain way, thou I did had ksp melt down on me due to to many mods that I'm afraid of suggesting more mods.

Fair 'nuff.  However, it's worth noting that not all mods are alike in terms of how much "load" they put on your system.  A mod like this would be a very lightweight one.  Mods that add a ton of parts and textures and such?  Those are expensive. 

[JadeOfMaar]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

EVA construction does

Are you suggesting we have kerbals go on EVA, while flying in a plane, to manually detach a spent droptank? Lol

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, JadeOfMaar said:

Are you suggesting we have kerbals go on EVA, while flying in a plane, to manually detach a spent droptank? Lol

Unless you added a decoupler beforehand, how else would you go about detaching the droptank?

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Unless you added a decoupler beforehand, how else would you go about detaching the droptank?

Use the hardpoint or structural pylon for that? Haven't used them in ages but they used to behave like decouplers.

EDIT: yep yep, still works like that.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Kerbart

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

Use the hardpoint or structural pylon for that? Haven't used them in ages but they used to behave like decouplers.

Is the context here not that the relevant droptanks aren't attached to decouplers, nor attached to things that are functionally identical to decouplers but are given different names for the sake of convoluting the game?

Edited February 15, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Kerbart]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Is the context here not that the relevant droptanks aren't attached to decouplers, nor attached to things that are functionally identical to decouplers but are given different names for the sake of convoluting the game?

Yes. If the point is using drop tanks that can be detached, then it would make sense to use the hard points. I guess you can use an engineer mid-flight but to the casual observer that would not seem the most desirable way of doing it.

If the argument is well I forgot to use hard points so I have to use explosive bolts instead, then my counter argument is that's not how we decide to use explosive bolts either, "just in case"

[darthgently]

On 2/15/2023 at 4:15 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

Are you suggesting we have kerbals go on EVA, while flying in a plane, to manually detach a spent droptank? Lol

Jeb would wing walk to drop a tank, in a heartbeat.  But he'd need to get his engineering ticket first, lol

Edited February 18, 2023 by darthgently

[tomk]

Sorry guys, but there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding creeping in. I've NOT suggested that all parts should be attached by "explosive bolts" (or "tommybolts" [TM] ), but that a specific two parts in VAB can be highlighted together and marked as "joint by explosive / pyro bolts" and that it would give another event in staging events. IF that functionality already exists via hard points (never heard of it) than it's a moot subject.

Side note: taking engineer out, just to the detaching, seems "suboptimal".

ps. drop tanks are something that might be close to some heart, but if we want to have more extreme example: how about detaching wings / engines mid-flight ... possibly for comedic effect, but one can see a purpose in that ... the forces working on decouplers will make it slightly more problematic, but standard attachment that can be "rapidly unfastened" would give better options (in my stupid opinion).

Edited February 16, 2023 by tomk

[Snark]

33 minutes ago, tomk said:

Sorry guys, but there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding creeping in. I've NOT suggested that all parts should be attached by "explosive bolts" (or "tommybolts" [TM] ), but that a specific two parts in VAB can be highlighted together and marked as "joint by explosive / pyro bolts" and that it would give another event in staging events.

Those are the same two things.

Saying "these two parts are joined by explosive bolts", in game terms, is literally exactly the same thing as saying the part you're attaching, is attached with explosive bolts. "

Which KSP1 already has. It's a piece of functionality that is implemented by a piece of code called ModuleDecouple. If you put that functionality on a part, then the part has the ability to explosively decouple from the part it's attached to.

It just happens to be the case, in KSP1, that only the "decoupler" parts have that module on them, which is why they're the only ones that can decouple.

So, the way to add that feature to other parts is just to add ModuleDecouple to them via config.

Of course, we don't know yet how KSP2 will imllent things, exactly, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that part module's will work at least somewhat similarly to how they work in KSP1. It just seems like too useful a programming model not to leverage. Guess we'll find out pretty soon.

[Kerbart]

5 hours ago, darthgently said:

One does not simply tame the Kraken so easily.   There is only one master of the Omnidecoupler, and he does not share power!

What existing decouplers don't cover, EVA construction does

Sadly the Krakengod seems waaaay to eager to share his omnidecoupling power.

 

40 minutes ago, tomk said:

 IF that functionality already exists via hard points (never heard of it) than it's a moot subject.

No, hardpoints are really just decouplers that are somehow not listed as decouplers.

40 minutes ago, tomk said:

 but standard attachment that can be "rapidly unfastened" would give better options (in my stupid opinion).

Well that is already supported in the game. You want rapid disassembly with the rest of the ship staying intact.

[tomk]

Just now, Snark said:

Those are the same two things.

Saying "these two parts are joined by explosive bolts", in game terms, is literally exactly the same thing as saying the part you're attaching, is attached with explosive bolts. "

I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't opting for every single part on your design magically have a pyro bolts mid flight that one can just say "heeeeey I don't fancy that with me anymore, so let's just ditch it" but rather than it has to be vehicle design stage choice. 

But thanks for clarifying about the ModuleDecouple.

[Snark]

1 hour ago, tomk said:

I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't opting for every single part on your design magically have a pyro bolts mid flight that one can just say "heeeeey I don't fancy that with me anymore, so let's just ditch it" but rather than it has to be vehicle design stage choice. 

But thanks for clarifying about the ModuleDecouple.

Oh, sure. It would be a design time decision in the VAB. It's already implemented that way in KSP1.

[i dont know how to forum]

I agree that this just sounds like decouplers with extra steps, but given the thread title I just have to add:

[darthgently]

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Sadly the Krakengod seems waaaay to eager to share his omnidecoupling power.

Lol, that was a mangled lord of the rings reference

[Zacspace]

I get what this person's saying. Almost like opposite autostruts. Like you're right clicking on the part in VAB and telling it you'd like to have to option of treating it like a decoupler later on if need be.

Many people have pointed out that decouplers, and other parts that are decouplers in all but name like the structural pylon/hardpoint already exist, but those are parts. They add to the part count and they add another wiggly-wobbly KSP physics connection. They're also pretty bulky just design-wise. Kinda hard to integrate into a build unless you're going strictly function over form. For my part, I've done a lot of radially attaching things to stack separators so that I can offset the separator out of sight and then the stuff attached to it just falls off when the separator is staged, but that's just a workaround for the fact we don't have a better solution. The ability to just click on a part and say "this one comes off later, maybe" would be pretty cool.

It could be pretty unbalanced since there would be no gameplay reason to use a dead-weight decoupler if you could use a fuel tank instead, but like I haven't been playing KSP1 for this long because it's balanced.

Regardless there's no point getting salty about our friend's suggestion. It's not going to make it in the game, and if something like it is in the game at this point it'll be because Intercept independently came up with the idea ages ago.