Developer Insights #21 - Rockets' Red Glare

[Alexoff]

I don't quite understand when heat will become a problem for a colony. In the game, we encounter dangerous heating either when falling into the atmosphere, or if we build it in a very hot place. We know nothing about the construction of colonies, but we are unlikely to drop them from space. And in a hot place, we will quickly understand the errors and F9. Or will we build a blast furnace in the colonies or will we heat it with wood?

[Superfluous J]

7 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Excuse the quote, but I want to follow up with a better explanation now that I had my sleep, as I think I can make myself much clearer in what I was trying to achieve, now. What I understand from the system is the following (prepare your brain for very advanced stuff):

 

I don't understand the first picture, what it's intended to convey.

For the 2nd picture, let me ask you this: From a gameplay perspective, why do you feel those two instances need to be different? I understand it from a "don't try this at (your actual physical) home" but when you're building a colony and need to put the water-cooler-part in the water, what benefit is there to make sure the part is at least x% in the water but not more than y% in the water? Why not just have a "it's touching water" flag and assume all is well?

[cocoscacao]

1 minute ago, Alexoff said:

I don't quite understand when heat will become a problem for a colony.

Probably something like resource extraction in KSP 1. Not enough radiators, the drill is less and less efficient, until it stops working. F9 is not an option, because you need a whole new mission to launch now...

[Alexoff]

Just now, cocoscacao said:

Probably something like resource extraction in KSP 1. Not enough radiators, the drill is less and less efficient, until it stops working. F9 is not an option, because you need a whole new mission to launch now...

Why restart? Ore mining is slower than we would like, well, do not care. Unless, of course, the colony does not explode from too fast production, but I hope there will be no such nonsense

[cocoscacao]

Just now, Alexoff said:

Why restart? Ore mining is slower than we would like, well, do not care.

When there's not enough radiators, heat builds up, and they stop working completely. You need to shut it down manually to cool off. Now I need to babysit the contraption, which defeats the purpose.

I suppose this may have more fatal effects for the colonists and structures involved. Build a habitat in a very hot place without sufficient air conditioning, they may last for a while, but you'll end up with kerbal-kebabs.

13 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

we are unlikely to drop them from space  intentionally

Fixed that for ya...

[PicoSpace]

6 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

When there's not enough radiators, heat builds up, and they stop working completely. You need to shut it down manually to cool off. Now I need to babysit the contraption, which defeats the purpose.

I suppose this may have more fatal effects for the colonists and structures involved. Build a habitat in a very hot place without sufficient air conditioning, they may last for a while, but you'll end up with kerbal-kebabs.

Fixed that for ya...

Would be cool if you could adjust the rate at which the extractors operated (so you could balance your flux) and reach an equilibrium.

[Periple]

2 hours ago, Sade said:

will the heat fluxes be temperature dependent? i.e. will my craft stabilize at some, higher, temperature when current total flux is positive?

I'm not Nertea obviously but I would expect that flux is a function of part temperature (and other parameters). So if the other parameters stay the same and the part gets hotter the flux will rise until it reaches equilibrium; that will be the part's stable equilibrium temperature. If it's below its maximum temperature then all is good; if not, it'll go kaboom.

[Alexoff]

24 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

When there's not enough radiators, heat builds up, and they stop working completely.

It stopped working, cooled down and started working again. There's a whole colony of kerbals out there, can't they figure it out on their own!?

26 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Build a habitat in a very hot place without sufficient air conditioning, they may last for a while, but you'll end up with kerbal-kebabs.

In KSP1, kerbals were quite fireproof, it seems they could withstand 750K. As long as we don't dip them in lava, then everything should be fine.

[Stephensan]

39 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

I don't quite understand when heat will become a problem for a colony. In the game, we encounter dangerous heating either when falling into the atmosphere, or if we build it in a very hot place. We know nothing about the construction of colonies, but we are unlikely to drop them from space. And in a hot place, we will quickly understand the errors and F9. Or will we build a blast furnace in the colonies or will we heat it with wood?

Location (OFC) close to a sun, near hot stuff like molten lava/motlen planet

• resource refinement
• resource production
• resource gathering
• it being "existent" in general active/kerbals living there

all of those have and can produce a lot of heat

and even with just nothing but a colony a hot area/planet surface/location keeping it "cool" requires a lot of power/excess heat build up to keep the place cold/liveable for the kerbals.

things don't exist without heat or cold in space, in a vacume you need be able cool off stuff or warm up stuff for that matter. stuff that produces alot of energy in space need a way to cool down.

heck even solar panels need to be cooled so large volume of them could create localized heat pockets on builds.if they are insane enough ofc.

just a quick example. 

on moho

• Daytime heat of 300* C

For me it would make sense to need cooling in the most basic of buildings.

etc, and vise versa.. Finding Geothermal areas to get heat from or heck even power.. management of heat is necessary to know depending on the amount of detail/work they are willing to put in.

[Book]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I kind of hope for the sake of simplicity both power and coolant lines can be transmitted underground within a certain range of the colony hub. Perhaps this range could be extended with upgrades?

I'd love overground coolant and utilities lines because it looks neat. I love being able to see the internals of what makes something work. And I think it would help making a colony look like one system, and not like a pile of buildings next to each other.

Doesn't need to be placed manually though, I can understand ut could be quite tedious, but I'd love just seeing those pipes be automatically built when you add your cooling building.

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Book
Double posting

[Periple]

We’ve also seen various power generation buildings and fuel refineries. These will surely generate heat, sometimes a lot of it. A nuclear reactor requires a lot of cooling!

[DunaManiac]

27 minutes ago, Periple said:

If it's below its maximum temperature then all is good; if not, it'll go kaboom.

This is actually something I would not want to see. For ordinary crafts, I'd accept that, but for colonies I would expect a more complex heating system. Rather than the colony simply shutting down when waste heat is exceeded, I would like to see performance costs the closer one gets to maximum temperature, and failure occurs once it reaches maximum heat tolerance. But this would involve a more complex heating system that would involve the placement and amount of radiators or other methods. I would design the system though that if you simply stick radiators everywhere you'd be fine, but only operating at 75% capacity, but those who take the time to learn how to manage heat more efficiently are rewarded by being able to operate at full capacity. It would also be slightly more realistic, I feel, than simply having a maximum temp when things go boom or shut down.

[Stephensan]

1 minute ago, DunaManiac said:

This is actually something I would not want to see. For ordinary crafts, I'd accept that, but for colonies I would expect a more complex heating system. Rather than the colony simply shutting down when waste heat is exceeded, I would like to see performance costs the closer one gets to maximum temperature, and failure occurs once it reaches maximum heat tolerance. But this would involve a more complex heating system that would involve the placement and amount of radiators or other methods. I would design the system though that if you simply stick radiators everywhere you'd be fine, but only operating at 75% capacity, but those who take the time to learn how to manage heat more efficiently are rewarded by being able to operate at full capacity. It would also be slightly more realistic, I feel, than simply having a maximum temp when things go boom or shut down.

cars don't just "get" 75% capacity of performance when its completely overheated, it shuts down, and for older cars, well... self implode..

most everything won't work like that.

there is some that can

• Run hotter and with less performance.
• Shuts down when too hot.
• It damages itself when to hot.
• Complete total failure when too hot.

not everything can run on the "less performance".. I wouldn't mind having it go well pass its heat limit for a short period of time and warn the player but if everything would work on less performance it would be way too bland if everything worked like that, and just honestly sounds like poor base management.. for even someone that doesn't do those ""build" a city" type games hearing something as simple as this example "just don't give water in these sections to save money" just sounds like a bad idea from the start.. Everything has a purpose 99% of the time, and most everything isn't universal.

 

and all of it is depending on the tech, what it is etc.

[Alexoff]

I can imagine how many bright and colorful reactions we will encounter in the game if overheating in the colonies leads to disasters. This is not an accordion-shaped rocket at the start

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

I don't understand the first picture, what it's intended to convey.

Ok, clearly the focus is the pyramid shaped part (someone else made the example, I ran with it): On the left, the part is minimizing the contact between the square and the floor in a particular way: as the area touching the square is minimal, the square shouldn't transfer that much temperature through conduction to the pyramid, whilst the pyramid should have a much bigger influence from the ground, where it has its biggest surface area in contact. Conversely, on the right, the transference between the pyramid and the floor should be minimal, but that same part should act as a cooler/radiator in regards to the square, contacting a single flat face and turning it into 4 pyramid sides, thus greatly augmenting surface area in contact with air, and still isolating the floor.

On the proposed system, based on the radiator example, parts have a flat flux value, thus their orientation doesn't matter.

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

For the 2nd picture, let me ask you this: From a gameplay perspective, why do you feel those two instances need to be different?

It's just another way to portray the same problem. If you don't see why those scenarios need to behave differently, let me put it this way: It's the difference between conscious, applied design of a ship/colony vs slapping a part to nullify a "feature".

[RocketRockington]

6 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

Well, what's the point of colonies then? Also, you probably don't have to deal with them. Choose your own level of involvement.

It really seems like you'll be forced to deal with colonies, and thus orbital colonies,  it's been mentioned you can't even build interstellar craft on the ground. Not sure if special allowances will be made for sandbox 

Edited July 22, 2023 by RocketRockington

[cocoscacao]

1 hour ago, RocketRockington said:

It really seems like you'll be forced to deal with colonies, and thus orbital colonies,  it's been mentioned you can't even build interstellar craft on the ground. Not sure if special allowances will be made for sandbox

If you want to progress, sure. I mean... going back to @Scarecrow71 complaint, even in KSP 1, science and career are drifting away from pure rocket construction/flying, because they're forcing you to construct a specific thing and go to a specific place. Colonies just add much a bigger scope to it, and I think it is safe to assume that the majority of players want that.

Also, you really shouldn't be able to build interstellar craft on the ground... that's a good thing.

Edited July 23, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Scarecrow71]

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I kind of hope for the sake of simplicity both power and coolant lines can be transmitted underground within a certain range of the colony hub. Perhaps this range could be extended with upgrades?

So...SimCity for Kerbals?

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Scarecrow71 said:

So...SimCity for Kerbals?

Keeping it on the subject of heat but also more broadly speaking it could be as simple as a buildable radius around your start position wherein all resources are shared and its effectively one vessel for pools of resources (power, fuel, heat-exchange). So very unlike SimCity you could make outbuildings or set up wind-farms wherever you liked within that radius and it would be considered connected to the network without having to manually place power poles or trench coolant lines. This seems more in vein with the way other systems work in KSP--you can put monoprop storage and RCS thrusters wherever you like. You're tasked with understanding how much they will consume and where they're best placed, but not with manually routing or piping fluids through your vessel. The analogy for a colony would be you might place solar panels where they get more sun or liquid heat exchangers on a coast, but you don't have to manually drag pipes and power lines to those locations so long as they're close to your main base.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[PicoSpace]

28 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Keeping it on the subject of heat but also more broadly speaking it could be as simple as a buildable radius around your start position wherein all resources are shared and its effectively one vessel for pools of resources (power, fuel, heat-exchange). So very unlike SimCity you could make outbuildings or set up wind-farms wherever you liked within that radius and it would be considered connected to the network without having to manually place power poles or trench coolant lines. This seems more in vein with the way other systems work in KSP--you can put monoprop storage and RCS thrusters wherever you like. You're tasked with understanding how much they will consume and where they're best placed, but not with manually routing or piping fluids through your vessel. The analogy for a colony would be you might place solar panels where they get more sun or liquid heat exchangers on a coast, but you don't have to manually drag pipes and power lines to those locations so long as they're close to your main base.

This makes me think of “pylons” from the Protoss in StarCraft. You could build within a range of them, add more to expand your network as a hub.

[asmi]

10 hours ago, Snark said:

which flavor of ice cream is better, vanilla or chocolate.  (Chocolate.)

You're wrong, and you're bad (C) 

Edited July 23, 2023 by asmi

[HebaruSan]

Perhaps another heat-in-space user story could take inspiration from JWST, given how high-profile its heat engineering was:

• Parts that require low temperatures to operate (MIRI and friends)
• Parts optimized for blocking incoming sunlight and inhibiting conduction (sunshield)
  
• Parts that transfer heat from one spot to another (cryocooler)

Granted, not everyone got a kick out of watching JWST cool down for 60+ days, but it still seems like a potential win if some similar challenges could be wrestled with in-game.

Edited July 26, 2023 by HebaruSan

[Periple]

7 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Rather than the colony simply shutting down when waste heat is exceeded, I would like to see performance costs the closer one gets to maximum temperature, and failure occurs once it reaches maximum heat tolerance. But this would involve a more complex heating system that would involve the placement and amount of radiators or other methods. I would design the system though that if you simply stick radiators everywhere you'd be fine, but only operating at 75% capacity, but those who take the time to learn how to manage heat more efficiently are rewarded by being able to operate at full capacity. It would also be slightly more realistic, I feel, than simply having a maximum temp when things go boom or shut down.

This would be a really cool refinement of the system and I also hope we’ll see something like it!

[Superfluous J]

6 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

It's just another way to portray the same problem. If you don't see why those scenarios need to behave differently, let me put it this way: It's the difference between conscious, applied design of a ship/colony vs slapping a part to nullify a "feature".

But it's not. The part must contact the water, so the base must be built near the water or there must be heat piping between the base and the water cooler. Or water must be pumped I suppose but anyway. So long as the water cooler part must touch the water, nothing tangible is gained in the gameplay by forcing it be submerged a set amount.

Now that I know what the first picture represents then yes I agree in this case it should matter as it adds interesting design considerations (I.e. Gameplay)

[Sade]

7 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Granted, not everyone got a kick out of watching JWST cool down for 60+ days, but it still seems like a potential win if some similar challenges could be wrestled with in-game.

I got a kick out of it, really not joking, I was watching the temperature tracker website daily, I'd love building something like that.