Design deadlock: Does it happen to you?

[AmpsterMan]

Here is what has been happening to me this whole year. I think of a cool mission to some planet or moon, build it conceptually in my head, do some drawings and paper napkin math, go to the VAB, go about designing a Launch Vehicle that can take this thing into orbit, spend HOURS perfecting the stupid launcher, and then when I finally get to the point of doing the mission I don't. Basically, my VAB is filled with launchers that have designed (Delta IV Heavy, Angara 1-7, Falcon 9/Heavy etc) but no actual payloads. As an example, since the release of KSP on Steam, I have about 20 hours logged in the game, and ALL of them have been me just designing and testing launchers that NEVER launch payloads anywhere. It seems like I am stuck in a loop of trying to perfect things soo much that I don't just go with good enough lol.

Does this happen to any of you? Am I just being perfectionist? This game really brings out the obsessive compulsive tendencies in me XD.

[stibbons]

I've built half a dozen different launchers, saved them all in the subassembly loader mod, and then stopped building launchers. Now it's all about building a payload and then slapping an appropriately-sized launcher on the bottom.

[Olvirm]

I have tried to keep it so that I have as few launchers as possible. I've started with small payloads and slowly worked to heavier things and I would use one launcher until it simply could not perform the task required.

[Pontiac]

Thats the great thing about this game, I think. There is no "one" way to play.

For some, just the challenge to build something and get it into orbit in a different way is great. For others, its building landers, and buggies, and cheating them to their destination and playing with their results. Others, its the number crunching, orbital mechanics such as getting into orbit with as little delta-v as possible, using as little parts as possible, using as MANY parts as possible, figuring out interplanetary operations on the same principals as a munar landing, etc, etc, etc.

20 hours? Thats it? I've already burned 20+ hours since Monday... I should write an app that monitors how long certain programs run on my computer, and log it. Would be interesting to see.

[rodion_herrera]

I tend to stick with the old adage that goes, "Why fix it when it's not broken?" but applied to specific aspects of a build, esp. parts that I know won't really impact much, the overall outcome of my missions. So after creating several lifters that do work, though they may look like kludge-work or crude, if they get to send me places, then I will stick to it, and then concentrate on refining my main exploration vehicles.

I should write an app that monitors how long certain programs run on my computer, and log it. Would be interesting to see.

If there's one thing I like about the Steam interface is, if you use its "PLAY" button to play KSP, it will show you how many hours you have spent playing it.

[Pontiac]

Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. I don't have (and won't put) KSP onto Steam, unless I buy a second copy. Some of my development tools will grind down to how much time I spent looking at a particular file, how long I've been in the IDE versus running the app, being productive or idle, etc, so why not watch how long I run a program?

Hell, it'd be useful to see what apps my kids use on their computer and shut 'em down after a period of time. {evil grin}

[Major Healey]

I started a new profile the other week because of all the space junk and general mess I had left on Mun. Since then I have nothing in outer space, I have built dozen of random things, got them into orbit, landed on Mun just to say to myself, meh I can do that better. So I am the same sort of, I have a dozen different contraptions and am still waiting to work out what I want to do with them. I suppose Im in that category if it flies Im happy.

[Jokurr]

I have many designs that were never put into use.

[SkyRender]

I used to have that problem. Then I decided to stop worrying so much and just come up with a few malleable designs that can be adapted readily to any purpose. The end result is that I barely have to tinker at all with a given craft to get it to suit my current mission needs. My one-Kerbal Duna mission ship Dunaverse is almost identical to my one-Kerbal Eeloo mission ship Eeloosive; I basically just plugged an extra bit of fuel on the lander and beefed up the drive stage.

The key to overcoming the deadlock, for me at least, was standardization. Maybe that'll work for you too.

[Flixxbeatz]

Spacecraft design deadlock (landers, rovers, probes, etc.) sometimes, particularly when all I have on mind is a generic design. No deadlocks for the boosters, since I use a standard design.

[togfox]

I should write an app that monitors how long certain programs run on my computer, and log it. Would be interesting to see.

xfire does games. I've played KSP for 246 hours (not all at once). It's my 5th played game - soon to become the 4th played game.

In that time I've probably had almost one successful mission without casualty.

[Vanamonde]

I do the opposite. I start with a payload, then cobble together something clumsy and too big to get it where I want it to go. After I've tried it and I'm sure it can get there, I go back and prune and optimize the launch vehicle until it's just big enough to get the job done. So I can have several rockets that are the same paylod sitting atop various alternative versions of the launch vehicle.

[FlamedSteak]

For some reason I keep my failed designs. I have a Titan I, II, III and IV.

The Titan V was the final design that got me to the Mun, but I still have all the previous ones, including the explody Titan I and II.

I'm not at the stage where I have a rocket for all occasions yet, but I'm working on it.

[soranno]

I found myself in this same position a few months ago, and my solution to breaking the deadlock was in breaking my payloads!

As soon as I began breaking up almost all payloads into smaller sizes and weights, and using a well tested launcher I began to make much greater progress. As well as that it enabled me to spend more time doing dockings with a purpose, which suited my well as I thoroughly enjoy docking (within reason).

Since that time, I returned to designing a set of lifters to suit all my needs, as mention in other posts in the thread, and saved them in subassembly loader. After designing a payload I simply attach the most appropriate lifter, ranging in my case from >20t up to 100t(dead weight).

If something is outside that range I will break it up into 2 or 3 launches and get the business of space going as promtply as possible.

After all, less time on the ground means more time going up! And up is what this game is all about.

(with the exception of times involving mostly down, but they in turn tend to lead to the next up, and so on)

[jfx]

Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. I don't have (and won't put) KSP onto Steam, unless I buy a second copy. Some of my development tools will grind down to how much time I spent looking at a particular file, how long I've been in the IDE versus running the app, being productive or idle, etc, so why not watch how long I run a program?{evil grin}

You can add external programs to steam.

[Flowz0r]

It's quite the opposite for me, I have a launcher design for light, medium and heavy payloads that I use for pretty much everything.

You can add external programs to steam.

But steam doesn't track the time you've spent playing those, even if you launch them through steam.

[magnemoe]

in 0.19 I had some standard designs, I also used orbital construction. Launch batches of 100 ton rocket parts, spawn in orbit and consume rocket parts.

Has some problems in 0.20 as I miss novapunch who is nice for huge boosters, even some of my motherships.

Currently playing around with the new deployable launchpad.

[Lortto]

I should really be designing a rover but I have a horrible designers block. I just can't seem to be able to design anything I'm happy with or design a usable landing system for one. Hence my kerbals have to walk all the time. I have no problem designing craft though as my usual craft + lander combo seems capable of going just about anywhere with only minor support. I use pretty much only a regular asparagus staged launcher and I only vary the number of SRB's I put in it. It's got too much fuel for most of my payloads.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Lortto

[jwenting]

yes, a rover landing system... Am designing my first (unmanned) rover, even sent prototypes to Duna, but they won't move (it worked fine testing it on the launchpad, but sinks into the dust at Duna).

For now I mount 2 of them vertical against the sides of the lander, and use stack decouplers to eject them, letting them drop the few meters to the surface. Of course that means I need a rover that can drive either side up as I have no control over how it lands

[JaySmoka]

I'm also stuck in designing my lifters... I have a series for medium payload (< 75t), now I'm designing a 100t payload. But my old series I used to design the payload (station modules) and then with the mass of the payload I can pickup a lifter adapted to it. Thanks sub assembly loader! But my "way" of playing doesn't get me far... my first Mun landing mission is on the way... But in long term I think the "lifting perfectionism" will save me time.

[Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ]

I tend to become obsessed with way over-designing my payloads in an attempt to account for any possible scenario.

My typical thought-process in the VAB

"Does it need parachutes?"

"ITS AN ISA SATELLITE!"

"Does it need a barometer?"

"STOP IT!"

"But I need to be prepared!" .

The result being crafts that where conceived simple and efficient but end up with every free space crammed with misc parts from all my installed mods. I just use sub-assembly for the launchers so no problems in that department.

Although some are stupidly inefficient and over-the-top, one being a 22,600 kN monster using four of BobCat's Ares 1 boosters and a Griffon from KW rocketry which I use when I need to move chunks of space station to other planets.

[KerbMav]

I've built half a dozen different launchers, saved them all in the subassembly loader mod, and then stopped building launchers. Now it's all about building a payload and then slapping an appropriately-sized launcher on the bottom.

That is what I get for ignoring mods for my disapproval of overpowered parts - missing out on the pure practical stuff!

Now I can assemble my space station, break it apart, store the parts and launch them knowing that they will fit together!

[Uberick]

Somethunk like this happened to me when I was designing my eve landed and the (giant) launcher for it. I found myself getting frustrated because all I did was try to perfect that one launch. To break the monotony, I went and did another Mun landing(always fun), and launched an ion probe. After that, I found myself having much more fun even after I went back to the launcher. Try to go do something different to break yourself out of a rut.

[Mazlem]

Here is what has been happening to me this whole year. I think of a cool mission to some planet or moon, build it conceptually in my head, do some drawings and paper napkin math, go to the VAB, go about designing a Launch Vehicle that can take this thing into orbit, spend HOURS perfecting the stupid launcher, and then when I finally get to the point of doing the mission I don't. Basically, my VAB is filled with launchers that have designed (Delta IV Heavy, Angara 1-7, Falcon 9/Heavy etc) but no actual payloads. As an example, since the release of KSP on Steam, I have about 20 hours logged in the game, and ALL of them have been me just designing and testing launchers that NEVER launch payloads anywhere. It seems like I am stuck in a loop of trying to perfect things soo much that I don't just go with good enough lol.

Does this happen to any of you? Am I just being perfectionist? This game really brings out the obsessive compulsive tendencies in me XD.

Your launchers are not perfect. How do you know they are if you've never used them to deliver something? Think about that!

[legodragonxp]

What you call deadlock I just call extensive R&D.

-Lego