Time dependent expirement module

[Turd]

I've looked for similar suggestions a few times and haven seen anything too similar.

Essentially I would like to see radial and inline modules with experiments that reward you with more data for running longer. You could start the experiment, then switch back to flying other craft. After several days, weeks, or even years of in-game time you go back, turn off the experiment and collect your data.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Turd

[vexx32]

This has one fatal flaw (apart from being the third such suggestion I've seen here). KSP has time warp. That means that any time-based hurdles can be easily skipped by the player, and rendering them essentially useless in the first place.

[Kegereneku]

We are used to think of timewarp as cheap, but if Career mode make each flight costly and launch-windows an imperative, then such a system could be an useful tool for gameplay.

For example it would allow cross-linked experiment/power management/EVA intervention...etc, interaction with the experiment while it's going on.

Quoting some other ideas I had.

I also used to think Time-based experiments would be meaningless because of time-warp, and still think it's not necessary for all but a few experiment.

Yet, without going too far in the details like "" avoid having an orbit whose period is a whole number integer multiple of the rotational period of the planet. "" I think that a combination of time-based experiment and/or specific orbital parameter could greatly shape the gameplay in a good way.

Imagine the following :

- If the sensor/experiment require a mostly-circular orbit, it mean you need a satellite, not just a probe passing by the planet.

- If the sensor/experiment require a constant +10 in energy for days, you will need to design the satellite accordingly without relying on just a big battery.

Meaning that both concept could help create a gameplay for satellites.

Of course the bigger problem is how to explain to the players how they are supposed to do science, in a guided-progression sandbox, even if we will have mission at some point.

[thereaverofdarkness]

sometimes timewarp is cheap, but sometimes time is costly.

[Algiark]

You don't do science by looking at a thing for a very long time, you do science by doing stuff to that thing.

[ravener]

You don't do science by looking at a thing for a very long time, you do science by doing stuff to that thing.

A lot of science requires so many repetitions to generate reliable results that it takes quite a bit of time, some you have to find first. This is stuff that we for gameplay reasons can call science over time. If an experiment takes a few days to complete, i would go and launch other stuff... The way it is done now makes it so you never need bases or stations.

If the long duration experiments require suplies and extra equipment to work you would have to service, resupply, expand and recrew every once in a while.

[Kegereneku]

You don't do science by looking at a thing for a very long time, you do science by doing stuff to that thing.

I invite you to look at the duration of the Pitch drop experiment.

Even just "measuring the temperature" isn't done once and for all and can vary greatly because it depend of many factor. And that's not counting the time for calibration.

Anyway I hope you don't take science lesson from KSP. It's just a game.

[Algiark]

Still, even if science should take time, you can just timewarp and get the results. Much more convenient to just do it and instantly get the full results. This is a game after all

[LethalDose]

Add in limited life support and suddenly this becomes reasonable: Extended time performing the experiment costs more life support.

[LethalDose]

Although I should be clear: I don't like the idea of science output being variable based on how long it is kept running. It should be a set value for a set time.

Also, Vexx is right: This has been proposed several times before.

[a.g.]

One special case here is that you can't use non-physical timewarp when flying a plane or driving a rover. This means that this counter-argument doesn't apply to some kind of 'aerial/ground survey' module that provides a trickle of science while active in a moving craft on the ground or in atmosphere, and it will provide more meaning to planes and rovers.