KSP batteries are actually capacitors

[Stargate525]

I fail to see how this extra complexity will make the learning curve more difficult for the end user. Now I've made a very explicit example with a lot of detail. Please don't say I'm wrong unless you have some sort of explanation to back it up! Then when you have your explanation, read it back to yourself. I'm wasting a lot of my time and several pages on this thread trying to explain why the burden of proof in this situation doesn't rest on me, and we're just running in circles here. All I'm getting back from those of you who think this is a bad idea is vague assertions that it will make the game more difficult for the end user. But I have reason to believe that it will have precisely the opposite effect.

Why is the burden of proof not on the one SUGGESTING the new feature?! You go anywhere, say 'hey, this is a great idea, do this!' and it's your burden to convince THEM. You've got it precisely backwards.

And all your example shows is that they still won't understand anything. How is 'The user is still confused by a lot of things but is capable of flying a rocket without really understanding how the majority of this stuff works or what it means.' better than the current system in any way whatsoever? You're proving our point. To the end user, he stuck a battery on, magic happened, and his transmission went through.

[thereaverofdarkness]

You guys are not saying that it will fail to solve the problem I am proposing it to solve, but instead are suggesting that it will create a new problem. That is where the burden of proof lies on you.

How is 'The user is still confused by a lot of things but is capable of flying a rocket without really understanding how the majority of this stuff works or what it means.' better than the current system in any way whatsoever?

It is no different from the current system, how is it worse? I'm not suggesting that the learning curve will be shallower but I am suggesting that it won't be significantly steeper. I've already stated what this idea will solve. Now either give some weight to your extraordinary claims or take them somewhere else. This is a forum for discussion, not mindless arguing and blame-calling.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Sorry, but this all strikes me as needlessly complex, without really adding anything of value to the game. It will add some confusion, and some lag, neither of which are desirable.

Yes, it's good for KSP to be reasonably realistic, but it's certainly not necessary for it to be perfectly realistic in every way possible. The current electricity system is good enough by providing generation, buffering, and consumption, and it really doesn't matter whether or not it is properly aligned with the finer detail of electrical engineering.

I'm suggesting this less for realism and more to give players the option of using lightweight batteries that carry a lot of charge, in order to have a supply of energy that lasts several hours or days without sun. Simply upping the storage capacity of existing batteries will unbalance other aspects of the game. Adding batteries won't really increase end-user complexity significantly (because they are not forced to understand how they work) and it will not add a significant amount of lag except in builds using large numbers of batteries with little else.

[Red Iron Crown]

You guys are not saying that it will fail to solve the problem I am proposing it to solve...

I guess I would say I don't see the problem that it solves. The scenarios you describe could be handled effectively and more simply with enough of the current batteries.

Your idea increases realism, but I don't hear a ton of clamoring that the electrical system is unrealistic. There are bigger, core mechanic realism issues that should be dealt with first; life support, reentry effects, and aerodynamics come to mind. These are all more fundamental to spacecraft design than the electrical system (spacecraft of course need electrical systems, but they're not the core of what they do).

[Sasuga]

Maybe the wires are just hooked up to the batteries when they're slapped on, that's what I always figured. I never thought of them as a separate storage that moves the energy into the main storage. I think they just expand the pool of energy storage.

[Stargate525]

I guess I would say I don't see the problem that it solves. The scenarios you describe could be handled effectively and more simply with enough of the current batteries.

This. ^

We are arguing both that your proposal fails to solve any existent problem, AND that it introduces additional ones. Those additional problems being, namely:

-Added complexity of parts and logic. By your own admission, new stuff needs to be introduced, new programming logic needs to be made for the batteries and capacitors. You have ceded this ground and are arguing degree. That's bad debate.

-Added confusion. Since you want examples, let's build a rover with your electrical system. Each of its six M1 wheels require 1/s charge. I slap a Z-9 on the thing and, when I test it, find that I'm only drawing .15/s instead of the six that I need. The resource panel doesn't tell me anything, as it's reading I've got 3600 charge. This then requires me to delve into the right-click menu in the SPH, break out the calculator, and determine that to actually run my rover, I need a capacitor bank and some batteries. Instead of the one or two batteries I would have put on, I need AT LEAST one capacitor, more if I want to drive it longer than ten minutes or can't get the Z-60, and at least one battery, which does nothing but lock up a massive amount of juice and force me to wait for it. That's more parts in almost every situation, which is another point for the added complexity, above.

-Added complexity of difficulty curve. You are introducing a unique fuel type, the only one which has a maximum flow rate. This WILL increase the learning curve, and your only argument against this point is 'well, not THAT much.' You've ceded this point as well, and are arguing degree.

-Feasibility. Keep in mind this is for a game whose devs don't trust the playerbase with frikkin dV calculations. In short, they think we're idiots. Even if there were no other disadvantages on this plan, do you think the devs will add this?

That's four rather serious disadvantages weighed against your one, dubious, assertion that it solves the problem of having to burn ion drives on the dark side of planets. In your first post, you asked what we thought. Frankly, I think it's a ridiculous notion with no net positives, and see no reason to implement it.

[thereaverofdarkness]

That's four rather serious disadvantages weighed against your one, dubious, assertion that it solves the problem of having to burn ion drives on the dark side of planets.

I made quite a few other points in favor of it but don't think I ever said anything about using batteries for ion drives. I'd put a battery on an ion probe for sure, but the drive would be run by the solar panels. The battery would ensure it didn't lose its ability to turn in darkness, and sometimes could help for minor course corrections such as low-orbit insertions by keeping the capacitor full at night.

Added complexity of parts and logic: not significantly--far more complex things already exist in the game. Implementing this would be a trivial task in comparison. I am arguing degree. I am arguing that the degree isn't just "not so much", but utterly, inconsequentially insignificant and trivial. But that's not the point. We aren't here to discuss how difficult it is to implement, that is for Squad to decide. We are here to discuss its merits.

Added confusion: you seem to be suggesting that the rover can't run under limited power, and that having to calculate the energy output of the batteries is somehow more difficult or separate from calculating the energy output of solar panels. And quite frankly, anyone who doesn't like these batteries is not forced to use them. They can just stick with capacitors only if they choose. Nothing is lost from the game with my suggestion.

Added complexity of difficulty curve: I am arguing degree. My argument is not only that it's a very tiny amount to learn, but that more importantly the player is never forced to learn it, because they can use capacitors instead. But my suggestion also includes a simpler system of energy units which will more than cover the complexity of the new battery system by making calculation of energy needs for both batteries AND solar panels easier. But adding a UI element to tell you your maximum energy output would really make the difference and completely solve this entire issue to the point of making this "added learning curve" a moot point entirely.

Feasibility: not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I see no explanation that the design is faulty. You shouldn't be calling this a serious disadvantage when it's nothing more than a vague impression you have that Squad doesn't like the idea. I haven't heard anything from them on the subject yet.

==========================================================

In short, your four "serious disadvantages" of my proposition are two points which aren't up to us to think about, and two points in which you are arguing scale, while ignoring that the player isn't forced to use the new part.

Edited August 19, 2014 by thereaverofdarkness

[Red Iron Crown]

I made quite a few other points in favor of it but don't think I ever said anything about using batteries for ion drives.

I just gave the thread a quick reread, I don't see a single problem that this additional complexity solves that cannot be adequately solved more simply with an appropriately sized bank of the current batteries.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I just gave the thread a quick reread, I don't see a single problem that this additional complexity solves that cannot be adequately solved more simply with an appropriately sized bank of the current batteries.

Small, lightweight units that cannot afford the weight.

[Red Iron Crown]

Small, lightweight units that cannot afford the weight.

Radial batteries have no mass. Even if they did, that's a valid design consideration.

[Stargate525]

Small, lightweight units that cannot afford the weight.

That's funny, the smallest battery will keep a probe core alive for about an hour. Unless you're talking about the rare eclipse, there is no planet whose orbit will keep you on the dark side of the planet for longer than half an hour or so. Since everything but your biggest battery barely have enough discharge to even run a probe's onboard SAS, it's useful for... what, exactly? You need more darkside runtime? Add a second or third battery (especially since the smallest ones are MASSLESS). Need a failsafe in case of running out of juice? Add a single panel and wait.

What does your proposal solve, again?

[Mesons]

...my suggestion also includes a simpler system of energy units which will more than cover the complexity of the new battery system by making calculation of energy needs for both batteries AND solar panels easier...

The more this discussion evolves the more convinced I am that this feature does not belong in-game. You claim that this feature would be making the game simpler when what's there already is the simplest possible--you have some total amount of ElectricCharge, every powered device takes it at some rate, every generation source restores it at some rate, end of story.

The biggest issue I have with your proposal is inaccuracy. You suggest that labeling the max rate of discharge as "voltage" would make things simpler, but voltage is a scientific word with an extremely specific meaning, the electric potential difference between two points. Chemical batteries do indeed always have some fixed voltage attached to them, but the point I think you are missing is that in general, this is not tied to the rate of discharge. Batteries do not have a fixed or limited discharge rate, only an operating range beyond which you can damage them. As I mentioned previously, the batteries in-game could just be many batteries in parallel, which taxes each battery inversely proportional to the number of batteries, reducing the problem of discharge rate to a non-issue.

Capacitors don't have a fixed voltage--it depends on how much charge they have stored; this makes them undesirable for use in powering devices unless they are the blink-on-and-off type. Most modern electronics require a fixed voltage.

Your suggestion appears to me to be fueled by an incomplete understanding of the electrical elements. I'd like to echo again that the complication of multiple types of sources of ElectricCharge (limited and non-limited) would necessarily make that aspect of the game more complicated, in away that I see as unnecessary (not to mention scientifically inaccurate) to enjoying the realism that the game has to offer. If you want more realism, try out any number of the related mods, or make one yourself that includes capacitors and batteries. If you do that, though, be prepared for the aforementioned angry mobs...

[thereaverofdarkness]

Everything you've said there I've already addressed multiple times, these are becoming very tiresome issues. It's like a game of lets poke fingers at the idea we don't like. If it gives you a bad feeling and you can't really explain it, just say so. If your opinion differs from mine, just say you disagree with me. But it's not nice to try to shoot down my post as being poorly drafted when you can't be bothered to come up with a sound and foolproof explanation for why I am wrong.

This isn't even a suggestion. It's supposed to be a thread for discussing the idea. But it seems like I can't get anyone to discuss the idea, as if everyone is too afraid to consider it. All you guys are doing is shutting it down. You shouldn't be shutting down a discussion. Explaining its drawbacks is excellent. But saying it's a bad idea in general for X blanket reason is just shutting it down. Worse, some of you are attacking my choice of wording or my character. Such personal attacks are not conducive to the discussion.

I will address only one point here, because I believe it is the only part of your post that is adding to the discussion:

Capacitors don't have a fixed voltage--it depends on how much charge they have stored; this makes them undesirable for use in powering devices unless they are the blink-on-and-off type. Most modern electronics require a fixed voltage.

It's a good point, and relevant. I don't know how it relates to KSP, but that's for you to decide.

[thereaverofdarkness]

That's funny, the smallest battery will keep a probe core alive for about an hour. Unless you're talking about the rare eclipse

which happens every month

What does your proposal solve, again?

It's not a proposal. It clearly says [Discussion] at the top, it is explained as a discussion, and it is here for discussion purposes. Stop treating it as a proposal. It isn't.

Furthermore, you clearly disagree with me on the usefulness of the idea. It is a matter of opinion. I have given examples to show that running out of power on a craft that uses it constantly is indeed possible. There is no need for you to downplay the validity of my claim. You don't have to agree on its importance to accept it as a valid point of discussion. You can even voice your disagreement. Just keep it a matter of opinion, and don't try to suggest that your opinion is more factual than mine.

Edited August 20, 2014 by thereaverofdarkness

[Red Iron Crown]

This isn't even a suggestion. It's supposed to be a thread for discussing the idea. But it seems like I can't get anyone to discuss the idea, as if everyone is too afraid to consider it. All you guys are doing is shutting it down. You shouldn't be shutting down a discussion. Explaining its drawbacks is excellent. But saying it's a bad idea in general for X blanket reason is just shutting it down.

That's an unfair blanket statement there. I understand the concept that you are describing and considered it; I concluded that it doesn't add much to the game other than complexity and more part types. The electrical system in KSP will always be an abstraction, making it a more realistic and complex abstraction doesn't add to the fun of the core gameplay, IMO.

[thereaverofdarkness]

That's an unfair blanket statement there. I understand the concept that you are describing and considered it; I concluded that it doesn't add much to the game other than complexity and more part types. The electrical system in KSP will always be an abstraction, making it a more realistic and complex abstraction doesn't add to the fun of the core gameplay, IMO.

It is a blanket statement, and perhaps made either lazily, out of frustration, to save words, or any combination of those. It would be much more difficult and tiresome to go through every comment in a single comment and point out every example of shutting down the discussion or personal attack. But you've been shutting my post down, too. When you make a blanket statement that suggests my whole idea "doesn't add much to the game other than complexity and more part types" or "doesn't add to the fun of the core gameplay" you're shutting it down. Those are blanket opinions. I wouldn't have a problem with them if you included discussion of individual aspects, suggestions to improve it, what you think would be a better idea. But if all you have to say is that you think it's a bad idea, then keep it short and move on.

[Red Iron Crown]

The better idea, to my mind, would be to leave the batteries as they are.

(Moving on.)

[r4pt0r]

The better idea, to my mind, would be to leave the batteries as they are.

seconding this.

[Murph]

It is a blanket statement, and perhaps made either lazily, out of frustration, to save words, or any combination of those. It would be much more difficult and tiresome to go through every comment in a single comment and point out every example of shutting down the discussion or personal attack. But you've been shutting my post down, too. When you make a blanket statement that suggests my whole idea "doesn't add much to the game other than complexity and more part types" or "doesn't add to the fun of the core gameplay" you're shutting it down. Those are blanket opinions. I wouldn't have a problem with them if you included discussion of individual aspects, suggestions to improve it, what you think would be a better idea. But if all you have to say is that you think it's a bad idea, then keep it short and move on.

I have to disagree with you on what you're trying to allow and disallow as "discussion". You've thrown an idea out there, and the nature of a forum discussion is that you have to take the rough with the smooth. Personal attacks are certainly not appropriate, but occasionally someone is tired/emotional/drunk/whatever, or just doesn't choose the right words. Discussion includes BOTH what you'd prefer, and what you're calling "blanket opinions". If someone sees the entire thing as a bad idea, it's really not unreasonable for them to say so, and up to them whether they say it in one sentence, a summary paragraph, or go point by point through the entire thing.

If it's not a severe personal attack, you really don't get to tell people to "keep it short and move on", if they choose to continue debating the topic and discussing the merits of the idea as a whole or parts of it. It's far better for people to put a little effort into saying why they think it's a bad idea, otherwise the discussion becomes entirely imbalanced. People who think that it's a good idea are entitled to chime in, and would be best advised to elaborate on why they think it's a good idea, then you have a balanced discussion. Both sides must be allowed essentially equal opportunity to state opinions and reasoning.

On the topic itself, I get a sense from some of what you've written, that you're envisioning this new type of electricity storage as somehow having less mass or volume per charge unit. I'm not sure that is actually realistic, as both capacitors and batteries are dense, heavy objects, with mass scaling roughly with their total storage capacity. It's been a long time since I looked at huge capacitors, but I seem to remember that one with the approx same total energy capacity as a car battery had roughly the same mass and size. I'm not 100% certain on that, and am happy to be corrected by someone with hard facts (sorry, I wasn't motivated enough to fully research the hard numbers). So, that's one of the reasons that I don't think that it's needed, as I believe that a vaguely realistic setup would be roughly the same mass and volume as we have right now with existing KSP batteries, therefore there would be no useful gain from the added complexity.

I also agree with others who have stated that voltage is never the correct unit for measuring capacity of batteries or capacitors. The only correct measure of the total amount stored energy is joules or watt-hours, which can be converted to amp-hours when the system voltage is fixed. Voltage is an important part of the specification, but not the capacity. I don't believe that there's any major issue with KSP just using abstract/anonymous units for resource quantities, or any major benefit gained by converting KSP to use real world units (but equally no harm, if they were actually correctly done).

Short summary of my opinion: It's an interesting idea, but my considered opinion right now is that it's not needed in KSP. I don't believe that it really adds anything, or see the problem that it solves.

[Superfluous J]

This happens very often. Someone posts an idea for discussion, people don't like that idea, and then the original poster tries to stop those that don't like it from discussing it.

When you release an idea to the world it becomes the worlds' idea. We didn't like it, and stated why. We discussed it, exactly like you thought (and said) you wanted us to. It's sad and I understand why it hurts (My ideas get shot down all the time) but it's the way discussions works some times.

[Mesons]

Everything you've said there I've already addressed multiple times...If it gives you a bad feeling and you can't really explain it, just say so. If your opinion differs from mine, just say you disagree with me.

As with the others posting, I have stated my disagreement. Your suggestion (note that I am addressing your suggestion, not you personally) has met with my disapproval not because of a vaguely bad feeling that I can't explain, but for reasons of scientific inconsistency and lack of improving gameplay in any way I see as advantageous; we dissenters have explained in detail why we disagree with you.

But it's not nice to try to shoot down my post as being poorly drafted when you can't be bothered to come up with a sound and foolproof explanation for why I am wrong...Worse, some of you are attacking my choice of wording or my character.

Is correct physics not enough? I assume that by "attacking my choice of wording" you meant your suggestion of using voltage to describe battery capacity. This is very much analogous to using meters to describe a vessel's speed--you woudn't do it because it doesn't make sense. That is what I meant by "voltage" having a very specific meaning (and stated what that meaning is).

...it seems like I can't get anyone to discuss the idea, as if everyone is too afraid to consider it. All you guys are doing is shutting it down...But saying it's a bad idea in general for X blanket reason is just shutting it down. Worse, some of you are attacking my choice of wording or my character. Such personal attacks are not conducive to the discussion.

Saying that everyone is too afraid to consider your idea seems like a personal attack to me. We have been offering ample reasons to support our opinions on the matter. If you suggest an idea to change the game, I don't see any way around considering that idea a proposal or suggestion. Is there something else that' bothering you about this discussion? We have all weighed in on the topic and seen the support you have provided. Some of us disagree. I would appreciate not being lambasted for contributing my opinion to this open discussion.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Is there something else that' bothering you about this discussion?

It just seems like everyone is treating it like a suggestion. I want to discuss the ups and downs of it, its implementation, and the mechanics of that. I don't want to discuss whether or not it's a good idea to put into the game. I don't mind if people add an aside and say "this is not something I would support adding to the stock game", but the point isn't whether or not it should be added, but to discuss the topic at hand. That's the point of a discussion. I knew if I selected [suggestion] I would be opening myself up to a bunch of yesses and noes. I didn't want that. I wanted people to help me flesh the idea out, to explore possibilities related to it, to add new things to the discussion. I was hoping that my contributions would be only a small part of the total of the topic when it was all said and done. But aside from a few points on the real-world functionality of capacitors early on, all I have gotten is suggestion-oriented responses.

[Superfluous J]

I will bow out then. I don't think I can discuss ways to make it better. It'd be like saying, "I know you don't want this in the game, but what are the various ways we could implement Kerbals randomly exploding?" I think it's a bad idea. I like it the way it is and don't want it to change.