Degrees of damage.

[Capt Snuggler]

DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting random failure or faults.

At the moment most parts only have 2 damage states: working and broken.

eg. solar panels go from functional to broken when they hit the atmosphere at speed.

I would like to see an additional stages of damage added in between.

Solar panels:

Nominal: tracks the sun, provides 100% output.

Repaired: tracks sun slower, 80% output.

Damaged: no longer tracks sun, panel appears bent/bucked or scorched (depending on what caused the damage. max output 50%, can be repaired.

Broken: panel disintegrated. 0% output. cannot be repaired without parts.

the same could be used for various other parts.

Engines for example:

Nominal: can gimble, max thrust 100%

Repaired: can gimble, max thrust 90% overheat threshold lowered.

Damaged: cannot gimble, max thrust 80%, pops and stutters (visual only), appears bent or scorched. can be repaired.

Broken: no thrust, black smoke billows when attempting power up. cannot be repaired without parts. (fuel is still consumed)

Now why add this additional detail? well I thought it would be cool to be able to recover from hard touchdowns or collisions and maybe limp home. pretty fun to be able to save your crew after some kind of accident. rather than just "oh well, you bumped in to your fairing, your dead."

also this would add nicely with the idea of flight engineer kerbals.

[BlackBicycle]

This would be grand, I'd really love this to be implemented. Maybe not exactly as you have specified, but something along those lines, definitely. Thumbs up!

[tetryds]

Yeah, then the engineers would have capacity to repair the parts and bring it back to function with less penalties.

That is a good idea.

I hope something like that, or like a "lifebar" for parts gets implemented so when using SSTO's we will have to fix it after bringing it back.

Maybe this will come when reentry damage gets added, but it could be a totally different way.

Yet, anything other than the current "good or poof" seems great.

[Kasuha]

Maybe I'm wrong but on several occasions I noticed that parts which get damaged (e.g. by sepatron fire during launch) seem to be more prone to failing under physical stress. I never really investigated that though so I may be wrong.

[Capt Snuggler]

Thanks guys. the values I have written above are just to give an idea of what I mean. I'm actually not a fan of "life bars" though. I think having a life-bar for each part would be overwhelming. Damage should be displayed visually and right clicking should only be to display the exact status (values).

[Bobe]

I'd like to be able to repair some parts, such as solar panels, but the repaired state penalty might be a bit too much. After all, in real life when a component needs to be repaired, they either replace the faulty parts or the whole component itself. There would really be no reason it would perform worse than if it were never damaged.

In reference to the engine example, I don't see any way an engine can or should be repaired. I know it's still a game and doesn't have to follow real world scenarios, but being able to repair every single part perhaps diminishes some of the challenging aspects of the game. I'm not even sure how an engine could come to be damaged yet still repairable.

But in general, it would be great if we could launch repair missions. This would involve loading packaged parts into a cargo bay, perhaps a stack part similar to 6S Service Compartment Tubes, but instead of actually attaching the parts you are simply adding them to an inventory, like in KAS. The cargo bay part itself would just be a solid object in terms of the model. Then during an EVA, a Kerbal could go to the cargo bay, retrieve a part and use it to replace a damaged part.

[nholzric]

also this would add nicely with the idea of flight engineer kerbals.

I'm excited about ideas that would make Kerbal professions - like engeineer - important!

Do you think things would become "Damaged" at the same level of abuse as they currently become broken, or would they become a little more "fragile" and become damaged after an impact (or something) that currently they would survive? Or maybe this type of thing would just have to be completely re-balanced part by part.

[Capt Snuggler]

I'd like to be able to repair some parts, such as solar panels, but the repaired state penalty might be a bit too much. After all, in real life when a component needs to be repaired, they either replace the faulty parts or the whole component itself. There would really be no reason it would perform worse than if it were never damaged.

In reference to the engine example, I don't see any way an engine can or should be repaired. I know it's still a game and doesn't have to follow real world scenarios, but being able to repair every single part perhaps diminishes some of the challenging aspects of the game. I'm not even sure how an engine could come to be damaged yet still repairable.

*snip*

I know in real life components are replaced more often than repaired but it feels more "Kerbal" to be able to get out there with the duct tape and a hack saw to repair solar panel. or a sheet of foil and super glue to patch air intake. https://archive.org/details/MSFC-0100552

In regards to damaged engines maybe gimble bearings could seize from over heat, or a crack in the bell nozzle from an impact, or a cooling channel could be crimped from a collision. maybe impact damage to a flow pump or some such.

Jets could get blade damage or injector damage of some kind. heat shields could have damaged tiles etc. I don't know, I'm not going to pretend to be an engineer, I just think it would add another kind of fun to the game.

keep in mind, I am suggesting this as "repairs in the field" you could restore function to a part but it should not/would not perform as well as one from the factory.

a key component for repairs could be an inanimate carbon rod:

Edited February 7, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Nightwinds]

Duna and back on a damaged rocket...

But in all seriousness, I would think that it would be a lot harder to repair the rocket than it would be to repair a solar panel. I would go with there is a set amount of repair points in the main command module, no matter the size of the aircraft. Or repair points for each kerbal on board. but, the solar panels and rockets would have damage percentages, and each point could repair it around 1% for a large rocket, 5% for a smaller rocket, 10% for a solar panel. They perform worse than they do normally when damaged, but still work. But at 0% it won't work and requires more points than it normally would to repair it. starting off with 100 repair points. Docking with a space station can replenish repair points, but only up to 75 repair points. As for the space stations, They would have a huge amount of repair points, around 1500, but they could only be used to repair the station and give to ships. However, repair points need to be replenished at the station too. So flights to rendezvous with the station to resupply its repair points are needed. And why not put repairing as an EVA activity.

[nholzric]

I know in real life components are replaced more often than repaired but it feels more "Kerbal" to be able to get out there with the duct tape and a hack saw to repair solar panel. or a sheet of foil and super glue to patch air intake. https://archive.org/details/MSFC-0100552

This is a very "Kerbal" idea - very good! It's unrealistic (I think) to fly IRL with bent flan blades, I suppose there are examples of rockets flying with damaged parts but that's because rocket missions are incredibly difficult and expensive to abort and retry as opposed to most airplane flights. Either way, more jobs for Kerbals is a plus in my book. I just wonder about the balance between repairing parts becoming an annoyance and being so rare that it's hardly worth adding... Maybe that's an easy balance to achieve, just something to keep in mind.

[nholzric]

Duna and back on a damaged rocket...

But in all seriousness, I would think that it would be a lot harder to repair the rocket than it would be to repair a solar panel. I would go with there is a set amount of repair points in the main command module, no matter the size of the aircraft. Or repair points for each kerbal on board. but, the solar panels and rockets would have damage percentages, and each point could repair it around 1% for a large rocket, 5% for a smaller rocket, 10% for a solar panel. They perform worse than they do normally when damaged, but still work. But at 0% it won't work and requires more points than it normally would to repair it. starting off with 100 repair points. Docking with a space station can replenish repair points, but only up to 75 repair points. As for the space stations, They would have a huge amount of repair points, around 1500, but they could only be used to repair the station and give to ships. However, repair points need to be replenished at the station too. So flights to rendezvous with the station to resupply its repair points are needed. And why not put repairing as an EVA activity.

What's the difference between a space station and a space ship? If you want to make that distinction you would probably introduce a big heavy "Repair Module" like the science lab.

But I don't think this is a big issue. Right now most of the parts are purportedly "found on the side so the road" anyway. I think it's very Kerbal sounding to *somehow* be able to repair parts in flight even though we agree it's awfully unrealistic. My pet feature is giving Kerbals a profession like engineers so I would like to think of a way to make engineers necessary - maybe only engineers are able to make repairs even if there are no limits on the amount of repairs or unique resources required.

[Nobody]

I'd like to be able to repair some parts, such as solar panels, but the repaired state penalty might be a bit too much. After all, in real life when a component needs to be repaired, they either replace the faulty parts or the whole component itself. There would really be no reason it would perform worse than if it were never damaged.

In reference to the engine example, I don't see any way an engine can or should be repaired. I know it's still a game and doesn't have to follow real world scenarios, but being able to repair every single part perhaps diminishes some of the challenging aspects of the game. I'm not even sure how an engine could come to be damaged yet still repairable.

But in general, it would be great if we could launch repair missions. This would involve loading packaged parts into a cargo bay, perhaps a stack part similar to 6S Service Compartment Tubes, but instead of actually attaching the parts you are simply adding them to an inventory, like in KAS. The cargo bay part itself would just be a solid object in terms of the model. Then during an EVA, a Kerbal could go to the cargo bay, retrieve a part and use it to replace a damaged part.

Propperly repaired items would work as good as new but what the OP is talking about is more along the line of improvised repairs in the field which are more a case of 'Hopefully this will hold until we can get it replaced'.

What's the difference between a space station and a space ship? If you want to make that distinction you would probably introduce a big heavy "Repair Module" like the science lab.

But I don't think this is a big issue. Right now most of the parts are purportedly "found on the side so the road" anyway. I think it's very Kerbal sounding to *somehow* be able to repair parts in flight even though we agree it's awfully unrealistic. My pet feature is giving Kerbals a profession like engineers so I would like to think of a way to make engineers necessary - maybe only engineers are able to make repairs even if there are no limits on the amount of repairs or unique resources required.

I think he was talking about the motors being harder to fix than the solar panels(Tape vs Welding). This would mean fixing an engine would likely take longer or require higher levels of engineering than something like a flat tire or damaged solar panel.

A storage compartment full of spare parts and repair tools would be a great addition to this.

[Nightwinds]

What's the difference between a space station and a space ship? If you want to make that distinction you would probably introduce a big heavy "Repair Module" like the science lab.

But I don't think this is a big issue. Right now most of the parts are purportedly "found on the side so the road" anyway. I think it's very Kerbal sounding to *somehow* be able to repair parts in flight even though we agree it's awfully unrealistic. My pet feature is giving Kerbals a profession like engineers so I would like to think of a way to make engineers necessary - maybe only engineers are able to make repairs even if there are no limits on the amount of repairs or unique resources required.

Maybe Engineers could salvage repair points from other rockets, so that you could have 4 95% rockets is instead of 3 100% rockets and 1 80% rocket which would cause an imbalance in thrust. but the difference between 100% and 90% shouldn't be too noticeable, maybe a 5% increase in fuel consumption, but after 70% it should not be good.

[nholzric]

I think he was talking about the motors being harder to fix than the solar panels(Tape vs Welding). This would mean fixing an engine would likely take longer or require higher levels of engineering than something like a flat tire or damaged solar panel.

A storage compartment full of spare parts and repair tools would be a great addition to this.

I like this idea a lot, different repairs require higher level engineers - engine repairs maybe being the most difficult.

Maybe Engineers could salvage repair points from other rockets, so that you could have 4 95% rockets is instead of 3 100% rockets and 1 80% rocket which would cause an imbalance in thrust. but the difference between 100% and 90% shouldn't be too noticeable, maybe a 5% increase in fuel consumption, but after 70% it should not be good.

The more I think about it, the less I like partial repairs - even the OP idea of New/Repaired/Damaged/Broken. Here's a super practical reason to keep things simple with New/Broken or at least New/Damaged/Broken : lots of people have fun calculating burn times, DV, TWR, etc., adding new levels of performance to various parts will complicate this. Yeah, not an exponential complication but still a pain in the neck. If we were negotiating this new feature I would offer to trade the complication of partial repaired parts for the complication of a spare parts resource. I would advocate that things are either broken or good-as-new but you have to use some repair resource in order to fix things.. Maybe you could keep a "Repaired" model so things look used (though this would almost double the amount of artwork needed for most parts).

[Capt Snuggler]

I like this idea a lot, different repairs require higher level engineers - engine repairs maybe being the most difficult.

yeah makes sense. engine repairs should require allot of parts and a very skilled kerbal too. (maybe multiple kerbals could combine there knowledge some how?)

lots of people have fun calculating burn times, DV, TWR, etc., adding new levels of performance to various parts will complicate this. Yeah, not an exponential complication but still a pain in the neck.

I see this as another chance for immersion and opportunity, rather than just click "revert to launch pad" when something goes wrong. I'm not suggesting you complete your mission with a broken ship (though great if you can), more offering a chance to save your kerbals. right now you don't have that chance.

If we were negotiating this new feature I would offer to trade the complication of partial repaired parts for the complication of a spare parts resource. I would advocate that things are either broken or good-as-new but you have to use some repair resource in order to fix things.. Maybe you could keep a "Repaired" model so things look used (though this would almost double the amount of artwork needed for most parts).

again I'm not suggesting people should use damaged/repaired parts to complete missions, suggesting it as a way of getting your kerbals home. (and making them heroes too)

2 nominal engines and 1 damaged would imbalance in thrust, yes. you would have to limit thrust on the 2 good engines to balance thrust and regain control. its an emergency scenario good piloting and good design avoids this, its not random.

accidents and mishaps happen, this just makes them slightly more forgiving, at the moment a broken engine usually means everybody dies.

[Capt Snuggler]

Also I just want to point out that engine damage could effect other things instead of thrust. maybe the heat threshold could be lowered causing it to overheat quickly (damaged cooling system). changing the max thrust is one way damage could manifest it self. it could be overheating, gimble lock, wobbliness what ever.

control surfaces could lock or vibrate.

batteries could hold reduced charge.

solar pannels could have lower output, stop tracking, jam and not retract.

fuel tanks could leak.

landing gear could only palatially open or have the breaks partially on.

Communotrons could have a higher transmit penalty.

etc

blah blah blah

[nholzric]

accidents and mishaps happen, this just makes them slightly more forgiving, at the moment a broken engine usually means everybody dies.

I hear ya, and this idea makes a lot of sense from that perspective!

Here's a question: how would stuff break? Obviously if you goof up a landing you could bump and scrape pieces of your ship other than the landing gear. Would a 1 m/s nudge while docking rip a hole in a fuel tank? Would a Kerbal in EVA bumping into a solar panel require repairs? What did you have in mind?

[Capt Snuggler]

I hear ya, and this idea makes a lot of sense from that perspective!

Here's a question: how would stuff break? Obviously if you goof up a landing you could bump and scrape pieces of your ship other than the landing gear. Would a 1 m/s nudge while docking rip a hole in a fuel tank? Would a Kerbal in EVA bumping into a solar panel require repairs? What did you have in mind?

yeah, good question, its tricky to balance. maybe not a 1m/s impact, that's pretty light. I'm not envisioning everything being made of tissue paper. but some kind of impact tolerance figure. all parts already have an impact tolerance maybe the damage point could be a % of that? not sure. it would need to be a fairly solid hit. a little softer than the kind of hit that would break off a part right now?

[Capt Snuggler]

dupe post. sorry.

[kBob]

Good idea...then you can simulate an Apollo 13 mission.

Not sure what all this additional data and processing would do to performance on complex many hundreds of parts ships but it sounds like an idea worth looking into.

Edited February 8, 2014 by kBob

[KASASpace]

YES! YES! YES!

This needs to be done!

This, coupled with some sort of KAS vanilla game thing.

And tools for max repairing, that would help. But they need containers (IE KAS).

This would make service missions so much more worth it!

(And maybe micrometerite shields? like each part has a limit displayed when you right click it, and it can be repaired/fixed up a little bit)

And if the part is damaged enough, it has a % chance of breaking, like less than 25% part hp left or something like that.

Edited February 8, 2014 by KASASpace

[Sevant]

What about bringing spare parts in a storage container and allowing Kerbal engineers to replace things as well as fix damaged items (ie. detach old parts and attach new ones)? I'm thinking this would be useful for situations like having something blow up on a Mun base when it lands. Instead of sending a whole new base, you could sent a repair craft to fix/replace the broken/missing pieces.

[Sevant]

Would a 1 m/s nudge while docking rip a hole in a fuel tank? Would a Kerbal in EVA bumping into a solar panel require repairs?

On the subject of ripping holes in fuel tanks, it would be pretty sweet if you actually leaked fuel from a damaged tank.

[Capt Snuggler]

What about bringing spare parts in a storage container and allowing Kerbal engineers to replace things as well as fix damaged items (ie. detach old parts and attach new ones)? I'm thinking this would be useful for situations like having something blow up on a Mun base when it lands. Instead of sending a whole new base, you could sent a repair craft to fix/replace the broken/missing pieces.

Yup, this is also a possibility. though I think bringing things back to A1 condition might be a bit overpowered, or at least it should be logistically difficult to a degree. I don't like the idea of "*click* *click* *click* 100% FIXED". you should have to work for it, or settle for a patch repair job. (at least in career mode)

On the subject of ripping holes in fuel tanks, it would be pretty sweet if you actually leaked fuel from a damaged tank.

yeah I think so. I imagine an animated sprite of gas venting from the connecting edge of a tank.

[Capt Snuggler]

Good idea...then you can simulate an Apollo 13 mission.

Not sure what all this additional data and processing would do to performance on complex many hundreds of parts ships but it sounds like an idea worth looking into.

yeah I thought it would be bit of problem, this is why I suggested 4 conditions: nominal, repaired, damaged, broken. I suppose its 5 really if you include destroyed but at destroyed it ceases to exist so I guess that doesn't count.

this helps to keep it simple and manageable.

YES! YES! YES!

This needs to be done!

This, coupled with some sort of KAS vanilla game thing.

And tools for max repairing, that would help. But they need containers (IE KAS).

This would make service missions so much more worth it!

(And maybe micrometerite shields? like each part has a limit displayed when you right click it, and it can be repaired/fixed up a little bit)

And if the part is damaged enough, it has a % chance of breaking, like less than 25% part hp left or something like that.

that might be a bit too far in to the realms of random failure.