Testing module

[Rusty6899]

I was thinking that with reputation due to be added soon, it may be useful to implement a method to perform an unmanned test flight without the fear of reputation loss if things go badly.

At the moment, testing generally involves a large number of "Revert Flight" uses, which comes with a slight feeling of cheating, in my opinion. This is especially true when testing structural integrity, as it is very difficult to predict the safety levels of rockets, and it will quite often lead to an exploding ship.

My suggestion is to have a command module dedicated to testing rocket designs. This would work the same as all other command modules, however it would prevent reputation being lost if the rocket explodes. In order to provide balance, science equipment could be disabled on crafts with this module, so that you couldn't use it as a method to explore without repercussions for failure.

The problem that this wouldn't solve is the financial cost of testing rockets. It would be very costly to build a ship twice, but this problem will be present whether or not testing modules are involved. The only financially viable system that I can think of, for any sort of testing, would be to have a specific budget included in contracts that are handed out, which could only be used for testing, or some sort of sponsorship application when planning your own missions.

[Tex]

An interesting concept... here's my two cents:

Instead of having a Testing Module, perhaps probe-controlled rockets would carry less of a reputation loss than the death of a Kerbal. In addition, maybe the reputation loss should be based on the amount of valuable parts on said rocket (i.e.: the number of Kerbals lost, how many batteries or science modules were destroyed).

That's my idea anyway! I do take interest to this thread.

[RSwordsman]

I prefer to limit the number of reverts possible in normal launches (maybe 2-5 just in case of Kraken) and export all testing functions to "simulation mode." This would be the consequence-free flights we're used to, plus some optional graphical effects (film grain, cosmetic hud pieces) to show that it's a computer model of the flight. When you take off for real (at least the first level of simulation rather than the second) then the consequences come into play.

[possum]

I think a probe core designated for testing that is attached to a ship would great. It could have someway of disabling science parts and reputation while some how reduce the cost. I think testing should cost something but it should be at a reduced rest, testing could get expensive.

[Kasuha]

The only difference between test flight and "revert to..." option is that you declare a test flight beforehand, while you decide on reverting in retrospect. May be important from roleplay point of view but no difference in reality.

I don't think a "test" command pod is a good idea, as the command pod is usually the root part of your ship and you need to tear everything off it and stick it to the new command pod to do the change, a lot of things can break this way. If anything, then it should be a tweakable on the pod.

[Rusty6899]

RSwordsman

I think that a simulation mode could work well as an alternative as it would solve the cost issue, but I was not aware that there were any plans to implement it, and I'm not sure if Squad would go for it.

The only difference between test flight and "revert to..." option is that you declare a test flight beforehand, while you decide on reverting in retrospect. May be important from roleplay point of view but no difference in reality.

I agree that it would be more of a roleplaying inclusion, but it also offers a viable alternative to reverting for players who want to have a more authentic space program. You could still obviously have a large number of reverts if you wanted, but I would imagine that when career mode is fully up and running, most people would have second thoughts about using autosave and revert flight as often, because it is a form of cheating. This suggestion allows for players to perform tests, so that missions are more likely to be successful, and prevents the reputation losses that could come from testing craft being destroyed, so there is a "real" difference.

I don't think a "test" command pod is a good idea, as the command pod is usually the root part of your ship and you need to tear everything off it and stick it to the new command pod to do the change, a lot of things can break this way. If anything, then it should be a tweakable on the pod.

I do like the idea of a testing tweakable, but it would only really be useable for unmanned pods as killing a kerbal, testing or otherwise, would have to cost reputation. Alternatively, there could be a part which could be attached to a manned command module, which allows the ship to be flown without a kerbal.