The Ressources-mining feature, do you miss it ?

[allmhuran]

I'd prefer it to just be a method to replenish ships at faraway destinations in exchange for some infrastructure deployment.

Yeah, that's fair enough too. I guess that's the approach sal was talking about before, where resources (minerals, vespene... uh, whatever other RTS games use ) are just a means to an end and not an end in themselves. Set and forget. And I'd be OK with that if only we could get rid of the babysitting so that we actually had the "forget" part. (can you imagine how horrible it would be if you had to actually watch your workers in starcraft in order for them to keep mining? Or click them from the mineral patch to the CC and back over and over? Aaaagh!)

But that still leaves us with the problem of what that goal might ultimately be. If the goal is simply "go somewhere and land", and the addition of resources only allows us to do it more often by being able to refuel, then we haven't really lost anything (per the thread title) by its absence.

Harv made the point that in sandbox games this wall is inevitably hit at some stage. There's no "end" to the game, eventually you just run out of new things to do. In KSP right now that just happens too early. Once you've figured out how to rocket and how to Duna there's not much beyond going a little bigger or a little further, because you've now "completed" the two challenges that the game sets before you: rocket building and intercepts.

That's why I keep coming back to the idea of having resources be linked to progression (through the tech tree, by the discovery or collection of required materials), since the tech tree is the one thing built into the gameplay that does provide you with at least some kind of directed goal. It's also why I raised the idea of having limited supply of parts rather than the current "unlock and have forever from that point forward", to keep alive that need to maintain your "economy", although this second point could obviously be covered by contracts/funding.

Edited May 24, 2014 by allmhuran

[Red Iron Crown]

Northstar, you've really put a lot of thought into this and have written quite a bit about it in this thread; even if I'm not wholly convinced that a high complexity mechanic is desirable in the core game you've made your points very clearly and supported them well.

For me, the water processing gives enough access to resources without adding too much more complexity or too many different resource types. I'm not sure it's desirable to have differing liquid fuels or monopropellants with differing performance in the core game. Simple is good, to my mind, and it would make things more approachable and easily understood. Just as I don't want to have to be an actual rocket scientist to play KSP, I don't want to have to be a chemist to figure out how the ISRU system works.

Some players will definitely want a more complex system, and that's great, but I think that the core game should have a simple mechanic while the more complex ones are left to mods.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Spelling/Grammar

[sal_vager]

Why process it Red?

Nuclear thermal rockets should be able to use most fluids as reaction mass, from liquid hydrogen or ammonia to plain old water, and we already have an NTR in the LV-N.

You'd need pumps, an empty tank and a NTR to "burn" it, but you could then refuel at Laythe, Eeloo, Eve, and Duna's polar caps (assume it's not all carbon dioxide).

This idea was used in the novel 2010 by Arthur C Clarke and the Chinese spacecraft Tsien.

[Red Iron Crown]

Why process it Red?

Nuclear thermal rockets should be able to use most fluids as reaction mass, from liquid hydrogen or ammonia to plain old water, and we already have an NTR in the LV-N.

You'd need pumps, an empty tank and a NTR to "burn" it, but you could then refuel at Laythe, Eeloo, Eve, and Duna's polar caps (assume it's not all carbon dioxide).

This idea was used in the novel 2010 by Arthur C Clarke and the Chinese spacecraft Tsien.

That's true. From a realism perspective, a NTR is far more efficient when using hydrogen as the propellant, using something with a higher molecular mass results in lower Isp. From a development perspective, requiring liquid fuel means the devs don't have to make changes to the LV-N to support using water (though they really should tweak it to use liquid fuel only, IMO). Plus, it would be good to be able to refuel ships that use chemical rockets with ISRU, too, so we'd probably want an electrolytic processor anyway.

[Kegereneku]

There's been a lot of discussion and nothing exploded, that's a good start.

IMHO the ISRU isn't a goal or a end-game activity in itself, just a mean to get fuel for other goal. And necessarily it would be as fun to deploy as it is fun to do anything else. The same logic apply for its complexity, if you need it simple, keep it simple.

Some post also remembered me my old topic about time-dependant gameplay which inevitably link with extracting resources over time.

however, it also make me want to kill in a civil and constructive manner anybody saying that timewarp make worthless (and unwanted) any game mechanic based on consuming time. It's like nobody have ever played a non-linear game where you don't focus on one single place and nothing ever happen outside of that place. (even if that's how the physics engine of KSP work right now)

So let's just say that timewarp is meant to allow time-dependent mechanic to work with considerably bigger amount of time.

Aside : I support that someday KSP will need to be able to do stuff when not focused if SQUAD want to get to a whole new level of game interaction.

Anyway,

As I said, ISRU is for me just a way to get fuel from someplace both closer and easier to launch of. So I understand if SQUAD is waiting to create a goal that would benefit from it first. Especially since the grindyness problem of SCIENCE right now come from the lack of other complementary mechanic like money or reputation.

Give it to SQUAD, it's hard to design a game that is good even "half-done".

[HeadHunter67]

I'm hoping they can come up with a system that can exactly duplicate all of the space mining activities we have done in our own real-world space programs...

Looks like they've already got it in-game.

[Carmoldu]

I agree that heavy parts are more challenging, but I don't think an answer to making resources fun (or making any other mechanic fun - I'm looking at you science lab) is just to make things heavier. Lifting heavy payloads is a challenge we can already have simply by deciding to lift a heavy payload. I don't think Squad should sink huge amounts of time into all of the new code required for something like resources just so that we can have exactly the same challenge that we already have. I think that amount of effort should provide something truly new, much like the addition of orbital mechanics and intercepts did.

I was thinking in what kind of challanges could ISRUs represent other than having to launch heavier payloads. What if an ISRU was made up of more than one module in order to function or each module had an specific function (extraction module, conversion module...). This would bring up a new challange which is assembling. Do I assemble my ISRU in orbit? If so, how do I land it afterwards? Do I assemble it on land? Vertically or Horizontally? How will I do it? I'll also need to do precision landings... I think that this way the activity would be challenging and would imply training abilities and also design.

[allmhuran]

Hm, yeah, extending the concept of "good construction" beyond the VAB and into dockings and bases isn't a bad idea at all.

Right now you can dock together pretty much anything you want in any shape you want and there's no downside because it's all artistic. Having to come up with good/useful/more appropriate orbital or base constructions is a nice way to extend the "construction challenge" aspect of the game into new areas.

[cantab]

Looking at that chart in the OP, yeah, it's way overcomplicated I think.

So far kethane's the only ISRU mod I've used, and I think it has broadly the right idea. A small number of primary resources (just one in kethane ofc), and a one-step conversion from resource(s) to product. It's still not trivial - there's work involved in making a good kethane miner - but the simplicity keeps it in the realm of being a way to support your missions, and not a string of interplanetary fetch quests that dominates your projects.

Kethane also encourages the player to do some things they otherwise might not do, which I think is a good thing for any ISRU system to do. Start by scanning, well you're going to want an inclined orbit, not the "default" equatorial you'd probably pick. Then once you've found a deposit you need to land on it, you can't just set down anywhere. (Biome science also enocurages the player to do both of these). Finally, you presumably want your fuel up in orbit, so you start designing heavy landers that are up to the task, and figuring out how to dock vessels on the surface to transfer the fuel about.

And yes kethane's a bit waity on the scanning, but I'm assuming that's just because Majiir hasn't got round to coding inactive vessel scanning yet. There's no reason for ISRU to be any more waity than regular space travel. Set it going, timewarp, come back later.

As for whether it's needed in stock, well I'd say no. In a sense an ISRU system starts to turn KSP into a different game, less simple space exploration and more strategy game style infrastructure development. A good ISRU system would add to the game, but if Squad put in everything that could add to the game we'd have a bloated mess.

[NERVAfan]

I really like Northstar's idea... it would provide away to connect what I'm doing here to what I'm doing over there and really build up a space program where some stuff is dependent on other stuff rather than have each mission be an island*, but I'm afraid it's a bit more complex than what Squad would want for the core game...

*in real life, we don't have the mining yet, but the rovers on Mars use the orbiters for data relay, and the ISS actually has to be resupplied unlike KSP craft/stations, EDIT: and now they're trying to use Hubble to find post-Pluto KBO destinations for New Horizons, etc.

[DoToH]

I'm not really all that interested in resource harvesting being a scavenger hunt and chemistry minigame; I'd prefer it to just be a method to replenish ships at faraway destinations in exchange for some infrastructure deployment.

+1

Maybe mine to harvest fuel/kethane/whatever and processing resource to get my ship refueled and just timewarping until full is not funny.

Let me tell you what is not funny: launch, rendezvous with interplanetary fueler at LKO, dock, transfer fuel, undock, deorbit.... repeat 10 times until interplanetary fueler is full, timewarp to launch window to Jool and timewarp again until arrival. Actually is boring.

Timewarp exploit while minning?... we are timewarping already to wait for launch windows, we are timewarping while interplanetary transfers. The only difference is the place where you timewarp.

I'd prefer timewarping while mining than the whole process I have to do without some resource system.

Long ago, I read about "routine launches" in a thread about mechjeb. One guy said he was using mechjeb only to pilot some routine refuel missions (I don't remember the thread or the name), while piloting manually the interesting ones. Many of us have refuelers tested and flown many times. The is no challenge (fun) in launching the same rocket for the 68th time (my last refuel to LKO was the 68th).

I think the devs should see that adding a feature, even if it is "not funny", can improve the game experience, allowing us to get rid of some other "routine processes" that can be boring for many players. If a simple resource system to help with refueling at distant planets is added it would be player choice to use it or to keep refuelling without it. Its not bad to give the players freedom to choose.

[Northstar1989]

Why process it Red?

Nuclear thermal rockets should be able to use most fluids as reaction mass, from liquid hydrogen or ammonia to plain old water, and we already have an NTR in the LV-N.

You'd need pumps, an empty tank and a NTR to "burn" it, but you could then refuel at Laythe, Eeloo, Eve, and Duna's polar caps (assume it's not all carbon dioxide).

This idea was used in the novel 2010 by Arthur C Clarke and the Chinese spacecraft Tsien.

Exactly my thought process! You read my mind!

Nuclear Thermal Rockets, such as the LV-N, would provide a way to VASTLY simplify ISRU for players who want to make use of it if a more complex system with real resources (such as water-ice, methane-ice, hydrogen gas on gas giants, etc.) were introduced.

Simply load up propellent, and pass it through the thermal rocket- and VOILA, thrust!

If LV-N's were made to use multiple fuels, instead of merely being coded as a re-skinned/re-balanced LFO engine, it would also open up the way to implementing other technologies- like Microwave Thermal Receivers (a technology that is already fully-implemented in KSP-Interstellar)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion#Microwave_propulsion

You could add one more resource to the list of local resources to keep track of that way- solar radiation. It would become extremely worthwhile (especially if a proper inverse-square law for Kerbol's light intensity with distance were added) to deploy large solar power satellites around planets like Eve and Moho, and beam this power to rockets operating in those systems to reduce their weight and improve their ISP (Microwave Beamed Power has similar ISP to nuclear thermal rocketry, but without any of the messy radioactive engines or heavy reactors on the rocket- also enabling TWR on a level with chemical rockets). It would add a further potential challenge/reward for players looking to make use of their environment to its fullest...

A game like KSP eventually runs out of fundamentally new challenges, like any Sandbox game. But what keeps it interesting is the ability to try new combinations of things, or new variations on existing mechanics. For instance, ISRU makes it much more feasible to set up independent off-world "colonies" and scientific outposts if players wanted to roleplay that by dropping a few Hitchikers, maybe some greenhouses (with life-support's implementation), and some ISRU facilities on a planet... And for that purpose, if not other, it is highly worthwhile...

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

That's true. From a realism perspective, a NTR is far more efficient when using hydrogen as the propellant, using something with a higher molecular mass results in lower Isp. From a development perspective, requiring liquid fuel means the devs don't have to make changes to the LV-N to support using water (though they really should tweak it to use liquid fuel only, IMO). Plus, it would be good to be able to refuel ships that use chemical rockets with ISRU, too, so we'd probably want an electrolytic processor anyway.

NTR's get better ISP with LH2 as a propellent. But they get better THRUST with denser fuels like water or ammonia... The main reason we don't see many proposals to use anything but LH2 in the real world is because, if you're going to go through all the effort and danger of using a nuclear reactor, why would you turn around and then just use it with a fuel that gives it an ISP not much better than chemical rocketry?

One of the foremost advantages of NTR's, that hasn't actually seen much use yet, is fuel-flexibility. For instance, NASA's Mars Mission Design Reference Mission/ Mission Reference Architecture could probably benefit a lot if they made use of their nuclear thermal rockets with simple liquified CO2 for propellent (which is stable at much higher temperatures than LH2 or LOX- requiring much less cryogenic cooling) from Mar's atmosphere instead of producing LOX and possibly Methane for chemical rocketry out of the Martian atmosphere using IRSU powered by a nuclear reactor... (for one, simply compressing the CO2 would greatly reduce their power consumption- and allow them to probably easily get by with solar panels and their new "accelerated" RTG's instead of a nuclear reactor at the surface base...)

http://www.wired.com/2014/01/nasas-mars-design-reference-mission-goes-nuclear-2001/

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf

http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars105.html

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/sls-exploration-roadmap-pointing-dual-mars-approach/

Oh, and yeah... Read the links. ISRU will become a very real thing for actual space programs if NASA launches a manned mission to the surface of Mars...

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

I'm not sure it's desirable to have differing liquid fuels or monopropellants with differing performance in the core game. Simple is good, to my mind, and it would make things more approachable and easily understood. Just as I don't want to have to be an actual rocket scientist to play KSP, I don't want to have to be a chemist to figure out how the ISRU system works.

Some players will definitely want a more complex system, and that's great, but I think that the core game should have a simple mechanic while the more complex ones are left to mods.

Alternative fuels would simply be a tweakable- the default could by LH2/LOX or Methane/LOX or Kerosene/LOX or whatever seemed most appropriate for the rocket or fuel tank, and then players would have the option of utilizing a different one if they preferred...

This would also add the option of a little more complexity/difficulty with the fuels, by making LH2 require continuous cyrogenic cooling to keep it stored... (a real life problem that Methane, for instance, doesn't require nearly as much of- and has less issues with boil-off: which is why NASA is looking at using Methane/LOX for a propellent depot at Earth-Moon Lagrange Point L1...)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/exploration-gateway-platform-hosting-reusable-lunar-lander-proposed/

The default fuel, I think, should be Kerosene/LOX- which would be the easiest and simplest for most players to use as it wouldn't require any cryogenic cooling (this is an over-simplification, as LOX requires cooling in real life, but for the purpose of balance and FUN it could require none... Or perhaps the Oxidizer could be a different oxidizing agent stable at STP, such as N2O4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_tetroxide...) To simulate cooling, you could simply have an EC/s drain for fuel tanks storing LH2 (or to a much lesser degree, Methane) and if the electricity were not provided, fuel would start to slowly disappear.

By making Kerosene/LOX the default fuel, most players wouldn't have to worry about cooling or boil-off. But for those wanting to work with the additional engineering challenges of boil-off and lower fuel-density (and thus the requirement for more tanks for the same propellent mass), in exchange for higher ISP, LH2/LOX or Methane/LOX (which would require MUCH less cooling) could be an option...

Ok, maybe it sounds like I've gotten carried away. But the point is to expand the fuels system to make ISRU more interesting. Perhaps cryogenic cooling could be left out entirely, and the fuels could just vary in density and ISP. And the default fuels could be Kerosene/LOX (or Hydrazine/N2O4)- which though renamed, and possibly slightly re-balanced in terms of density and ISP, would essentially act identically to the stock fuels players know and love...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited May 25, 2014 by Northstar1989

[ThermalShark]

KSP has some pretty advanced orbital mechanics, and interplanetary transfers are extremely complex to a player sending their first mission to the Mun. But a new player don't need to know interplanetary transfers, they just need to know basic orbital mechanics and munar injection.

They do need mastering rendezvous and knowing interplanetary transfers, but only much later in the game. That way, KSP can have advanced orbital mechanics, while still not being 'too advanced', as the player only needs to learn it gradually. The result is that the player learns physics, orbital mechanics and a bit of astronomy and rocket engineering, while doing something that they like.

And that is without mentioning that said player will have lots of help: There are the in-game tutorials, YouTube tutorials, the wiki, the forum...

With Northstar's idea of a complex chemical system, the same thing would happen. A player that has already landed unmanned rovers on Duna will be wanting to take a step forward, and decide it is time to launch a long duration manned mission to Duna, or set up a base on the Mun. For that, the player will only need to use the basics of the ISRU system, which is to use H2O to make H2 and O2, not only for fuel but also for life support.

(And of course, the same player can also just get a huge lifter and assemble in orbit the 2-3 parts of the interplanetary ship, with all the fuel that will be needed.)

When this player decide to take still another step forward, they will also get a lot of help, again from in-game tutorials, the wiki, YouTube and the forums, and they may also have a quick reference chart when planning the mission.

On the other side, a very experienced player with ambitious plans to make a base Laythe that is not only self-sufficient but self-expandable, will need to use the most advanced of reactions and construction methods, which i don't even know, even though i know that are possible.

In short, my point is that as long as it's implemented in a good way, there is no such thing as 'too complex', because games have the power to make anyone easily learn anything.

[Northstar1989]

+1

Maybe mine to harvest fuel/kethane/whatever and processing resource to get my ship refueled and just timewarping until full is not funny.

Let me tell you what is not funny: launch, rendezvous with interplanetary fueler at LKO, dock, transfer fuel, undock, deorbit.... repeat 10 times until interplanetary fueler is full, timewarp to launch window to Jool and timewarp again until arrival. Actually is boring.

Timewarp exploit while minning?... we are timewarping already to wait for launch windows, we are timewarping while interplanetary transfers. The only difference is the place where you timewarp.

I'd prefer timewarping while mining than the whole process I have to do without some resource system.

Long ago, I read about "routine launches" in a thread about mechjeb. One guy said he was using mechjeb only to pilot some routine refuel missions (I don't remember the thread or the name), while piloting manually the interesting ones. Many of us have refuelers tested and flown many times. The is no challenge (fun) in launching the same rocket for the 68th time (my last refuel to LKO was the 68th).

I think the devs should see that adding a feature, even if it is "not funny", can improve the game experience, allowing us to get rid of some other "routine processes" that can be boring for many players. If a simple resource system to help with refueling at distant planets is added it would be player choice to use it or to keep refuelling without it. Its not bad to give the players freedom to choose.

This was my thought process exactly. This is why I miss "Resources" (even if the originally proposed implementation would have been horrible- and I'm glad to see they re-thought that structure), and would still hope to maybe, someday, still see ISRU in at least an early/simple form before version 1.0... (or as a free update soon thereafter)

Refueling missions (as they currently stand) are BORING. So it would be hard to go wrong with a feature that lets players circumvent them. Even the previously-proposed Resources chart I saw in the OP, while horrible compared to what ISRU *could* be, would have been preferable to having to carry out constant refueling missions like I do now...

I play with KSP-Interstellar, but the problem with mods like that is that they're incomplete, sometimes buggy, and I have to re-install them every time I reinstall KSP (which I will probably do with 0.24) In short, they suffer from all the problems of not being an official part of the stock game.

KSP could and should be a vast-scope game in the end. I appreciate the dev's taking their time with each step, and hope they don't rush things; but I also don't want the devs to just throw in the towel with 1.0 and say "We're done!" and only release relatively minor updates/features after that... OR, rather, I hope they'll put off declaring 1.0 to be reached until they've truly included all these major features which can only add to the game, and can't possibly hurt it, like In Situ Resource Utilization- which players who don't like it could safely and easily ignore...

Regards,

Northstar

[ThermalShark]

[...]

Ok, maybe it sounds like I've gotten carried away. But the point is to expand the fuels system to make ISRU more interesting. Perhaps cryogenic cooling could be left out entirely, and the fuels could just vary in density and ISP. And the default fuels could be Kerosene/LOX (or Hydrazine/N2O4)- which though renamed, and possibly slightly re-balanced in terms of density and ISP, would essentially act identically to the stock fuels players know and love...

Regards,

Northstar

Don't worry about getting carried away! Everything you said so far is very interesting and inspiring, and i'm sure it will make many people realize the coolness of ISRU.

[Northstar1989]

Don't worry about getting carried away! Everything you said so far is very interesting and inspiring, and i'm sure it will make many people realize the coolness of ISRU.

You know what else is cool? Microwave beamed power- seriously, couple this with a air-evacuated magnetic launch-assist tube up the side of a mountain, and you're talking like $2 a kg to orbit ($10-20 with the microwave power, and then assuming a further 10x reduction in cost from the launch-assist, which could reduce costs more than 200x on its own...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram

But, OK, that's a tangent. What is actually really cool about ISRU is that it can easily be based off current technology (a Sabatier Reactor already operates onboard the ISS, for instance. The underlying chemistry has been known for over 100 years... And a Sabatier Reactor is sure so see use on Mars if NASA sticks with its current Reference Mission Architecture...) And being able to imitate real future space mission profiles- THAT is cool...

It's for precisely that reason that I really respect the devs for taking up that opportunity to work with NASA on the Asteroid Redirect Mission.

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Cool signature you've got there.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Nemoricus]

There's a lot of good thought in this thread, and I'm just going to add my thoughts on the matter..

I want a resource system in the game. Why? So that I can resupply missions out at Jool, for example, without having to bring fuel there from Kerbin all of the time. Since I view resources as a means to an end, it should be fairly straightforward and painless to use. In this light, the devs were right to scrap the overly complex model they had.

Having one resource you could mine for liquid fuel, oxidizer, monopropellant, and xenon gas, along with one part to mine and convert it, would satisfy what I want from a resource system. Now, if there were also fuel lines you could make to transfer resources between landed vessels, that would just be icing on the cake.

Some sort of mapping system would also likely be needed, but as long as it can run in high time warps and while focused elsewhere, it can be relatively painless. And so long as your miners can run without you being focused on them, you can just set them up and leave them.

With a system like this, the challenges are: getting a probe in place to map the body you want to mine from. Landing on a deposit. Landing very close to a miner/bringing that miner up to meet an orbiting supply depot or vessel needing to be refueled. Since these challenges are all about flight, the focus remains on KSP's core gameplay of flying spaceships around.

Now, a more complex model may be more interesting in and of itself, but I'm not sure it would contribute as well to the ultimate goal of letting you keep flying your missions around.

[Northstar1989]

I want a resource system in the game. Why? So that I can resupply missions out at Jool, for example, without having to bring fuel there from Kerbin all of the time. Since I view resources as a means to an end, it should be fairly straightforward and painless to use. In this light, the devs were right to scrap the overly complex model they had.

The complex model, as seen in the OP, was neither a fun-complex system nor a simple one. In that regard, it failed to meet either of the extreme ends such a system could go to... Fun out of complexity and realism, with significant engineering challenges- like in KSP Interstellar; or simplicity and ease, like in Kethane mod...

Having one resource you could mine for liquid fuel, oxidizer, monopropellant, and xenon gas, along with one part to mine and convert it, would satisfy what I want from a resource system. Now, if there were also fuel lines you could make to transfer resources between landed vessels, that would just be icing on the cake.

It's clear you lean towards something more similar to what the Kethane mod does, but such a system would IMHO not be fun, and be horrendously unrealistic.

ISRU shouldn't be necessary to play KSP, and as such, it should be perfectly fine it it were complex. And what I was getting at before- complexity not only allows greater realism and immersion (searching for water, for instance), it adds its own fund and interesting engineering challenges simply not present in a feature more along the lines of the Kethane mod... (the greatest challenge in which, is the resource-scanning system: which is annoying to babysit)

The beauty of a more complex system, more modeled along the lines of KSP-Interstellar, is not only that it adds challenge, complexity, and realism while being a lot of fun; it's also that it's open to all levels of involvement from the player.

Don't want to mess with multi-step processes like turning atmospheric CO2 into Kerosene? Then just compress that CO2 into liquid form, and shoot it out the back of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket like the LV-N for propellent. Don't want to go through the steps of making Hydrazine? Then just use Hydrogen Peroxide made by combining liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, which you were already carrying on your rocket for propellent... Need more LH2/LOX? Then just go electrolyze some ice on Vall (I assume Vall to be a water-ice moon...)

The coolest thing about a complex/realistic system like that is that there is always a simple/easy way to get what you need, and a complex/challenging way to get what you need that yields greater rewards for the extra effort. It embraces both play-styles without forcing either one on the player...

Some sort of mapping system would also likely be needed, but as long as it can run in high time warps and while focused elsewhere, it can be relatively painless. And so long as your miners can run without you being focused on them, you can just set them up and leave them.

With a system like this, the challenges are: getting a probe in place to map the body you want to mine from. Landing on a deposit. Landing very close to a miner/bringing that miner up to meet an orbiting supply depot or vessel needing to be refueled. Since these challenges are all about flight, the focus remains on KSP's core gameplay of flying spaceships around.

That would be pretty much the basics- though for greater rewards you would want to refine the resources (even water can be used in its raw form- as propellent for a thermal rocket- but you can do more stuff with it if you electrolyze it...) You would also want to consider having a separate craft to carry the mined resources to orbit, rather than hauling all that heavy mining equipment back and forth- but that's just another matter of logistics, and if you want to take the simple/easy path (launching the miner), or the complex/rewarding path... (building a dedicated resource-ferry)

Now, a more complex model may be more interesting in and of itself, but I'm not sure it would contribute as well to the ultimate goal of letting you keep flying your missions around.

KSP is a game about space programs. That's not necessarily just about flying rockets. Some players don;t even LIKE flying rockets, and use MechJeb to do as much flying for them as possible. It's all a matter of taste...

The beauty of having a resource system like I just described, is that it's scaleable. You can decide to dig into the complexities, or just take the simple/easy way. Just like with current tweakables (which would be a great way to implement new fuels without new rocket parts)- you can mess with what is defined as an airfoil and what is defined as a rudder on your spaceplanes, and the TWR-limited on your SRB's; or you can just take off with MOAR BOOSTERS! It's all a matter of taste.

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Don't forget the sad reality of this thread- that we're only discussing what *could have been* with a resource system. Currently, sadly, there is no resource system on the development schedule that anyone know of- so we're just discussing the lonesome ghost of a probably forever-lost concept that could have been great if done correctly- though the devs were right to scrap the resource system model they had before...

[technicalfool]

Now, a more complex model may be more interesting in and of itself, but I'm not sure it would contribute as well to the ultimate goal of letting you keep flying your missions around.

Well. Kethane is the ultimate simple of resource-gathering as you already know. KSPi's resource gathering does strike a nice balance of complexity though (which I know you probably know, Nemoricus, but not everyone has tried KSPi yet). It's not a horrendous map of chemical reactions requiring degrees in organic and inorganic chemistry, but there's more than one type of thing you can do. Alumina plus water electrolysis for hybrid engines. Basically you can drop yourself down anywhere on Mün, which is all alumina with a small water concentration, fire up the ISRU, and fuel up. Thorium/uranium mining for the beamed-power reactors. Nuclear reprocessing for making the nuclear fuel last longer. Ammonium and peroxide (which itself is made from water) for making monopropellant with.

There are more advanced reactions, but I must say I've never used them (yet) because they aren't really essential. They're a "nice to have" feature for getting more out of your reactors, for instance.

Of course resource gathering is a means rather than an end, which is something I guess I didn't make clear in my first post. However, the end is "yay, I don't have to keep shipping huge numbers of massive craft to Jool". The end is "great, I can send one rocket with a boatload of science parts and analyze five different Minmus biomes before returning". This has got to be worth some consideration.

Being able to construct a KSC on Minmus would be awesome, however isn't really the same as ISRU in itself. I suppose you could call that an "ISCF" (Construction Facility). A really big 3D printer perhaps. Feed it with metals and fuels, it spits out parts. Doesn't have to be hyper-realistic, just a box that takes resources and makes bits available in the remote space centre.

Again, a means to an end. In this case, a later-game method of making your space program a hell of a lot cheaper to run by only having the teeny gravity well (gravity divot?) of Minmus to worry about. The "ISCF" meaning that you don't have to pay for parts, another later-game method of making your space program cheaper to run.

So long as the basic version of ISRU isn't complex (and it needn't be, water is possibly the most abundant molecule in the known universe), then I can't see how it would be too intimidating. Find water deposit, land on water deposit, electrolyse. LiquidFuel and Oxidizer obtained. Job done. Have advanced ISRU/ISCF features there for later-game activities, and balance it so that the advanced features are not required to make the game possible, but are very nice to have.

[Nemoricus]

For those calling for greater complexity in the resource system, I have to ask: To what end?

I don't view complexity as being fun in and of itself. Building a rocket is a fun complexity, since there are lots of meaningful choices to be made in the process. But what about converting raw resources to end products? While I, personally, might find the details of what goes into rocket fuel interesting, I don't think it would necessarily make for good gameplay. Ultimately, the purpose of a resource system is to provide the means to move a rocket from Point A to Point B, and possibly to keep Kerbals alive if life support is ever introduced. Maybe to build rockets off of Kerbin, if we're lucky.

There are several questions a resource system needs to address:

1. How do I find resources?

2. What parts do I need to extract them?

3. What parts do I need to convert them?

4. Does a single site have all the resources needed, or do I have to fly between locations?

5. How many steps must I take to convert raw resources to end products?

Keep in mind that KSP suffers from part clutter as it is, with no amelioration in sight, and interacting with those parts is primarily through the atrocious right-click system. These help bias me to simplicity in a resource system, but if either is improved, then I'm more willing to accept complexity.

[LethalDose]

Holy Ker-balls, this hasn't been locked down yet...

Well, for those asking for sources re: my statements on SQUAD not currently having plans to include any resource collection into the game, I would point here and here. Those are just the links that I could find easily. And they don't say "absolutely no resources", they say "We're not working on resources and we're not planning on it either".

Either way, no resources unless devs change their mind. That's why we have these threads.

For those calling for greater complexity in the resource system, I have to ask: To what end?

Two word answer: game depth. And it's up to the players to explore it as deep as they'd like to go. But really, even if an incredibly remedial ISRU system was added to the game, it would be a platform to mod it from, which would be way better than whats there now. Complexity in a system allows for meaningful choices.

I find this Extra Credits episode on depth and complexity helpful to think about/explain this (ugh. Link:

, javascript seems broken). Specifically around 5:15, they state "Depth is bought with complexity", so "the end" to which this complexity pursues is, again, game depth, because any complexity in the resource management system (which is incredibly simplistic as it stands)

I thought this was interesting, and important.

There are several questions a resource system needs to address:

1. How do I find resources?

2. What parts do I need to extract them?

3. What parts do I need to convert them?

4. Does a single site have all the resources needed, or do I have to fly between locations?

5. How many steps must I take to convert raw resources to end products?

All of these would need to be addressed, but I don't see any system breaking issues in any single point. My responses would be:

1. Resources are biome specific, meaning when you analyze a biome for content, you're told what resources are there in what amounts. One scan/biome is all you need.
   
2. This is totally dependent on the complexity of the system. I would think not more than 3 total parts for any system.
   
3. Again, compeletely dependent on system complexity. Probably more variety here than resource extraction parts. Also, don't forget resource storage.
   
4. This would depend on what you're trying to generate (see more below)
   
5. There should never be more than one step to produce something useful from the harvested resources. Whether that thing is what you need is a different story.
   

And I agree with everything in this...

Refueling missions (as they currently stand) are BORING. So it would be hard to go wrong with a feature that lets players circumvent them. Even the previously-proposed Resources chart I saw in the OP, while horrible compared to what ISRU *could* be, would have been preferable to having to carry out constant refueling missions like I do now...

I play with KSP-Interstellar, but the problem with mods like that is that they're incomplete, sometimes buggy, and I have to re-install them every time I reinstall KSP (which I will probably do with 0.24) In short, they suffer from all the problems of not being an official part of the stock game.

Just SO HARD.

Coming back to the list above, as I pointed out, the answers to most of those questions are competely dependent on the system. The simplest system I can see for resource collection is:

1. Use scanner part to find biome with H2O
   
2. Use collector part to collect H2O from scanned biome
   
3. Use processor part to hyrdolyze H20 into LiquidFuel (LH2) and Oxidizer (LOX)
   
4. Profit
   

Maybe that's three separate parts, or maybe two are combined, or maybe all three-in-one. For this simple of an example, who cares.

Now, we can make things more complex, and said complexity would add to game depth. The system could be made to be too complex, but again, because things could be done wrong is not a good reason not to do them. Some examples of increasing complexity would include:

• H2O + electicity -> H2 (liquid fuel) + O2 (usable for life support)
  
• H2 + O2 -> H20 (usable for life support) + electricity via a fuel cell
  
• CO2 (from Duna atmosphere, via air intake) + H2 -> CH4 (liquid fuel) + H2O (Life support, other reactions) via Sabatier process (currently in use on the ISS according to wiki).
  

Aaaaaand already hitting wall of text limit. I'll stop here for now.

Edited May 25, 2014 by LethalDose
Minor typos

[ThermalShark]

I noticed this thread has only 2 votes. Ratings and reputation are things that get forgotten a lot in forums...

[Kegereneku]

As other did I invite Northstar1989 to tone a little down, you've made like a triple post selling a suggestion more than discussing the subject.

Myself I find your proposal to be self-defeating. This is neither simple to use for people who do not want it to be a whole new game, neither that interesting/challenging for more skilled player. Probably because you are focusing on "realism" when you should be thinking "believability" and in term of game-design.

I'm not against using the chemical name but the chemical lesson isn't necessary, worse is how you are forcing life-support into the package (when it should be left out at all cost and reconsidered aside).

Such a system need a maximum cross-compatibility and a minimal-complexity for a first implementation

For example I would suggest limiting the ISRU to 2 new kind of resources with 1 part that do both extraction and conversion and link with a science-part that can tell you which resources you can find where its used (we will let aside the "how you use it" what's important is that it also serve for science).

At that point we could consider using the -I quote- Mobile Processing Lab (manned) but it would still require to add a part that look made for extraction, this part however could be then made easier to fit in a design that one bulky extractor/converter

Having one resource you could mine for liquid fuel, oxidizer, monopropellant, and xenon gas, along with one part to mine and convert it, would satisfy what I want from a resource system. Now, if there were also fuel lines you could make to transfer resources between landed vessels, that would just be icing on the cake.

Ah yes, we hadn't addressed that part yet : Resources Transfer

Unless you've made your Extractor/converter to be able to relaunch and dock in orbit, transferring fuel on the ground will require quite a good design, the grappler or a new part.

On the matter I remember that the devs had a toolbox planned long ago. Wonder what happened to the idea (probably another lack of immediate need).

Edited May 25, 2014 by Kegereneku