Career Mode Research - Unlocking Parts vs Unlocking Upgrades

[Raptor9]

DISCLAIMER 1: Fylas already came up with an idea that I've been thinking about. Interesting really, he thought of pretty much the same thing, just five months earlier, lol. I don't want to double post, but I didn't want to spam his thread either with everything I had written down. Here's Fylas's thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65371-researching-optional-upgrades-for-older-technology-at-higher-tier-levels-possible

DISCLAIMER 2: I understand that for most of what I listed below, "there's a mod for that" already. Please don't turn this into a list of responses that points people to this mod or that mod. That's not the point of this thread. And I also understand that even discussing funds in career mode prior to 0.24 being released is putting the wagon before the horse. This is just brainstorming folks...

----------------------------------------------

So to begin, (this is going to sound really narcissistic) my main problem with career mode in it's current form is the scheme of unlocking parts. The parts you start out with reminds me of v0.13 type launches. Which is fine from a tutorial aspect, which Squad has stated was the purpose behind how they had the tech tree set up, easing new players into the KSP world. And yes, I know there are mods out there that change the layout of the techtree nodes, just bear with me. What if you had access to much more of the parts on career start, but you still had a lot of research to do? I'm talking about "Upgradeables", the flipside to "Tweakables".

Let's say that you wanted to create an efficient spacecraft design, but when you finished putting together a ship that did what you needed to do, it was just to darn heavy. What if you could "upgrade" certain parts by notionally having it constructed using a different metal alloy. This would certainly make the ship lighter, requiring you to use a smaller launcher, less fuel, and from what the "talk" about 0.24 has indicated, less money to launch it to orbit. But there's a catch. As with most engineering designs in KSP, you can't improve one aspect of a design without sacrificing another. That lighter alloy means the ship will have to land softer, withstand less G-forces, and might be less heat-resistent. So, once again, it all comes down to balance and cost vs benefit.

To start, all upgrades would need to be researched, and each individual part upgrade would happen in the VAB/SPH, and would cost money. Just like customizing your car; if you want something better than what that car comes with out of the manufacturer, you have to spend money to swap out components. My suggestion for practical application of an "Upgradeables" UI in the VAB/SPH would involve adding a blue toggle button to the part tweakables menu that would swap the menu back and forth between tweakables and upgradeables. Reasoning is to keep the list of options from possibly running off the screen.

Example: You put a "Poodle" engine on the back of your spacecraft, now you want to upgrade it? Right-click on it to bring up the tweakables menu, toggle the blue button to swap over to upgradeables, but you only have one option? That's because you've only researched one upgrade for that part. It just happens to be an upgrade to the gimbal mechanism. You see that the gimbal range of the Poodle will increase from 2.5 to 3.5, the larger gimbal mechanism only increases the engine mass from 2.5 to 2.6, and you can afford it, so you install it. Oh wait, you changed your mind, you uninstall it. Like tweakables, it's not final until you hit launch. The different gimbal mechanism wouldn't change the appearance of the part, it would just adjust performance stats.

Now, I didn't want to make a gameplay suggestion without having it thought out and serious consideration to how it could affect the gameplay. Below is a list I've spent time collecting, revising, or deleting ideas I had on how each part type could be upgraded. I believe the tech tree would be too large and complicated to research each upgrade for each individual part, so I would propose each upgrade would apply to similar parts. Researching an upgrade that could be fitted to an LV-T30, would also allow you to use it on LV-T45, but not necessarily on the "Mainsail", and definitely not the LV-N. Also, I do think that some parts themselves should still be researched: RAPIERs, nuclear engines, ion propulsion tech, the big solar panels, the mobile science lab, those ginormous NASA parts, etc. But having to research a thermometer? No.

CAVEAT FOR ANY MEMBERS OF THE KSP DEVELOPMENT TEAM - I am no programmer, so forgive me if any of these ideas aren't even feasible in the KSP engine. This isn't meant as a demand for certain features, just something that I was thinking could add another dimension to the career side of KSP. I DO plan on trying career mode again with 0.24, and very much looking forward to it.

CAVEAT FOR ANYBODY ELSE THAT READS THIS - I don't claim to have the best ideas, that's why I made this a [Discussion] These opinions are just that, my opinions. But if anybody has ideas for anything else to improve on this concept, or thoughts on upgrades I didn't think of, by all means, list them.

---PROPOSED UPGRADE LIST---

Not all inclusive, just some ideas that could probably be replaced with better ones. Also, I was thinking installing certain upgrades could prevent certain other upgrades from being installed, until research was conducted to discover how to install both, but with slightly less benefit of either.

COMMAND PODS

Upgrade battery - More Electric Charge at the cost of increased weight and/or recharge time

Upgrade hull alloy - Stronger hull at the cost of increased weight but more resistant to heat or impact OR Lighter hull (less mass) at the cost of reduced impact tolerance and/or heat resistance when/if reentry heat damage is implemented

Upgrade SAS systems - More stability or torque, but requires more electric charge to maneuver using reaction wheels; OR maybe a constant slight electric charge to keep gyros aligned.

PROPULSION - ENGINES

Upgrade engine alloy - Light engine nozzle/combustion chamber means lower weight, but could increase overheat tendency. OR Heat-resistant engine nozzle/combustion chamber could reduce overheat tendency at the cost of increased weight.

Upgrade/install alternator - Increase electric charge generated, or for engines that don't have an alternator at all (ie RAPIERs). Again, more weight.

Upgrade/install gimbals - Increase gimbal range at the cost of weight for larger control mechanisms, or add gimbals to engine that doesn't have them.

Upgrade jet engine with afterburner mechanism - He he, this one is self-explanatory. Higher thrust with MUCH higher fuel consumption and overheat tendency.

PROPULSION - FUEL TANKS

Light Hull/Increase Fuel Capacity - Lighter/thinner casing alloy at the cost of decreased impact, g-force tolerance, heat resistance. Internal fuel bladder storage capacity is increased due to thinner hull of the fuel tank.

Heavy Hull/Decrease Fuel Capacity - Reduces inner bladder storage capacities but the outer casing is a heavier/thicker alloy to improve impact, g-force, and heat tolerance.

PROPULSION - FUEL & ENGINES

These two upgrades aren't dependent on each other, but when used together...

Upgrade to modular fuel controller - Slight increase in weight of engine, but you can swap out one fuel controller for another (lets assume only three choices to choose from to keep it simple), but each controller needs to be researched as well. Each fuel controller could run a different ratio of liquid fuel and oxidizer, which could affect total thrust, Isp, flameout threshold, and overheat tendency.

Upgrade to modular fuel tank bladders - Slight increase in weight of overall fuel tank assembly, but depending on what fuel controller you're using, you'll need different sized liquid fuel and oxidizer bladders depending on the consumption ratios. Of course, you don't have to, but then you'll run out of one fuel before the other. You could use the tweakable menu to reduce the amount of the extra fuel so you're not carrying dead weight, but this upgrade would provide you with a properly paired engine/tank combo with just the right amount of each fuel type.

Additionally, depending on where future development leads, you could upgrade tanks to carry different types of liquid fuels such as kerosene or hydrogen to burn with oxidizer, or swap all those and use nitrogen tetroxide with hydrazine. Different performance stats for those selections. No, I'm not a chemist, I was looking at different liquid fuels on Wikipedia. BIG CAVEAT: in the config file of the LV-N nuclear engine Squad plugged in the following statement: "Yes, I know this is wrong. NTRs don't actually burn fuel and oxidizer, but we don't want to jump into making separate tanks for the two yet."

CONTROL

*SAS components would probably have similar upgrades as the Command Pods

Upgrade RCS valves - Increase/decrease monopropellant consumption to customize thruster power vs Isp. (This is probably better suited to a tweakable option instead of terming it an "upgrade")

Upgrade RCS controller - Ability to assign (or rather un-assign) rotation axes and translation directions per RCS block (Again, more of an idea for a tweakable than an upgrade)

STRUCTURAL

Upgrade structural alloy (structural parts in general) - Use a lighter alloy to decrease weight at the cost of less sturdiness. Better suited for smaller craft with less mass. OR Use a heavier alloy to increase sturdiness at the cost of more mass. A good example of why this would be useful is if you had bunch of girder segments on a space station's long main truss and you had a lot of mass mounted along it or on each end. When you tried to rotate the station or change velocity, the long truss would be less likely to bend and/or break if it was upgraded to a stronger alloy.

Upgrade with crossfeed - give it internal fuel lines and electrical wiring

Decouplers - Squad already has given us several decouplers of various sizes and ejection forces to use. Don't see any room for upgrades or improvements here.

AERODYNAMICS - THIS ONE IS TRICKY SINCE I DON'T KNOW WHAT AERODYNAMICS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR, OR HOW, IN THE KSP ENGINE. I'LL JUST THROW THESE IN JUST IN CASE.

Upgrade lift ratio - Increase lift rating at the cost of slightly increased drag (induced drag)

Upgrade alloy - Lighter alloy decreases weight, but at the cost of lower g-force loading, and very importantly for SSTO's: heat resistance!

Stronger allow will increase g-force loading capability and heat-resistance, but also increases mass.

Upgrade intake characteristics - Notionally changes how the intake is shaped internally (not sure how realistic this is). Increase intake air at the cost of increased drag.

Upgrade control surface deflection - increase how much a control surface can deflect in each direction, but increases drag and slight increase in weight for larger control mechanism.

Upgrade with crossfeed - same as with the structural parts, give it fuel and electrical crossfeed.

UTILITIES - THIS IS A BIG ONE SINCE THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERNT TYPES OF PARTS

Upgrade battery cells - Increase battery capacity at the increase of longer recharge times and weight

Upgrade solar cell efficiency - Again, slight increase in weight, and the upgrade itself would have to be very expensive for gameplay balance.

Upgrade solar cell density - Increase solar cell density on a panel at the cost of increased weight, and maybe even make it more prone to break off during aggressive maneuvers with the panel extended.

Upgrade docking port strength - Increase/decrease magnetic attraction. Probably more of a tweakable.

Upgrade docking port coupler - Add the ability to mechanically recouple the docking port to another so the two docked pieces don't flex as much, or at all (fusing).

Upgrade landing strut alloy - Lighter mass but less impact tolerance or heavier mass with greater impact tolerance.

Upgrade landing gear mechanism - Lighter mass but landing too hard on the runway will cause the gear to fold up on itself and/or malfunction. (Imagine one main landing gear brake suddenly engaging on one side or not being able to steer anymore)

Upgrade parachutes - There's so many ways you could upgrade these. Lighter parachute assembly mass at the cost of one-time usage. You could change cord strength, opening speed, chute diameter, etc.

Upgrade rover wheels - Again, lot of options. Mainly take away functions you don't need to save weight. (Example: you built a six-wheeled rover, but you only need two wheels to drive it, and you only need four wheels to steer it. If you have the money, you can modify the middle wheels to take away the steering mechanism, and modify the front and back wheels to take away their drive motors. Of course you could just disable the functions in the tweakables or on the fly, but the you've trimmed mass off of all six wheels by taking away what you don't need. And you could do the same with the brakes. Do you need it to stop on a dime or not? Save some weight if you have the budget).

Ion engines and Xenon tanks - Not sure what you could do with these except make them lighter at the cost of durability. If anyone else has ideas, throw in your two cents.

SCIENCE - ANY UPGRADES TO EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES TO GENERATE MORE SCIENCE PER EXPERIMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE TO PRECLUDE MAKING THE SCIENCE LAB USELESS.

Having said that...

Upgrade Science Lab - Spend lots of money to increase the "recalibration" ability to generate a slightly better science outcome on repeat experiments with science parts you reset. However, I think it's too early in the Career mode development to get into upgrading any science category parts I think.

[allmhuran]

What would you think about a slight alteration to your suggestion: You spend your science money to unlock part upgrades in the R&D facility, but then you choose to apply them in the VAB.

So for example, unlock mainsail upgrades in the R&D facility, then go to the VAB, add mainsail to ship, and right click to select which upgrades to use for that particular ship. Have it default to "fully upgraded" when it is attached, since players will probably want to use all of their available upgrades.

This contrasts your suggestion where you spend the science in the VAB directly.

The reason why I suggest this is that it keeps each game mechanic consistent: Science gets spent in the R&D facility and only in the R&D facility. Part selection during ship building happens in the construction facilities.

"Upgrading an existing part using science" is really no different from "unlocking a new part using science". Indeed, you could pretend that every part upgrade was in fact a new part in a higher node in the tech tree. I wouldn't actually do it that way because the number of parts would explode and selecting parts in the VAB would become very annoying, but conceptually they're equivalent.

Edited June 4, 2014 by allmhuran

[Raptor9]

What would you think about a slight alteration to your suggestion: You spend your science money to unlock part upgrades in the R&D facility, but then you choose to apply them in the VAB.

So for example, unlock mainsail upgrades in the R&D facility, then go to the VAB, add mainsail to ship, and right click to select which upgrades to use for that particular ship. Have it default to "fully upgraded" when it is attached, since players will probably want to use all of their available upgrades.

This contrasts your suggestion where you spend the science in the VAB directly.

The reason why I suggest this is that it keeps each game mechanic consistent: Science gets spent in the R&D facility and only in the R&D facility. Part selection during ship building happens in the construction facilities.

"Upgrading an existing part using science" is really no different from "unlocking a new part using science".

Actually, that is exactly what I said, use science in R&D to unlock upgrades so they are available, and use money in the VAB/SPH to "install" them. I never said anything about spending "science points" in the VAB. But I might not have been clear on the process. Just because an upgrade is available, doesn't mean you have to spend more money to use it in the VAB. But if you want to use it, it still costs money since your modifying a part that has already been manufactured by an aerospace company.

Indeed, you could pretend that every part upgrade was in fact a new part in a higher node in the tech tree. I wouldn't actually do it that way because the number of parts would explode and selecting parts in the VAB would become very annoying, but conceptually they're equivalent.

Again, I addressed this as well by saying that unlocked upgrades could be used on similar parts (ie LV-T30 and LV-T45) to keep the tech tree from being too large and complicated. And upgrades would be selectable similarly to the tweakable menu. So you're not gonna have several "Mainsails" to choose from in the parts list. You might want to read the first part of my post again.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Raptor9

[allmhuran]

Ah ok, yeah I just misunderstood when I read it through. Reading it again I can now see what you intended. So yeah, +1 for OP!

Edited June 4, 2014 by allmhuran

[Raptor9]

Ah ok, yeah I just misunderstood when I read it through. Reading it again I can now see what you intended. So yeah, +1 for OP!

Edit in response to your edit:

Never did I say that you had suggested every upgrade would be a new part, I simply said that the mechanic was conceptually the same and could be treated the same way. I regret your hostility, this could have been a good thread.

No hostility, sorry if it came across that way. Should have inserted a emoticon or something I guess.

EDIT: Here, lol

[allmhuran]

Redacted! Continue as planned. I hope the thread gets some attention. OK yeah there's another one on the concept right next to it, but this one has implementation details, so it's worth exploring independently.

[Vaporo]

Hmm... Well, first of all, you would want to add something to in-flight GUI so that you can tell exactly what upgrades you are using on a part. It could get annoying trying to remember exactly what upgrades you are using on your craft. Second of all, it would be equally annoying to have to remember which parts you have chosen to upgrade and which parts you have not while in the VAB.

Now, after that little bit of skepticism, I would like to say that your suggestion, if it were implemented, would be a very good way to get rid of those annoying times when you need just a little bit more efficiency, or just a little more thrust, but there is no part that meets your exacting specifications, and you are forced to settle with something that is only close to what you need.

Though there are a few suggested upgrades that I have issues with.

Aerodynamics-upgrade lift ratio- I think that this is kind of ridiculous from an aerodynamics perspective. (of course, all KSP aerodynamics are ridiculous as it stands now.) To change the lift-to-drag ratio in way that would seem realistic would involve changing the shape of the wing, which you said that you did not want to happen.

Command Pods-upgrade electric charge- I don't think longer recharge times should be implemented (at least, not yet) because of gameplay issues and the fact that no other batteries have a limit on recharge speed.

Propulsion-Fuel Tanks- Realistically, the wall on liquid fuel tanks would be pretty thin as it is, (I think I read somewhere that kerosene tanks are about 1% of the mass of their fuel) and reducing it would vastly reduce structural integrity and give virtually no capacity increase. This may be viable on xenon tanks though.

Fuel and Engines- modular fuel controller- Adjusting the fuel:oxidizer ratio on engines could lead a whole host of annoying design problems. Even with modular fuel bladders, you would have to remember to tweak all of the tanks that will be running that engine. (And implementing an auto-tweak could be frustrating as fuel flow through non-stacked fuel tanks is kind of confusing.) Also, if you want to increase thrust or ISP I think it would be better that the upgrade just be a simple +10 isp for +.1 weight.

Otherwise, I am neutral on this suggestion. At some times, I think that it would just be confusing to have variable stats on parts. At others, it would be quite convienient.

Also, very good job on the post itself. So many suggestions will have a total of one (grammatically incorrect) sentence in the original post. So good to see a well-developed idea for once.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Vaporo

[Raptor9]

Hmm... Well, first...[through]...idea for once.

(Didn't want to spam the auto-quote)

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Like I said, I know there are many people out there with better ideas than mine. I agree with the portion about the individual upgrades you listed and the problems with each. Especially with adjusting wing chord or thickness without an outward appearance to the wing. It's just a balance between ultra-realism and functionality on a programmer's level (which I am not, lol, so take that with a grain of salt ). Just an alternative to make R&D and science point expenditures still necessary and challenging, without limiting the player to unlocking 95% of the KSP parts.

But good counter-points.