Do you even Standardize?

[TimePeriod]

Hi all!

Am I the only one hooked on this drug called Standardize? I've been trying to force a standard down on everything as of late, ranging from the number of Kerbals which must be present on any flight off or on Kerbin to the total maximum number of parts allowed for a given rocket.(Which has led to many a-Kerbals unfortunate demise). I think I may be addicted.

Anyone else which also have experienced this kind of addic- I mean attraction to standardization?

Edited June 11, 2014 by TimePeriod

[timsfitz]

Nope. I often use a saved asparagus launch stage, otherwise, no.

[EdFred]

Nope. Sometimes, I only run the small tanks and engines, sometimes I go with Kerbodyne, sometimes it's mainsails, sometimes no SRBs, sometimes....

[Taki117]

With me, every rocket is unique, unless I'm launching multiples. (Like solar panels for my space station)

[maccollo]

Nope.

Building is half the fun

[Superfluous J]

I put restrictions on my careers when I start (Currently: Once you land on a planet or moon you can never go back) but I don't standardize anything. Every rocket is built from scratch for the parameters of whatever mission I've designed. Once done, it's never used again.

[katateochi]

The only thing I try to standardize is some of the action group keys, so that things don't get too weird/confusing when craft are docked together.

My most standard one is 0 which is always deploy chutes. its near the abort key and in cases of launch aborts you don't always have time to run throu all the stages to get to the chutes. I also think of that as a safety feature, I always know that chutes are on 0 and don't have to think about it in an emergency.

9 is usually for solar panels. The rest have some rules, but it depends a bit on craft type.

[theend3r]

I have my 1000t lifter that I use for everything and will continue to do so untill budgets come. You could call that my standard

[problemecium]

My addiction is to SSTO rockets and reusability. It was only recently and with some effort that I was able to convince myself it was okay to ditch fairings.

[SlimeCrusher]

Kinda, im more of small payloads, so i use my standart "1 central fuel tank, LV-T45, 4 radial decouplers, 4 radial fuel tanks and 4 radial LV-T45s, then decoupler, LV-909 and another fuel tank" mostly, but for big payloads i don't just copy-paste my launchers

[Russoft]

I find I'm still learning new things. I'll save a lifter/lander/etc to be used later, only to build one from scratch because I have learned a better way to do it. Detailed planning also consumes way too much of my non-gaming (work, family) life so I've vowed to keep any planning to in-game time. This means my missions are pretty haphazard. But I understand your addiction.

[Paul Kingtiger]

I love standardizing and I really hope career mode somehow factors in sub assemblies so using the same craft reduces costs.

[LethalDose]

While I don't like standardization for the sake of standardization, it's really useful for some applications. Since you're constantly launching stuff into space, it helps to know the behavior of what you're launching, instead of having to relearn it on every launch. I also tend to make stuff as reusable as possible after it's in orbit (the lifting stages are disposable), so again, it's nice to have the orbital ships be relatively interchangeable.

I have some pretty standard lifting stages that I use, but I tend to rebuild them quickly for each mission. I know how they perform, so it's easy. I make modifications as needed, though.

I'm working on a plan for a modular interplanetary ship that can reuse engine and habitat modules. So, ideally the engine and habitat modules will be roughly "standardized". Actually, the difficulty I'm having is figuring out what standard to hold them to. Mainly, I want to be sure they have enough provisions to get back from their destination if they need to ditch the mission specific modules (service modules, science, lander, etc.). I think a direct return from Duna for a 4 man crew is what I'm landing on, but haven't finalized it yet.

I think it would be cool to see discounted costs on "mass produced" sub-assemblies. However, the parts are already being bought from multiple third party vendors, so I'm not sure how that discount would work...

[SpacedCowboy]

The only thing I try to standardize is some of the action group keys, so that things don't get too weird/confusing when craft are docked together.

My most standard one is 0 which is always deploy chutes. its near the abort key and in cases of launch aborts you don't always have time to run throu all the stages to get to the chutes. I also think of that as a safety feature, I always know that chutes are on 0 and don't have to think about it in an emergency.

9 is usually for solar panels. The rest have some rules, but it depends a bit on craft type.

Totally with you on that. Depending on the type of craft, I usually apply the same action group numbers to the same function, for instance, a science vessel would be; 1. goo, 2. materials, 3. thermometer, so on and so forth. For me, any type of craft, if it's got solar panels it's always lucky No.7

[cantab]

I tried to standardise action groups, but I'm not sure it was entirely successful.

More successful has been my move to modules joined used big docking ports. The general idea is:

Command module: Regular docking port on the nose, Sr port on the tail. Saved as a ship.

Payload module: Ideally Sr ports on both ends, saved as a subassembly. Saved as a subassembly.

Engine module: Root Sr port on the front, more Sr ports on the sides, suitable point to attach a lifter on the tail. Saved as a subassembly.

I also have some Standard-Sr adapters for when I need them, though I realised I don't need them for launch, only when assembling in orbit. They include attitude control so they can be easily docked with, though not propulsion. These are saved as subassemblies, in two versions differing only in which port is the root.

So far its worked well, although it's a bit of a nuisance to combine multiple engine modules in the VAB. Maybe I should get SelectRoot and make versions with the root part as one of the side docking ports.

[Wallace]

Standards? Lol, that's a good one.

[Concentric]

I have a few lifter subassemblies that I grab when I don't want to build a new lifter for a mission I've thrown together on a whim. They tend to be relatively overkill for the purpose, and at least one of them is outdated technology in its entirety, but they work fine. I wouldn't necessarily call them "standardised", though - they're just the lifter stages of various missions saved as a subassembly instead.

As for action groups: 0 for abort/return 'chutes (though not for all 'chutes), 3 for solar panels, and typically 5 for ladders and 6 for secondary landing gear: for example, RedKing's ion lander's LT5s are on 6, while the main gear (LT2) is on g. The other numbers could be a range of things - engine toggles, decouple/undock clamp, do science and so on.

[GoSlash27]

Sorta, I suppose.

I use a standard lifter for everything which imposes a 5t weight limit on what I launch. Since all of my space station components/ interplanetary movers/ landers/ rovers/ etc. are all weight restricted and modular, it's kind of inevitable that it would all end up standardized.

I do have some rules that I've self- imposed (mainly safety rules for the Kerbals) that aren't necessary, but one of my aims is to place Kerbals on every accessible body in the system without killing or stranding them.

Other than that, it's little stuff. Nuclear engines have unique rules, stuff like that.

[maltesh]

Totally with you on that. Depending on the type of craft, I usually apply the same action group numbers to the same function, for instance, a science vessel would be; 1. goo, 2. materials, 3. thermometer, so on and so forth. For me, any type of craft, if it's got solar panels it's always lucky No.7

Since there are so few action groups, when I do fully standardize, I tend to standaridize towards the spacecraft's situation, rather than individual parts, using a scheme that someone posted here long ago, with examples for what I'd assign a simple lander.

1. Pre-Takeoff Prep Check

Activate Engines, Extend Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Retract Solar Panels.

2. On-Orbit Maneuvering.

Activate Engines, Retract Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Extend Solar Panels.

3. On-Orbit, Non-Maneuvering.

Shutdown Engines, Retract Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Extend Solar Panels.

4. Docking.

Shutdown Engines, Retract Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Retract Solar Panels.

5. Atmospheric Descent.

Activate Engines, Retract Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Retract Solar Panels.

6. Landing.

Activate Engines, Extend Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Retract Solar Panels.

7. On-Ground Station Mode

Shutdown Engines, Extend Landing Legs, Extend Ladders, Extend Solar Panels.

Or at least, that's what I generally mean to do. There are plenty of other things that can go into these various categories of course. Lights, wheels, scientific instrument readouts, mod part triggers, etc. As for why there's so much redundancy in what gets switched on and off, I like to be able to go straight to the mode I want, in case I forget to go through the intermediate stages.

As for the other action groups..

8 is usually "Deactivate whatever auxilliary special function may have been lumped into 7.", such as Kethane Drills, Reactors, Kethane Converters, etc.

9 is usually "Have all on-board scientific instruments record data."

0 is usually "Toggle solar panels."

Abort is usually "Trigger Parachutes." as I don't build spacecraft with a standard abort capability because THERE ARE NO FAILURES IN THE PEOPLE'S GLORIOUS SPACE PROGRAM, and anyone who claims otherwise is a LYING SEDITIOUS TRAITOR.

Edited June 11, 2014 by maltesh

[cantab]

Since there are so few action groups, when I do fully standardize, I tend to standaridize towards the spacecraft's situation, rather than individual parts, using a scheme that someone posted here long ago, with examples for what I'd assign a simple lander.

1. Pre-Takeoff Prep Check

Activate Engines, Extend Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Retract Solar Panels.

2. On-Orbit Maneuvering.

Activate Engines, Retract Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Extend Solar Panels.

3. On-Orbit, Non-Maneuvering.

Shutdown Engines, Retract Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Extend Solar Panels.

4. Docking.

Shutdown Engines, Retract Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Retract Solar Panels.

5. Atmospheric Descent.

Activate Engines, Retract Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Retract Solar Panels.

6. Landing.

Activate Engines, Extend Landing Legs, Retract Ladders, Retract Solar Panels.

7. On-Ground Station Mode

Shutdown Engines, Extend Landing Legs, Extend Ladders, Extend Solar Panels.

Or at least, that's what I generally mean to do. There are plenty of other things that can go into these various categories of course. Lights, wheels, scientific instrument readouts, mod part triggers, etc. As for why there's so much redundancy in what gets switched on and off, I like to be able to go straight to the mode I want, in case I forget to go through the intermediate stages.

As for the other action groups..

8 is usually "Deactivate whatever auxilliary special function may have been lumped into 7.", such as Kethane Drills, Reactors, Kethane Converters, etc.

9 is usually "Have all on-board scientific instruments record data."

0 is usually "Toggle solar panels."

Abort is usually "Trigger Parachutes." as I don't build spacecraft with a standard abort capability because THERE ARE NO FAILURES IN THE PEOPLE'S GLORIOUS SPACE PROGRAM, and anyone who claims otherwise is a LYING SEDITIOUS TRAITOR.

This is a great approach, very tempted to copy it.

[Taki117]

This is a great approach, very tempted to copy it.

I think I will copy it, if I can get the ALCOR renaming scheme to work for every ship (By finding that bit of code and those buttons) I might start doing entirely IVA missions.

[ArmchairGravy]

Yes. This is something I've gotten into since discovering the power of modularization. Eve and Tylo are the only outliers that I need a non-standard lander/transfer stage. Otherwise it's my standard lander attached to my standard habitat/science module, attached to one of my standard drive modules. Swap out the lander for a claw for asteroids. Since they all go into subassemblies it's really quick and easy to mix and match for the mission at hand. It's taken me months to refine, but it's saving me tons of time now.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

the only Thing I standardized is the heatshield with the decoupler underneath and 2 small rcs-tanks and batteries cramped into the decoupler.

[NovaSilisko]

I always standardized my launchers now. I like the challenge of fitting the desired payload into a given fairing and lifting capability.

My current standard medium lifter, for example (using RSS), approx. 7 tons to LEO.

It has optional side boosters, which themselves can be used as the first stage for another launcher

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Looks like an ICBM, Nova