How re-entry damage should be implemented

[Moss]

Just a quick thought on how re-entry damage should be implemented. I think the debs are intending to implement it at some point but if it's as severe as DRE it might put off less competent players such as myself. My proposed solution is this: Perhaps most parts, rather than getting obliterated by heat, could have a "semi-destroyed" state, much like wheels have a "popped" state. And, like wheels, could be repaired by kerbals on EVA. It would prevent that part from functioning and have some cosmetic effect, like engines having a twisted, warped nozzle or fuel tanks having a black, bent, charred look. What do you think about that?

[Roastduck]

I think there should either be re-entry damage, or no re-entry damage, with no gray area. A difficulty setting turning on certain features would be great, but I think that a save file should either have it on, or have it off. Otherwise, what's the point? The nature of re-entry damage would force you to bring replacement parts and tools, because you can't just re-inflate a tire that has been melted by compression heating. The weight of replacement parts would quickly outstrip the weight of adequate heat shielding

[Eric S]

The last time I saw the devs talk about reentry heat, they were talking about doing it without dedicated heatshield parts, so they're probably thinking of something less severe than even current DRE.

[Sky_walker]

I'm yet to die on reentry, and I did some waaaaaaaay too steep reentries, so.... From my perspective: they'd first have to implement any reentry damage at all. Only thing I seen were solar panels breaking off, but other than that nothing seems to be destroyed on reentry.

I always hear about reentry as one of most risky procedures, you have to align your ship, pick a good entry angle, be careful with speed, watch out not to expose any fragile elements.... in Kerbal it's a joke - you watch some nice effects and that's all. Nothing seems to matter.

They basically got rid of one of most crucial and risky stages of a space flight.

I really hope current state of things is just a placeholder for real reentry damage and death to arrive.

[prophet_01]

I agree that there should be some kind of damage. I dont think it needs to be as"realistic"(I know there are some debates around that) as DRE but at interplanetary missions u should need a heatshield of some sort for an aerobraking maneuver. Its just odd to throw a 500t aerodynamic nightnamere into jools atmosphere knowing it will glow and spin like a fire cracker, although no damage at all will happen. This is nothing that might add to the steep learning courve if u dont overdo it,

just a little more of a challenge for experienced players

[Sky_walker]

More like: immersion for a new player. I started playing this game like a week ago and got totally confused by some **** that happens here. Heat damage is completly unintuitive. You get most science from doing things noone but expirienced players knows about - for example building capsule that's in fact a ball with all of the scientific equipment you possibly can muster being randomly strapped onto it and then getting it through the atmosphere back on a planet - something every new player thinks of as an impossible feat to do as it should burn in the reentry.

Current mechanics only add to the confusion of a new players.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Moss]

re-entry damage would force you to bring replacement parts and tools, because you can't just re-inflate a tire that has been melted by compression heating. The weight of replacement parts would quickly outstrip the weight of adequate heat shielding

Excellent point, although I feel that my proposed compromise would be sufficient. Kerbals would be able to repair semi-destroyed parts (again, just like landing gear and wheels) at no cost. Heat shields would still be a necessity because honestly, who wants to fly around on EVA and fix 40 or more parts after every aerobraking?

[Red Iron Crown]

Your suggestion isn't really specific to reentry damage, it could be applied to any sort of damage (overly hard landing, collisions, excessive acceleration, etc).

There really should be some intermediate damage level between "fully functional" and "destroyed". Possibly a range of levels. It does add complexity for creating parts as they would need models and textures for the damaged state(s), as well as some parameters for how the part behaves when partially damaged. But it would be worth it, IMO, to have better damage modeling and new ways for things to go wrong (and possibly be fixed).

[Moss]

I'm not keen on multiple models for the same part for various RAM related reasons. But a single "charred" texture could easily be laid over various parts, could it not? (No actual programming knowledge, feel free to hate/correct etc.)

[Raven.]

I play with FAR, but not DRE. The most recent version of FAR introduces a new gameplay aspect called aerodynamic failures. Basically, if you do not watch your angle of attack and re-entry speed, your space ship disintegrates into tiny little pieces because the aerodynamic forces become too great for the craft to handle. In my personal opinion, I think that this, along with heat damage, should be made stock.

[Sky_walker]

Your suggestion isn't really specific to reentry damage, it could be applied to any sort of damage (overly hard landing, collisions, excessive acceleration, etc).

There really should be some intermediate damage level between "fully functional" and "destroyed". Possibly a range of levels. It does add complexity for creating parts as they would need models and textures for the damaged state(s), as well as some parameters for how the part behaves when partially damaged. But it would be worth it, IMO, to have better damage modeling and new ways for things to go wrong (and possibly be fixed).

+1. I would love to see that in various different components.

It'd open a whole new world of gameplay. Eg. We'd finally be able to replicate Surveyor 5 landing on a moon (it had a fuel leak).

I play with FAR, but not DRE. The most recent version of FAR introduces a new gameplay aspect called aerodynamic failures. Basically, if you do not watch your angle of attack and re-entry speed, your space ship disintegrates into tiny little pieces because the aerodynamic forces become too great for the craft to handle. In my personal opinion, I think that this, along with heat damage, should be made stock.

Agreed.