Community Resource Pack [WIP]

[RoverDude]

Just an idea. Also include the flowMode, so that we don't end up with differing flow modes for the same resource.

Excellent idea. I'll add it to the spreadsheet.

(Edit to avoid double post)

Also added compression, an example, and a column to show quantity in an FL-T800 tank. Just to help out folks making tanks and such. Granted I care a LOT less about compression, but it's more of a nice to have.

Edited August 13, 2014 by RoverDude

[Bilfr3d]

Excellent idea. I'll add it to the spreadsheet.

Thank you. Also, great work on actually starting this and organising everything.

[seanth]

Those densities bugged me a lot , Uranium is one of the heaviest metal so having density of 5 kg/m3 (density unit is not 100 sure, I saw something on the wiki, it is supposed to be kg/m3 but in fact it is KSP mass unit/m3, so ton, and here 0.005 means 5 kgs) is more than weird, or someone get there before and stole the majority of it and put something else (nothing mostly) inside .

There was (I thought) a great post that gets to the core of problem of standardizing KSP densities: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28088-Fuel-Density-KSP-vs-Science

In summary, the densities used by Squad don't match any real-world materials. Even if we make a pretty safe assumption--that Oxidizer is just liquid oxygen--the Kerbal oxidizer is approximately 4.5x more dense than real-world liquid oxygen. More importantly, that 4.5x relationship seems consistent for the other fuels (depending on what you assume the fuels are...but the 4.5x "rule" does a great job of helping predict what Squad had in mind for a given fuel if you back calculate. For example, Squad's "SolidFuel" has a density of 0.0075. Divide by 4.5 and you get 0.00164, which is very close to the density for the real world solid fuel ammonium perchlorate).

It gets even more complicated because some mods aim for real-world realism (and insist on using real-world densities) whereas other mods aim to fit in with Squad's universe, and end up using Squadish (or just made up) values.

As much as I would love to see a unified guideline, even if Squad said "Yes, we base our resources on real things, and modify the density in a consistent way," there would end up being two guide lines: one for realism and one for the Squad universe.

Having said all that, isn't the density definition just used by the game to help calculate the mass of a part holding that resource?

[Crater]

There was (I thought) a great post that gets to the core of problem of standardizing KSP densities: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28088-Fuel-Density-KSP-vs-Science

In summary, the densities used by Squad don't match any real-world materials. Even if we make a pretty safe assumption--that Oxidizer is just liquid oxygen--the Kerbal oxidizer is approximately 4.5x more dense than real-world liquid oxygen. More importantly, that 4.5x relationship seems consistent for the other fuels (depending on what you assume the fuels are...but the 4.5x "rule" does a great job of helping predict what Squad had in mind for a given fuel if you back calculate. For example, Squad's "SolidFuel" has a density of 0.0075. Divide by 4.5 and you get 0.00164, which is very close to the density for the real world solid fuel ammonium perchlorate).

It gets even more complicated because some mods aim for real-world realism (and insist on using real-world densities) whereas other mods aim to fit in with Squad's universe, and end up using Squadish (or just made up) values.

As much as I would love to see a unified guideline, even if Squad said "Yes, we base our resources on real things, and modify the density in a consistent way," there would end up being two guide lines: one for realism and one for the Squad universe.

Having said all that, isn't the density definition just used by the game to help calculate the mass of a part holding that resource?

I'd be cautious of taking the numbers in that thread....

1) KSP stock "units" are more like 5 liters than 1 liter, according to most people who do the maths, so that would pretty-close to explain the factor of 4.5 everything is out by

2) At various places in the thread, people use 1m and 2m as tank sizes, instead of 1.25m, 2.5m, which is going to induce errors

3) Also at various places in the thread, people mix and match with whether they're using a radius or a diameter, which is again going to introduce errors.

[seanth]

I'd be cautious of taking the numbers in that thread....

1) KSP stock "units" are more like 5 liters than 1 liter, according to most people who do the maths, so that would pretty-close to explain the factor of 4.5 everything is out by

2) At various places in the thread, people use 1m and 2m as tank sizes, instead of 1.25m, 2.5m, which is going to induce errors

3) Also at various places in the thread, people mix and match with whether they're using a radius or a diameter, which is again going to introduce errors.

Oh, I don't just accept the numbers in that thread. And there are other things said in that thread other than the OP? lol. I Anyway, the logic used by the OP seems sound to me, and the consequences of applying the logic to Squad resources make internal sense.

[Paul Kingtiger]

Basing Liquid Fuel on RP-1, Oxidizer on LOX and Monoprop on Hydrazine I get the following values (calculated by comparing density).

Liquid fuel 1 unit = 6.250 liters

Oxidizer 1 unit = 4.382 liters

Monoprop 1 unit = 3.922 liters

[undercoveryankee]

I would guess that the stock densities were chosen based on RL fuels at some relatively easy number of liters per unit that made the in-game numbers a convenient size.

The densities have probably been the same since before the rescaling of the stock parts from 1m to 1.25m, so tank capacity vs. model size for the old models might be informative.

[ArkaelDren]

I was just recently working on my new GameData file for the 64 bit version. That usually entails a crap load of cfg alterations. But I came across something that supports the need for a universal agreement between the Modding community. I wanted the unique storage solutions mod with the wedge shaped storage containers, the "near future" mods, kethane, Karbonite, Tac Life Support (or any life support mod) and the asteroid hollowing mod. I seriously do not want to go through these other Mods, to bring them into the universal "open resource" system that you guys are working on. But it is just a real hands on proof of concept need, for the common player that enjoys multiple mods. With out some agreement of resources and the way they are handled, its going to get real ugly, REAL fast. Tell me what I can do, as a community member, to help facilitate this change or standardization of the Open Resources direction?

[RoverDude]

(For the thread in general) I think you're now seeing why I don't want to get in tussles over hoe much hydrogen weighs I did add a column for compression, less for a realism thing, and more so that if people are making tanks and containers, the sizes make sense. But beyond that - I'm ambivelant to how folks choose to measure stuff (the two most common seem to be 200 units per m3, and 1000 units per m3).

I was just recently working on my new GameData file for the 64 bit version. That usually entails a crap load of cfg alterations. But I came across something that supports the need for a universal agreement between the Modding community. I wanted the unique storage solutions mod with the wedge shaped storage containers, the "near future" mods, kethane, Karbonite, Tac Life Support (or any life support mod) and the asteroid hollowing mod. I seriously do not want to go through these other Mods, to bring them into the universal "open resource" system that you guys are working on. But it is just a real hands on proof of concept need, for the common player that enjoys multiple mods. With out some agreement of resources and the way they are handled, its going to get real ugly, REAL fast. Tell me what I can do, as a community member, to help facilitate this change or standardization of the Open Resources direction?

Basically, once this goes public (and it will by the end of the weekend) nicely request the authors of the mods you use to use this if a conflict happens (or advise folks that there is a conflict). Anecdotal bit... Because I pulled an old TAC-LS file, I probably caused several ships to crash because their mass suddenly increased when they loaded a new Karbonite version. This was promptly fixxed, but it does go to show why this is a nice thing.

[seanth]

RESOURCE_DEFINITION
	{
		name = Water
		density = 0.001
		unitCost = 0.001
		flowMode = ALL_VESSEL
		transfer = PUMP
		isTweakable = true
	}

I finally sat down at tried to cogently explain with maths why I am absolutely convinced that Squads resource densities are real-world densities*4.5

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/1644-Thoughts-on-Kerbal-resources

Please check my logic and maths and tell me why I am wrong, because I really do want to see unified resources. I just can't support definitions that don't fit into the logic laid out by Squad (unless we are throwing all of Squads resource definition away).

[RoverDude]

Going to step in and say that if I don't have the support of folks, hopefully we can agree to at least not have games crash

btw I could not get to your blog link - can you fix that? I do want to read it.

btw - we have several major mods all dependent on the 1000 units per M3 v. 200 per M3 v. 222.22 per m3 (Which would be 4.5), so I do not see that changing any time soon. But it would be nice to not have games or ships crash or mods to fight

So again - I'd like support, but if I can't get support I'll settle for people not making things uglier than what we have today

[seanth]

btw I could not get to your blog link - can you fix that? I do want to read it.

Oops. Fixed.

[seanth]

So again - I'd like support, but if I can't get support I'll settle for people not making things uglier than what we have today

Of course, one possible solution is a group of people that provide a sort of "harmony" plugin that scans a player's plugins and overwrites default plugin settings to bring them into line with one another. It feels like a nasty way to do this, but if players want compatibility, but mod makers can't agree, a 3rd party could offer a solution.

[RoverDude]

Oops. Fixed.

So I read it, and no debate. they do not use 1L per unit. It's usually around 5L or so.

Hence why there's a column for that in the spreadsheet, since getting folks to agree on which system to use is out of scope. And it's a lot easier to say 'we use 1L units and here's the cost and density and ratio for your tanks, so your LS tanks look a little weird but we don't break stuff' than 'We must agree on units per liter before we move forward. IMO the former discussion is winnable (it already has been won). The latter would be the KSP equivelant of Viet Nam.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, one possible solution is a group of people that provide a sort of "harmony" plugin that scans a player's plugins and overwrites default plugin settings to bring them into line with one another. It feels like a nasty way to do this, but if players want compatibility, but mod makers can't agree, a 3rd party could offer a solution.

I would in no way ever support that. Just so we're clear.

(EDIT)

Right now, it's first resource wins. That's how KSP works and is the cause of our problems. Intentionally going into mod files and modifying stuff, or changing how mods behave is a whole different thing and would be seen as malicious in the eyes of a lot of people.

[seanth]

Right now, it's first resource wins. That's how KSP works and is the cause of our problems. Intentionally going into mod files and modifying stuff, or changing how mods behave is a whole different thing and would be seen as malicious in the eyes of a lot of people.

Don't we, as players, already do this to make mods play well together? Mind you, I'm not at all advocating making a mod that makes the changes that players already do by hand. I'm just saying that such thing is possible (and feels icky)

[RoverDude]

Don't we, as players, already do this to make mods play well together? Mind you, I'm not at all advocating making a mod that makes the changes that players already do by hand. I'm just saying that such thing is possible (and feels icky)

Not really, most players just get sad that their favorite mod doesn't work, then modders get mad at eachother for breaking stuff. Now, if players realized that a bunch of mods did play nice, and they had a choice between Mod A that was in the club, and Mod B that was not, it may be something that influences their choice. And that's how change happens.

But I can safely say that for the foreseeable future, that change will incude radically different densities just due to everything legacy, and I'm ok with that.

[passinglurker]

Please check my logic and maths and tell me why I am wrong, because I really do want to see unified resources. I just can't support definitions that don't fit into the logic laid out by Squad (unless we are throwing all of Squads resource definition away).

This

This right here is the sort of thinking that stops us from having unified resources. Different mod authors will interpret the kerbal universe in different ways and come up with a different Kerbalized table of elements, and then (for lack of a better term)bicker with each other about it. Basically you are looking for logic and reason where there is none the solution is to abandon all hope of figuring out if liquid fuel is supposed to be kerosene or hydrogen and keep things abstract. At that point where resources are named after their roles rather than their components their density honestly doesn't matter as long as everyone agrees on the same numbers.

[seanth]

This right here is the sort of thinking that stops us from having unified resources. Different mod authors will interpret the kerbal universe in different ways and come up with a different Kerbalized table of elements, and then (for lack of a better term)bicker with each other about it.

You know...you are absolutely correct. Not about there not being any logic (there is), but the rest I agree with. More than that, you have won me over. Players do not care who is right. Hell, most of them don't care if the physics in the game is realistic at all. All they care about is fun, and conflicting mods and crashes are not fun.

[boribori]

Maybe we should have two different standards, one focussed on the squad universe and one focussed on realism because they will always conflict anyway I think. The downside would be that some mods won't work together anymore, but at least you will know what will work together and what not.

[RoverDude]

Maybe we should have two different standards, one focussed on the squad universe and one focussed on realism because they will always conflict anyway I think. The downside would be that some mods won't work together anymore, but at least you will know what will work together and what not.

In a single word. No. At least not in any way that I would participate in or support.

[boribori]

I'm not saying you should organise it. To me it seems there are those who want to follow Squad's universe and others who want to follow the real universe, or something completely different, so unless you can combine those there will always be a conflict. So if ORS/CRP would state which model they follow, others can choose to standardise the other models. I think trying to get everyone to follow one model is a waste of time and effort and then we'll never get any standardisation. So what I'm asking is which model ORS/CRP follows, once that's clear there won't be any more discussion about the logic behind densities and stuff. If someone doesn't like it they can create their own standard. I think its better to have 2 or 3 standards than 1000.

[RoverDude]

I'm not saying you should organise it. To me it seems there are those who want to follow Squad's universe and others who want to follow the real universe, or something completely different, so unless you can combine those there will always be a conflict. So if ORS/CRP would state which model they follow, others can choose to standardise the other models. I think trying to get everyone to follow one model is a waste of time and effort and then we'll never get any standardisation. So what I'm asking is which model ORS/CRP follows, once that's clear there won't be any more discussion about the logic behind densities and stuff. If someone doesn't like it they can create their own standard. I think its better to have 2 or 3 standards than 1000.

But I think you're missing the point... CRP follows both of them (or all of them, take your pick), and there is no conflict.

Water is measured in 1L units. Metal is in 5L units. Both are in CRP, and there's harmony. Stuff works.

I think an earlier poster said it best... people just want to play a game. They really don't care about densities and such as log as they are consistent. This is why I don't even bother trying to tell people to follow one model or the other. Don't break stuff (that's easy) and if you want in the club, don't change something someone else already did.

[boribori]

I don't care about densities and not that much about realism, I mainly just want to play. But there is a discussion about logic and realism which in my opinion hampers the standardisation progress. So if you are saying ORS/CRP is mainly focussed on gameplay there should be no more discussion about the realism of the densities and people can choose to follow or not.

And now I'm hampering the progress by discussing what to discuss...... I'm just frustrated by messing around in mods trying to make them work together but instead breaking more.

Thanks for starting this project!

[RoverDude]

I don't care about densities and not that much about realism, I mainly just want to play. But there is a discussion about logic and realism which in my opinion hampers the standardisation progress. So if you are saying ORS/CRP is mainly focussed on gameplay there should be no more discussion about the realism of the densities and people can choose to follow or not.

And now I'm hampering the progress by discussing what to discuss...... I'm just frustrated by messing around in mods trying to make them work together but instead breaking more.

Thanks for starting this project!

Be careful or we'll fall into a recursive wormhole of discussions

Suffice it to say that as of now we're all in violent agreement.

The new MKS pre-release goes out this weekend, and is the last bit that I wanted in play before pushing this out as a 'thing'. After that it should be relatively smooth sailing.

[rabidninjawombat]

Be careful or we'll fall into a recursive wormhole of discussions

Suffice it to say that as of now we're all in violent agreement.

The new MKS pre-release goes out this weekend, and is the last bit that I wanted in play before pushing this out as a 'thing'. After that it should be relatively smooth sailing.

Does the MKS prerelease include the move to the CRP? (just checking so i can update my own stuff ahead of time )