To those who think part test contracts should be removed... Please read.

[Whirligig Girl]

Reddit User /u/Kalloran is a real-life test pilot, and has a few things to say to people who hate the ridiculous nature of part test contracts. While undoubtedly testing a launch clamp on the Mun or even a Jet engine anywhere above Low Kerbin orbit is silly, many other part test contracts are realistic.

KSP and testing, a pilot's perspective.

Alright, so let's talk testing. I've been seeing a ton of gripes on here about the part test profiles, their restrictions, and their very strict requirements. Most of these gripes have been along the lines that they are patently ridiculous, unnecessary and overly difficult to accomplish. I would like to point out that this is ACTUALLY how testing works. Test profiles for unknown parts are extremely stringent and require weeks, sometimes months, of repetitive flights in order to gather the necessary breadth data to analyze part performance. Test pilots spend day after day flying the aircraft within a very tight range of tolerances for the flight test engineers either in the aircraft or on the ground receiving data-linked telemetry and sensor information. If you exceed the tolerances by a little bit, you fly the profile again. You do this until you a) run out of fuel or run out of crew duty day. In either case, you're most likely heading up tomorrow to fly the exact same profile. I had the opportunity to spend a week flying a test run for my company where I had to put the aircraft over a point on the ground +/- 1 minute, +/- 50 ft (altitude), and within 1% of a target aircraft gross weight in order for the test to be valid. If I messed up, it was back to the airfield to refuel and try again. I know that this statement smacks of realism, not game, but how many posts are on here and the boards about things not "being realistic enough?"

"But Kal, I can't engage my LV-XXX where it says, because the stage timing doesn't work right!" Ok, if you're going to take these contracts (which you don't have to do, btw), you *gasp* might have to put forth some thought, consideration, planning, and, yes, MATH. MOAR STRUTS! MOAR BOOSTERS! Might not work! (Say it isn't so!!!). Consider launching the test vehicle at a 45* angle or less in order to maximize the time you spend within the test window. As you gain aircraft parts, consider creating flying testbeds to test parts: aircraft that you attach something to and then fly it into the test window to engage the test item. 14000m to 20000m at 250m/s to 450m/s is well within the flight envelope of aircraft in KSP, and it's recoverable. Most aviation corporations as well as governmental organizations keep an inventory of testbed aircraft (B-52's, BBJ's, G4's, Lears, SR-71, etc) for the purpose of strapping odd things to them to test performance. While I find the "science mode" versus "career mode" graphics as funny as anyone else, test aircraft really do look very odd. Consider the 747 test of the GE90 engine below:

747 GE90 Test Picture

or the F-35 nose cone aerodynamic test

F-35 Nose Cone Test Picture NOTE FROM EDITOR (GregroxMun), I want a mod that gives you nosecone aerodynamic test contracts.

Look pretty goofy? Yeah. On an unrelated note, the 747 was able to shut down it's other 3 engines and fly on the GE90 alone. In Thrust We Trust. Anyway, this statement comes with some caveats:

1) I'd like to see some sort of flight data capability (KER, VOID, etc) to be stock. My crafts live and die by KER, but I totally understand the desire to play stock 2) I'd like to see impossible tests be filtered out. The launch clamps on the mun for instance.

Then again, Squad did say that the contract system is NOT a final product. I suspect that, through constructive, polite, concise, and specific tester feedback (yes, we are all test players. This is not a final game product yet) the product will evolve and get better.

After reading this, I now have a good looking test aircraft for small part tests, called the FOP-1 Turner. Uses basic aircraft tech only, but is capable of near-suborbital hops. Rep for whoever can figure out the meaning of the name.

Edited August 8, 2014 by GregroxMun

[KSK]

I don't hang out on Reddit so hadn't read this interesting article. Thanks for re-posting it here and have some virtual rep. Seems I can't give you any more than that at the moment.

FOP = Fed-up Of Parachutes? I know I find parachute tests to be the more finicky and annoying ones!

[Steampunked]

I think that the majority of complaints regarding these sort of tests are coming from the fact that these sort of activities are not what the majority of users are interested in doing.

We do not play Kerbal Space Program to test some widget at some specific velocity at some specific altitude. It simply is not fun. Now, having said that I completely understand that (1) this sort of contract could be viewed as a challenge and a puzzle and (2) having multiple semi-random parameters to change up keeps us from repeating the same exact contract over and over again.

However, I go back to my previous statement of "this is not why we play Kerbal Space Program". Contracts should be about putting things in orbit and putting things on other planetary bodies. They should be saying "put a station with X capabilities and Y crew capacity at Z altitude or geosynch" or "put this proceduraly generated mission satellite in orbit around X planet at Y altitude". Or put a rover with A/B/C/ equipment on Duna at specific coordinates or a lander on the Mun in a specific biome and take a surface sample that MUST first be analyzed in an orbital lab before being returned to Kerbin.

These are the sorts of things that players play KSP for.

[Nathair]

I think that the majority of complaints regarding these sort of tests are coming from the fact that these sort of activities are not what the majority of users are interested in doing.

We do not play Kerbal Space Program to test some widget at some specific velocity at some specific altitude. It simply is not fun.

I see this as a forest vs trees issue. Just like in real life there is stuff you need to do in order to be able to do the stuff you want to do. If we are (loosely) simulating the running of a space program (which is what all this contracts stuff is about) then "work" type contracts to pay for the "fun" stuff is exactly right. It seems to me that if you don't want to do the work, if you'd rather skip the brussel sprouts and start right in on dessert, then you shouldn't be asking for "fun" contracts, you should be playing sandbox or science mode and decide for yourself what's fun.

[ansaman]

I have found the parts testing to be an interesting technical challenge requiring me to design a craft from scratch for a special purpose. Some contracts are stupidly simple and others are simply impossible. It is not like I am going to drag a jet engine out to Minimus for no money. On the other hand, some of the contracts generate fascinating puzzles. It would be simple to classify each part with an additional parameter and then filter out stupid results with a simple algorithm. No testing of jet engines landed on the Mun.

[r4pt0r]

I would suggest widening the window for the tests.

instead of "do test above 10km and below 11km at between 325 and 450 m/s" just have "do test on kerbin (in atmosphere) at greater than x km, and at greater than x m/s" pick greater than or less than, but dont give the test a ceiling and a basement, keep it wider.

[Guest]

I have found the parts testing to be an interesting technical challenge requiring me to design a craft from scratch for a special purpose. Some contracts are stupidly simple and others are simply impossible. It is not like I am going to drag a jet engine out to Minimus for no money. On the other hand, some of the contracts generate fascinating puzzles. It would be simple to classify each part with an additional parameter and then filter out stupid results with a simple algorithm. No testing of jet engines landed on the Mun.

This is really what's going on; you're being presented with a puzzle to solve. The neat thing about contracts is that you can combine these puzzles and try to complete several at a time. I also agree that part filtering is needed to avoid situations where you might be asked to test launch clamps on the Mun. Although the devs seem to be of a mind that these should be expected, I feel it's kind of lazy game design.

[Wanderfound]

I would suggest widening the window for the tests.

instead of "do test above 10km and below 11km at between 325 and 450 m/s" just have "do test on kerbin (in atmosphere) at greater than x km, and at greater than x m/s" pick greater than or less than, but dont give the test a ceiling and a basement, keep it wider.

Whereas I'd prefer exactly the opposite. I want a contract that requires me to test a booster while pulling more than three but less than five negative G's between eight and nine hundred metres off the deck at a speed just below Mach 1; that would be a challenge.

But really, what we need is all of the above. Testing contracts, exploration contracts, rescue contracts, easy contracts, hard contracts. The more diversity the better; something for all tastes and all experience levels.

[Subasean]

I can see both points. I'm an engineering major with a huge nerd crush on NASA and flight testing, and in the latest episode of my "Realish" youtube series that I'm going to try to VO and publish tonight I've got a lot of testing footage. However, I wholeheartedly agree, it's probably not going to be that interesting to watch for a lot of people, so I may begin only recording interesting tests in the future. Thankfully, I'm out of Mercury and into Gemini type flights, so I can rationalize that away as just the program maturing.

That said, I've built a wonderful little F-86/MiG-15 looking aircraft for flight testing and Kerbin biome data that I've had a blast using (it's awesome for p-chute testing. I just make something up about spin-recovery/shock line tension testing) for in-flight testing.

I think early parts testing contracts phasing out with rising prestige for things more along the lines of Steampunked's suggestion would eliminate the tedium, and give the general sense of "We've crawled, we've taken unsteady first steps, we've learned to run, now let's go to the pro leagues!"

On the flip side, the engineer nerd in me would like to see a mod with parts development. "Hold this finicky prototype nuclear engine at a specified ennvelope on the test stand for a certain number of tests without blowing up, and you can use it in flight." I would in no way wish that on the core game, because I can hear eyelids shuttering from people reading that from here, but it'd be kind of cool to me to be able to invest say science points and funds, or, through repeated testing, to raise the stability and efficiency of parts.

[Jesrad]

Interesting. Creating specific, ad-hoc testbed vehicles for flight-testing is exactly how I've approached the whole thing.

[Wanderfound]

I've tended to strap them onto my spaceplanes to do on the way to orbit [1]. Getting a spaceplane up to orbital speed and altitude can get a bit repetitive; having something to do on the way mixes it up a bit.

[1] Including this interesting one: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/87950-Testing-times

[cpast]

This is really what's going on; you're being presented with a puzzle to solve. The neat thing about contracts is that you can combine these puzzles and try to complete several at a time. I also agree that part filtering is needed to avoid situations where you might be asked to test launch clamps on the Mun. Although the devs seem to be of a mind that these should be expected, I feel it's kind of lazy game design.

Other than launch clamps not on Kerbin, are there any other *impossible* tests? I really can't think of any. Jets not on Kerbin or Laythe, maybe (and those are certainly possible to do, just...kinda pointless), but that's about it.

[Padishar]

Other than launch clamps not on Kerbin, are there any other *impossible* tests? I really can't think of any. Jets not on Kerbin or Laythe, maybe (and those are certainly possible to do, just...kinda pointless), but that's about it.

No, testing jets not on Kerbin or Laythe is easily possible, they don't work but you are still testing them. Any kind of test landed on jool or the sun is impossible but I don't know if it already filters those out. I can't think of anything else that is strictly impossible...

[Sirrobert]

While I don't care much for this article (I already liked the test contracts anyway), I sure as hell am going to steal the phrase 'In Thrust we Trust'

So thanks for that

Other than launch clamps not on Kerbin, are there any other *impossible* tests? I really can't think of any. Jets not on Kerbin or Laythe, maybe (and those are certainly possible to do, just...kinda pointless), but that's about it.

I often roleplay that I'm 'testing' the part in the Kerbal way.

So the test results are "this jet engine seems to require some new recources to operate. Further tests to find this recource required"

Edited August 8, 2014 by Sirrobert

[Tw1]

No testing of jet engines landed on the Mun.

But why not? Different environment, different stresses, different effects. Just because it's not testing the part's practical applications doesn't mean it's not testing something. That said, I agree with Wanderfound. I'd like more diverse contracts, I'd love to see ground exploration contracts you can do with rovers, or little hoppy things. Personally, I prefer adding contracts while doing stuff I was thinking of doing anyway, and then doing the odd crazy flight to make some extra funds.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Tw1

[BlackAdder128]

Moar contract types and the ability to filter by type does seem to be the most sensible solution, but it's nice to see some real-world support for the testing category. Tbh, a lot of the testing contracts still feel a little goofy to me, but I can appreciate that some people like them.

[Dat_Spacewaffle]

I just slapped together a small little plane to test parts. and then after the small radial engine was unlocked, I built an SSTO variant for orbit part testing. 1st successful SSTO I ever built to.

[Raptor9]

I think the Contract system will get sorted out in the next couple updates. The same thing happened when Career mode kicked off; people complained (including myself) about the repetitive science tests, the transmission percentages, the science tree, you name it. Squad then spent the next update or two tweaking and molding the Career mode. Since the contracts are procedurally generated, yeah, some stuff is going to be a little catawampus until the algorithms get sorted out. Add to that this is the first version in 64-bit, so Squad will undoubtedly be tweaking and refining the Contract system, among other things, for several updates (they've had to release two hotfixes already). Be patient, I'm sure it'll get better.

Personally, I hated Career mode in its first iteration. But now I'm having a blast, despite the quirks. Give it time and I'm sure Squad will make it better, with more parts, biomes, etc.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Raptor9

[EdFred]

I would like to see it where testing has to be done on ALL parts in various forms and fashions before you can use the for your own ships. Including crashes - how does one know if something will withstand 12m/s impact unless you test for it?

[MarvinKitFox]

Other than launch clamps not on Kerbin, are there any other *impossible* tests? I really can't think of any. Jets not on Kerbin or Laythe, maybe (and those are certainly possible to do, just...kinda pointless), but that's about it.

Launch clamps on mun

Jool orbit, at 185km alt (below 200 counts as suborbital)

parachute, below 2300m at more than 1200m/s. (not impossible, just.....messy)

[Wallace]

After reading this, I now have a good looking test aircraft for small part tests, called the FOP-1 Turner. Uses basic aircraft tech only, but is capable of near-suborbital hops. Rep for whoever can figure out the meaning of the name.

Fairly Odd Parents, Timmy turner.

[JeramyM]

I like the test contracts. Sure some of them are ridiculous, but that is half the fun. Before the contracts I never messed around with planes/spaceplanes because I really had no use for them. It was much easier to just build a rocket that will do the same thing without hours of finicky adustment and testing in the SPH. Now I enjoy building planes, they have a purpose.

Also testing jet engines on the Mun is about as Kerbal as you can get. Their idea of science is "What happens when I push this button?" BOOOM! "Awesome! What happens if I push this button on the Mun?".

[Heagar]

Testing parts would be nessecary, if there reliabilty would grow for example. Or if you have to evaluate the conditions where they can be operated in a "safe" manner (E.g. no operating nuclear engine or solar sails within the atmosphere, they could mailfunctioning).

Both is not the case in KSP. Besides: You have to spent a lot of money (witch is included) just for a test with a litte to no results in revenue. And no changes in the behavior of the part.

And to make things worse:

• The next tests are displayed (without the conditions) in tier witch is one up! Witch forces you to go nuts with missions just to earn enough R&D-points to buy that tier. But wait, a mainsail without tank, mmmh...
  
• you mostly can't combine sutch a test with an actual missionin a resonable manner.
  
• at higher tiers the deadline can crush your planning.
  
• 
  

So i accept a contract and planning my missions as usual. For some test i use a jet/spaceplane to have low costs. If i can't perform them for any reason, it is rejected afterwards.

All in all it makes no sense for me up to now. The game mechanic should be as followed:

• by purchasing a part the reliability should be at 30%. That means a 70% change for a failure by using that part in the active stage for e.g.:
  
  • engines
    
    • could be explode/burnout at ignition
      
    • will not ignite
      
    • tubopump failure (thrust too low, 10% max)
      
    • thrust at a wrong level
      
    • can't be shut down
      

    [*]tanks (in witch are fuelvalves located)

    • fuelvalve failure due e.g. iceing (no fuelflow/crossfeed).
      
    • heater failure. Too low pressure = fuel flow low (resulting in 0-10% thrust). Too high pressure = tank explode (Apollo 13 alike)
      

    [*]docking ports

    • are too weak and therefore damaged at a docking attempt. --> docking clamp failure
      
    • docking clamp failure. Other craft can not dock/undock.
      

  [*]with several tests under different contitions the reliability should rise up to 75-85%.

  [*]with using those parts on a mission the reliablity can increase to 100%, if there was not a failure on the part during the mission.

Witch means, you will of course not nessesarily risk a manned mission with parts below 80%. And especially not with multiple parts with a low reliability. So it will mostly be unmanned probes that will be used on sutch missions.

In conclusion:

When testing is performed, the should be a higher R&D reward (the kerbals are learning something, right?).

And a higher reward for transmissions with probes. Because a temperature/magnetic field/pressure-reading e.g. should be without a penalty (if the reliability of that devices are 100%). A soil-probe/sience-container/goo not, you have to process it through a lab for a full reward.

If the reliability of the used sience parts on a probe are below 100%:

• it could cause e.g. KerbalEngineer to display slightly different values (up to the missing percentage to the 100% in every direction).
  
• lessens the reliability of a follow up mission. For example a manned landing on duna with 100% parts get's a 10% penalty (of the missing percentage to 100% of the data of the probe for every device. Not used low sience devices are counting too, even if they are not availible) on it`s reliability.
  

The obove mentioned would force the player:

• to perform these tests. They must be resonable and follow logic principles. They should be performed completely on Kerbin (e.g. on the ground), in the atmosphere or on an orbit around Kerbin.
  
• space probes would be flown again, because it makes sense. The lower sience parts (e.g. a thermometer as in reality) must be located mutch earlier in the tec-tree, an manned laboratoy mutch later.
  
• manned missions would be carefully planned and a launch aborted, if a suggested penalty is to big.
  

A failure of a manned mission should decrease the reputation of the player in a significant manner. And therfore the parts (the highest tier that is currently availible for the player) - witch are on stock - should be reduced. Forcing the player to achieve the same or a minor goal with older parts and a less big craft...and therefore a smaller mission with less results.

PS:

If s.o. is interrested on how sutch a concept may work: there is an old DOS-based game (i have the CD-version) witch is overhauled to work under Windows. It's for free (GNU license) on sourceforge.net: RiS (Race into Space).

There may be a successor, but in a very pre alpha version on steam: Race to Mars.

[Doge]

Who cares if testing parts at "x speed at x height" is realistic, this is KSP, a GAME which is supposed to be FUN. I'm not saying that they should get rid of part test contracts, but simply make them more open and fun, because right now part test contracts feel like a grind.

[EdFred]

• The next tests are displayed (without the conditions) in tier witch is one up! Witch (sic) forces you to go nuts with missions just to earn enough R&D-points to buy that tier. But wait, a mainsail without tank,
  

Not in my experience. That part becomes available for you to use. After the testing is complete, the part is locked again.

The rest of your post is thinking like an Earthling, not a Kerbal. Last time I checked this was KSP, not ESP.