[1.x+] Community Resource Pack

[RoverDude]

I agree with @Nertea - there's no reasonable gameplay value in that extreme of a difference in concentrations, and ultimately CRP should enhance the gameplay experience.

I would suggest finishing discussions with the assumption that I will be moving in Nertea's PR, and wrap up any other disagreements on final numbers with that in mind, as well as the constraints Nertea has put forth.

Nertea - I will merge the PR at the tail end of the holiday weekend, so just ping me when everything is finalized and I will merge it in.

[FreeThinker]

10 hours ago, Poodmund said:

Well then that sounds like the obvious solution.

So, @FreeThinker, if you required a resource abundance of 0.00005% but the lowest you can go is 0.001%. Just include that resource within its own harvester module and use an efficiency value of ( 0.00005 / 0.001 ) 0.05 for example to simulate the resource harvest rate you'd get with 0.00005% abundance.

No the lowerest I can go is 4.94065645841247E-324, I don't use ModuleResourceHarvester, I use my own custom created resource harvester partmodule which collects all resources available simultaneously in the current environment but it relies on stock resource definitions system to give representative values. Once you start messing with the definitions and change it by a high order of significance it breaks down all balance

3 hours ago, RoverDude said:

I agree with @Nertea - there's no reasonable gameplay value in that extreme of a difference in concentrations, and ultimately CRP should enhance the gameplay experience.

I would suggest finishing discussions with the assumption that I will be moving in Nertea's PR, and wrap up any other disagreements on final numbers with that in mind, as well as the constraints Nertea has put forth.

Nertea - I will merge the PR at the tail end of the holiday weekend, so just ping me when everything is finalized and I will merge it in.

1

Hold on, we are not finished here!

I can compromise and accept resource definition to be defined only between 100 and 0.001. This would mean that exotic resources like Helium3 are either left out of global definition or given the smallest value of 0.001.

Nertea proposal to use relative abundances would destroy all resolution and flexibility in my view. Take for instance the atmosphere definition of LqdHe3 for Jool which he gives a min and max abundance of 100. This means you can not create a planet with a higher abundance of Helium3. Now if this number could be reduced to let's say 1%, that would be much better and leave some room for some exotic far away planet to have a higher abundance.

So what I propose is we find some middle ground between the existing definitions (which are below 0.001) and Nertea proposal which put abundance at the extreme maximum value (100). I can make a Pull Request where I try to find an average between both worlds, would that be an idea?

 

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by FreeThinker

[RoverDude]

@FreeThinker - as I have stated previously, CRP should be optimized for stock.  Your use of a custom harvester is irrelevant here.  And I have yet to see any compelling argument here (and in reality, quite a few to the contrary) of @Nertea's proposal.  

I feel like I am repeating myself... but if you want Helium3 reduced to an infinitesimal range... use the harvester parameters.  That's exactly what they are there for.

To be clear... that PR is rolling on on Monday.  I'll leave it to you two to hash out any differences, but ultimately those would be reflected in the final PR that Nertea provides, and we call it a day.

 

(Edit for further clarity)

I am not going to play dueling PR's.  I'm deferring to Nertea's pull for this one.  

Edited September 1, 2018 by RoverDude

[FreeThinker]

21 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

To be clear... that PR is rolling on on Monday.  I'll leave it to you two to hash out any differences, but ultimately those would be reflected in the final PR that Nertea provides, and we call it a day.

 

Not sure why you insist on pushing this PR though so fast while we still need time to find a middle ground where are parties concerns are addressed. As I said before I'm willing to increase abundances to values which will work well with stock harvester and resource scanners, but as the PR stands now it would destroy the community coherency.

Edited September 1, 2018 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

45 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

I am not going to play dueling PR's.  I'm deferring to Nertea's pull for this one.  

1

1

Yes but could you at least give us more time to fine tune it?

Edited September 1, 2018 by FreeThinker

[FreeThinker]

6 hours ago, Nertea said:

Think about why you need that. In reality, if you want to be perfectly realistic, you need to support *all* the sigfigs. In the game, what is the difference? Look at this in terms of refuelling time I guess... assume you fill 1 full tank up per day with a harvester.  You can have with 5 orders of magnitude, a representation of fuelling taking between 1 day (100% concentration) and and ~275 years (0.001% concentration). What gameplay value is there in extending this down to 27500 years (2 more orders of magnitude)? Timewarping 275 years for a fillup is already pretty long!

 

Alright, we can let go of using perfectly realistic values but have you taken into account the existing savegame conditions? For example, If you change something that was originally defined 0.001 to 0.5 (abundance Argon gas) and change it to 50 to 100, you introduce an order of 5 magnitude increase and lose a magnitude of 4 variability. Players with existing saves (which were started when it used values between 0.001 to 0.5 ) could experience a real problem when using new stock resource collectors because they would assume inflated abundances (between 50 to 100 for Argon Gas), while to values seeded in the savegame range between 0.001 to 0.5

Edited September 1, 2018 by FreeThinker

[Poodmund]

12 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

No the lowerest I can go is 4.94065645841247E-324, I don't use ModuleResourceHarvester, I use my own custom created resource harvester partmodule which collects all resources available simultaneously in the current environment but it relies on stock resource definitions system to give representative values.

Well, quite honestly, that's your own issue. Community frameworks exist to vicariously help the community and EVOLVE to the betterment of the frameworks usage and effectiveness. Mods that use these frameworks have to evolve and adapt alongside them as to not hold them back.

It seems like you have some work to do after this PR goes through so that your mod(s) adapts to the new framework. That's life.

Recently in the Community Terrain Textures Pack we rearranged the directory structure to ensure that the textures took advantage of On Demand Loading with the side effect that it completely ruined all the mod configs out there that pointed to these textures. We issued a declaration that we were going to do it, mod makers that took notice changed their configs and everyone adapted to the changes. Would you say it was better that we haven't have done that because everyone was already ingrained within the previous framework boundaries?

I don't like to provoke 'he-said-she-said' bickering or derailing the topic but I believe that the proposed changes are logical, provide ample scope for gameplay variation (as has been pointed out) and ultimately is a lot more coherent when it comes to resource allocation for new mod authors when it comes to utilizing this framework for their own mods.

That's pretty much all I have to say on this particular matter so I will be refraining from posting about it further.

Thanks to all involved who put forward discussion, it seems like a good positive move forward.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Poodmund
Spelling mistakes! Doh!

[Deredere]

So, uh, no chance of a change to advanced resource prices to make extraterrestrial manufacture worthwhile?

I mean, it was fun building antimatter collection supercomplexes in Jool orbit, but now I might as well just send an matter powered antimatter freighter made of antimatter now.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Deredere

[Nertea]

@FreeThinker I would make this CRP 1.x.x, this is what semantic versioning is for. I took account of your changes for the PR too! I suspect it is good to merge now. 

 

 

On 9/1/2018 at 2:38 PM, Deredere said:

So, uh, no chance of a change to advanced resource prices to make extraterrestrial manufacture worthwhile?

I mean, it was fun building antimatter collection supercomplexes in Jool orbit, but now I might as well just send an matter powered antimatter freighter made of antimatter now.

What items would you see changed?

 

[TheKurgan]

I have a quick question.

Why is the Density of Water 0.001, but the density of stuff like LiquidFuel 0.005?

Shouldn't water be about the same or slightly higher than liquid fuel?

[Nertea]

15 minutes ago, TheKurgan said:

I have a quick question.

Why is the Density of Water 0.001, but the density of stuff like LiquidFuel 0.005?

Shouldn't water be about the same or slightly higher than liquid fuel?

All added liquid CRP resources were baselined at 1 L/unit, whereas KSP base units are 5 L/unit.

[TheKurgan]

12 minutes ago, Nertea said:

All added liquid CRP resources were baselined at 1 L/unit, whereas KSP base units are 5 L/unit.

ah ok, cool. Thanks

That's the :

volume = 1 part right?

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by TheKurgan

[JadeOfMaar]

2 minutes ago, TheKurgan said:

ah ok, cool. Thanks

That's the :

volume = 1 part right?

 

Yep. You'll see that the stock resources similarly have volume = 5.

[TheKurgan]

Thanks guys.

[fenderzilla]

On 9/18/2018 at 8:36 PM, Nertea said:

All added liquid CRP resources were baselined at 1 L/unit, whereas KSP base units are 5 L/unit.

So if water's density value is 0.001, then ksp calculates density in terms of tonnes per unit?  

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, fenderzilla said:

So if water's density value is 0.001, then ksp calculates density in terms of tonnes per unit?  

That's correct. So water is 0.001t/unit, and if you take volume as liters, that's 1 kg/L, which is accurate. 

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

3 hours ago, fenderzilla said:

So if water's density value is 0.001, then ksp calculates density in terms of tonnes per unit?  

KSP has never really cared about volume. The rocket equation can be plenty tyrannical without worrying about volumes and densities. All the masses are in tonnes, but considering how ISP works, they could be in kerb stones and the physics would still work fine. So long as the units used for propellant masses are the same as used for the craft mass.

[fenderzilla]

2 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

KSP has never really cared about volume. The rocket equation can be plenty tyrannical without worrying about volumes and densities. All the masses are in tonnes, but considering how ISP works, they could be in kerb stones and the physics would still work fine. So long as the units used for propellant masses are the same as used for the craft mass.

Right. I guess it's only important to know when making your own resources, so you know the right number to put as the density value that's reflective of reality relative to other resources.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

13 hours ago, fenderzilla said:

Right. I guess it's only important to know when making your own resources, so you know the right number to put as the density value that's reflective of reality relative to other resources.

Pretty much. There is actually a volume value since 1.3 or so, but I don't know whether it does anything yet.

[RoverDude]

Just now, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Pretty much. There is actually a volume value since 1.3 or so, but I don't know whether it does anything yet.

The volume value is in liters.  Stock LFO is 5 liters per unit (which ties out if you look at the stats for stock LFO tanks).

 

[FreeThinker]

2 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Pretty much. There is actually a volume value since 1.3 or so, but I don't know whether it does anything yet.

You definitely use that number whenever you want to compare stock resource densities with CRP resource densities

[TiktaalikDreaming]

3 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

You definitely use that number whenever you want to compare stock resource densities with CRP resource densities

I'm not contending that the volume values are useful.  I'm just not sure if the game does much with them yet.

[FreeThinker]

deleted

Edited September 27, 2018 by FreeThinker

[Jacke]

3 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

I'm not contending that the volume values are useful.  I'm just not sure if the game does much with them yet.

Well....   As a rule-of-thumb, in the real world, apparently the volume of a launch vehicle is proportional to its cost.  Which is why it is often more cost effective to use denser-and-lower-Isp fuel+oxidizer mixes in the lower stages and less-dense-but-higher-Isp fuel+oxidizer mixes in the upper stages, to lower volume for a given payload.

(There's also the rule of thumb that there are 5 costs associated with a spacecraft mission that tend to be about the same: #1 the launch vehicle, #2 the spacecraft bus (the common standard elements), #3 the payload (the specific stuff for this spacecraft), #4 ground support, and #5 integration of the lot.)

Edited September 27, 2018 by Jacke

[Laie]

On 9/27/2018 at 5:04 PM, TiktaalikDreaming said:

I'm not contending that the volume values are useful.  I'm just not sure if the game does much with them yet.

The game itself doesn't care, but some mods do. The Real Fuels tank content switcher is probably the most important customer -- tanks provide a volume, which can be filled with whatever resource, according to its density.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that density has been added to CRP specifically for the benefit of Realism Overhaul.