MarcAFK Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I still don't quite see how pausing the build is necessary, since you can still edit it after it's finished and it will still take minimal time to complete.If rocket construction only gradually took away funds rather than immediate upfront payment you would have a reason to pause a build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted June 13, 2015 Author Share Posted June 13, 2015 If rocket construction only gradually took away funds rather than immediate upfront payment you would have a reason to pause a build.An interesting idea. Discuss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphon Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 An interesting idea. Discuss!Well, if you build components first, to build up your inventory, then you do sorta pay as you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 What I'm thinking is an actual pay as you go, where funds are taken over time for vessels (meaning you don't need to have it all up front). I'm not sure it'll really add much in terms of gameplay and might just add confusion about how much money you actually have, but I'm open to discussion about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpkerman Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Random things tothrow into the discussion, KCT shows a % done in the VAB status of the GUI. Each % completed could subtract the corresponding amount from funds. In real life the estimated amount to complete the construction would be an line item in a budget and at the end it would either have been finished over or under budget. The construction cost shown in the VAB could be the estimated cost and as each 10% of the build is finished (and paid for) there could be a check and on a low chance the amount charged could be a +/- % to the cost with a message generated to tell the player that phase of the construction has come in over/under budget, VAB/SPH improvements could decrease overrun and increase under budget events. Whether in the % of occurrence or the amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcAFK Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) I think adding random percentage based cost increases might just be confusing and cause extra micromanagement, however I can think of a few variables which apply to real engineering projects which might apply here, causes of cost and time overruns might include:Pausing or speeding up construction:Changes to design:Excessive inventory:Poorly tested components (Based on how often the part has been used before) Flawed components ( does the design contain parts that have been in accidents causing a total loss? Bonus points if it was the first part to fail during the crash. Simulated crashes shouldn't count. Probably.)Upgrading facilities. (Higher costs during VAB upgrade, higher costs for a short time after any spend of upgrade points, or maybe just slightly higher cost if you started building something then upgraded the VAB, it costs slightly more to finish off).Changes to supplier (Doesn't really apply here)Changes to mission requirements (Pretty much covered already in design changes)Overloaded facilities. (Is every VAB build line currently running?, the cost of this should reduce if you always have every line running at the same time, or maybe just have a increase in cost for each line individually, which drops as you use that line.)For balance I would need to do some more research to find more about what causes projects to be under budget and time. As I recall from US aircraft systems the older ones from the 70's tend to get cheaper to build each unit over time , but their upkeep costs go up as they age, this is pretty much from more efficient modern manufacture, more efficient modern components, and simplified designs that remove unnecessary redundancy, also mass production saves heaps of money. All this is basically already covered in the way KCT works. I'm not sure you can easily simulate an aircraft getting more expensive to maintain as it ages that easily, besides it takes decades before an airframe starts to fall apart. Perhaps just log the date a design was finalized and after a few years reduce the inventory effect for building that design, that would simulate the higher cost of reusing the same aircraft, but actually making more of them would in the long run be cheaper due to the other cost reduction from component use history.Just a few ideas. Edited June 14, 2015 by MarcAFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphon Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I think that a portion of the cost should still be required upfront, as a startup cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svm420 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I like what we have KISS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphon Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 I like what we have KISSI agree, I don't feel a desire for a more complex rocket logistics simulation than KCT. Of course, I understand that some people might want it. I don't use RO or RF, either, but those are popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icedown Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 If there is going to be a split on when we pay for a given vessel, rather than right off the bat at build I think the easiest to implement while keeping it similar to reality would be a 3 step payment process, build, complete, launch. Maybe a split like 30% initial build request, 60% on build completion and the final 10% at launch. If the fund are not in place at completion, the roll out button becomes pay, and once that's done, the final 10% is paid on roll out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 I like what we have KISSI'm leaning this way. I'm not sure the realism/gameplay benefits (if any) are worth the extra effort to implement+the increased complexity. Just wanted to gauge the interest in case other people really liked the idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1500 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 What I'm thinking is an actual pay as you go, where funds are taken over time for vessels (meaning you don't need to have it all up front). I'm not sure it'll really add much in terms of gameplay and might just add confusion about how much money you actually have, but I'm open to discussion about it.Personally, I think that if you do implement a pay-as-you-go option, it should be just that - an option. Some people obviously really like the idea (I think it would be interesting - it would allow me to start building a big ship that I don't have all the funds for right away, or at least put it in the pipeline to be built without actually having to pay for it). Other people will be against it wholesale. Once you have a way to implement it as a choice, then we should be talking about what the different choices could be.Right now, I'm seeing three major options that have been voiced: the pay-upfront (as it is now); pay-as-you-go (the idea that started this off); and pay-in-instalments.The pay-upfront option wouldn't have anything that would need to be calculated. However, the other two COULD be tweaked by formulae. For instance, assume that there are three stages to the build: 1) upfront cost; 2) building cost (pay-as-you-go); and 3) finalization cost (or launch cost). By setting a formula to calculate the percentage for the building cost (and also how quickly it is paid - quicker at the start, or slower, for instance), and another for the division between the upfront and launch costs (similar to your rollout/pad-repair calculation), you would then be able to tweak these three costs, giving you a range of options. For pay-upfront, all you need to do is set the building cost to 0, and the upfront/launch costs to be 100%/0%. For a completely pay-as-you-go, you would need to give some formula for building cost, and set upfront/launch costs to be 0%/0%.I'm leaning this way. I'm not sure the realism/gameplay benefits (if any) are worth the extra effort to implement+the increased complexity. Just wanted to gauge the interest in case other people really liked the idea As far as I'm concerned, the only gameplay benefit is allowing me to build things - or put them in the pipeline - without having the necessary funds right away. If it were implemented, I would probably use it in my next game (after it was implemented), but I won't be upset if you don't implement it. Personally, I think it's more trouble for you than it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcAFK Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Personally I would prefer a simple pay as you go option, every % completed takes 1% of the cost. All the other stuff not only adds greater confusion but also complexity and unnecessary work coding.Though perhaps a down payment would be a good idea, still quite simple maybe 10-20% of the rockets cost is taken right away, every % after that takes 1% more, the last 10-20% of construction would be free, consider it testing and finalisation time. I would consider the down payment as paying for the initial batch of components needed to get started, maybe upgrades to the administration building lowers downpayment by 5%. Better management of construction leads to more efficient operation, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icedown Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 When it really comes down to it though, if you don't have the money to complete it when you start building it, it's just going to sit in the queue until you do. While this may save you a little time, it may cost you as well. I do like the kiss method myself, and I also keep to the policy I don't try to build anything I can't afford to rebuild and the pad and vab while I'm at it. I swear my SRBs have a VAB tracking module on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebigunso Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I'd really like to see an option to roll back what is already on the pad and ready to launch. Currently when you revert the launch and want to fix issues, you have to recover the craft from the pad which adds a lot more time in building a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmikesecrist3 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 there is a roll back option.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebigunso Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 there is a roll back option....really? when you have the "Launch" button in the KCT menu? where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted June 15, 2015 Author Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) really? when you have the "Launch" button in the KCT menu? where?There's two ways, start rolling out something else and the thing on the pad will roll back, or hold the modifier key (alt on windows) and the "Launch" button will change to "Roll Back". I can't recall if the * button is available when on the pad, but if it is then there's a Roll Back option there as well.Or there's the ever adventurous "Recover to VAB" option which will do almost the same thing but might also break things. Edited June 15, 2015 by magico13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebigunso Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphon Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I can't recall if the * button is available when on the pad, but if it is then there's a Roll Back option there as well....which tells us just how much time magico has to play with his own mod.No, the * button is not available for the craft on the pad. (Though I didn't know about the Alt/Mod to change the Launch button. Thanks!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorbane Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Does StageRecovery place the parts back in your inventory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 ...which tells us just how much time magico has to play with his own mod.No, the * button is not available for the craft on the pad. (Though I didn't know about the Alt/Mod to change the Launch button. Thanks!)There was a time when it was available while the craft was on the pad, and I wasn't sure if I disabled that or just made it so you couldn't edit it. The Alt functionality was kind of snuck in. It has at least one other function. Let me see if I can find it in the code...Ah! Found it. Alt-clicking any of the arrow buttons will move a vessel to the top or bottom of the build list.Does StageRecovery place the parts back in your inventory?Yes, it should! If you find it isn't, then please file a bug report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorbane Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) It doesn't appear to place any of the KW engines in inventory, I built a Griffon Century and scrapped it, it did not appear in my inventory.Edit: Fuel tanks from the KW pack don't appear either.Edit 2: OK the inventory effect seems to work, the parts just aren't displayed in the inventory list. Edited June 16, 2015 by Thorbane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 It doesn't appear to place any of the KW engines in inventory, I built a Griffon Century and scrapped it, it did not appear in my inventory.Edit: Fuel tanks from the KW pack don't appear either.Edit 2: OK the inventory effect seems to work, the parts just aren't displayed in the inventory list.It's a KW Rocketry issue primarily, a KCT issue secondarily. I believe there are MM patches floating around for it either in this thread or the KW one. Basically KW never updated properly to the 0.90 part catalog where engines and fuel tanks are separate. KSP has some code to figure out whether a part is an engine or a fuel tank for backwards compatibility, but KCT trusts that the authors actually update from using the generic "Propulsion" category to the new "Engines" and "Fuel Tanks" categories. The code that handles the parts in the inventory doesn't care about part categories, just the display does, so they just won't show up until they're placed in the right categories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeirdCulture Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Ok i found the invetory... 1.) but then i found out I have an ridiculus ammount of parachutes? I had realchutes installed for a while, could this be the problem?2.) how do I store planes for refueling? Edited June 16, 2015 by WeirdCulture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts