Part upgrades

[thereaverofdarkness]

I think it'd be nice to be able to receive upgrades to the same old parts we've come to love, especially the low-tech parts with obvious flaws. This could make a lot of room for tweakables, and could also give some reason to allow more of the basic construction technology earlier in the tech tree. For example, probe cores could all be upgradeable: every time you unlock a higher tech probe core, you can use an older probe core body and choose either to fit it with higher tech or to save cost and keep it low. Another big one would be basic construction pieces: you could have panels, beams, and fuselages from the start, but gradually get lighter and stronger pieces in addition to getting more options for styles of pieces.

Rocket engines: should be able to subtract thrust vectoring to reduce mass and/or increase thrust, or in the case of the LV-T30, add thrust vectoring for a bit higher mass cost. (Of course the LV-T30 with thrust vectoring is basically just the LV-T45)

Fuel tanks: higher tech should allow reduction in dry mass of older, smaller tanks for higher dry cost. Also could unlock LH/LOx-equivalent fuel upgrade for higher thrust but much higher cost.

Docking ports: should be available earlier, with higher tech allowing unlock of more than just structural/fuel transfer, stronger magnets.

Parachutes: higher tech parachutes might have thinner and stronger fabric, allowing for a greater amount of drag from the same size parachute, at increase to cost and mass.

Slightly on-topic, and a reminder--there are a few parts in KSP that we're all waiting to see new/more versions of:

* Stayputnik Mk. 1: it's Mk. 1, so where is Mk. 2? Could be a later probe core with more functions but same design, or with the above suggestion I made, a slightly larger design with the same look, allowing more torque and energy storage, perhaps with fitting nodes on the ball.

* Mk2 Drone Core: we want a Mk1 and Mk3 Drone Core for our other automated plane designs! It's not just for the shape and appearance, but also that sweet torque setup which is specifically designed for planes.

* Oscar-B Fuel Tank: want longer versions of this!

* Round-8 Toroidal Fuel Tank: want larger versions of toroidal tanks!

* Toroidal Aerospike Rocket: more sizes!

* LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor: more sizes!

* Jet engines in general: more sizes!

* PB-ION Electric Propulsion System: more sizes!

* TT-70 Radial Decoupler: more sizes!

* Small Hardpoint/Structural Pylon: more sizes! Where is the Large Hardpoint?

* Rockomax HubMax/Not Rockomax Micronode: more sizes!

* bi/tri/quadcouplers: more sizes!

* Small Gear Bay, landing struts: something bigger!

* parachutes: more sizes!

[Anquietas314]

Parachutes: higher tech parachutes might have thinner and stronger fabric, allowing for a greater amount of drag from the same size parachute, at increase to cost and mass.

I'm not an engineer or an aerodynamics expert.... but why would making the parachute thinner and stronger, but not making it bigger give it higher drag? It might make it slightly more effective or deploy faster sure, but to my knowledge drag is a function of the surface area that's "in the way" of the air stream?

Otherwise I'm fine with the idea, but there needs to be quite a few utility improvements with tweakables before it should be in the game (e.g. all symmetrically placed parts only requiring you to set the tweakables once - there's a few parts, like landing gear, where this doesn't happen). I don't think the system should be overly complex though. For instance, probe cores shouldn't have 5 options on whether to give them SAS, hold pro/retro etc; instead maybe make it so you can only upgrade them to have SAS, or hold "__" abilities, where the second one just gives you the best software you've got for that - software doesn't have any impact on the physics, other than needing something to run it

[CaptainKipard]

I'd like this too but I just want to warn you against getting your hopes up. This would be a new system, and I'm not sure Squad are adding new systems anymore.

[Anquietas314]

I'd like this too but I just want to warn you against getting your hopes up. This would be a new system, and I'm not sure Squad are adding new systems anymore.

Interstellar and MechJeb both manage to implement this kind of behaviour just fine without a new core system.

[CaptainKipard]

Interstellar and MechJeb both manage to implement this kind of behaviour just fine without a new core system.

Is that behaviour programmed in a plugin?

[Anquietas314]

Is that behaviour programmed in a plugin?

I'm not sure but I would imagine so. That's not necessarily an issue though - obviously the game's code is not finished. Many many things have massive overhauls yet to come that are probably going to require massive re-writes of certain areas of the code. My point is, this is obviously not something that requires thousands upon thousands of lines of code to accomplish; the mod authors probably wouldn't bother if it was. Interstellar partly uses the tweakables system, I'm not sure about MechJeb but its abilities increase as you acquire more advanced nodes on the tech tree, and various parts from interstellar improve in a similar fashion.

[CaptainKipard]

Alright.

Back on topic. I found an older thread about this.

[Anquietas314]

Alright.

Back on topic. I found an older thread about this.

Yeah I pretty much expected this to have been suggested before. It's not (at least not obviously) covered by the do not suggest list though. It is on the "already suggested" list though, but I'm guessing that's where you found it?

[MKI]

This has been suggested many times before.

Same answer as before. Adding part upgrades would keep part counts low(since you can replace some parts). But also make the game more confusing for really no gain at all.

You can either make parts more powerful, to make it worth upgrading.

Or make them generally weaker/ the same. You just need to grind up the same exact part.

Obviously it would be cool to get "Better" parts, but how is that not the case with the current system of literally getting more capable parts?

Even in career the SLS parts generally blow anything out of the water IF you need it since its expensive. Sandbox wise, stick anything on the 3.75 launch system parts and you can get it to orbit. How does adding a system that makes OLDER parts more relevant any different than just getting newer parts to replace the old ones? As you even said " the LV-T30 with thrust vectoring is basically just the LV-T45". Finally, most engines/ fuel tanks are balanced well enough to stay useful in their own niche situation.

Otherwise tweakables are able to handle pretty much anything needing handling. There isn't much room for upgraded parts. Just add more parts with their own functionality and visual style instead of adding a whole new mechanic for changing old parts.

part upgrades can be left with mods. Career mode is already becoming more of a grind sort of experience. I shouldn't need to do MORE just to use a new engine besides get the RND level, the science, the cash(to first purchase, AND the part itself), and the support to use the part (launchpad/VAB levels)

[ddenis]

Upgradable parts lead to lower part count available in the game. As example - interstellar, where only one probe core is available, if nothing have changed. Also, upgrading parts means that they are going to be more expensive. I don't want a part which perfectly fit my rocket to cost more money for some upgrade that I don't need. If it got such upgrade, then I would need another part which would fit. Is it would be an upgraded part from lower level? But what sense in upgrading two parts to stay in the same budget as without upgrades.

Interstellar has different types of engines, but only one kind of every type in different sizes. In ksp we have different kinds of several types, as for me, it's just the same. I'm not obsessive with an idea of having one engine for the whole game.

Edited December 23, 2014 by ddenis

[allmhuran]

I'd like to see part upgrades tied in with part failures. Not random failures mind you, predictable failures that depend upon player action or inaction, and integrate with the engineer skills. For example, overly-aggressive throttle use on a rocket engine might degrade it or cause it to cease functioning. Hard landings might make gear get stuck. Docking at too high velocity might cause the ports to jam together. Things of this nature. Upgrades could then reduce the chance of failure, which means we still get part upgrades but without de-standardizing rocket performance and capability across the playerbase.

You could also have part upgrades affect the tweakability of a part, and for any given part I would think you could choose to use the upgraded version or not each time you use it, depending on how much you want to spend.

Have the Kerbals aboard a ship report the failures when they happen, perhaps with a semi-humorous message. This would increase interaction between player and kerbal (which I think would be good).

Then provide the capability for an engineer kerbal to repair said damaged parts.

Edited December 23, 2014 by allmhuran

[Anquietas314]

Hard landings might make gear get stuck.

This already happens (sort of): if you land too hard you can break the suspension

Upgrades could then reduce the chance of failure, which means we still get part upgrades but without de-standardizing rocket performance and capability across the playerbase.

You could also have part upgrades affect the tweakability of a part, and for any given part I would think you could choose to use the upgraded version or not each time you use it, depending on how much you want to spend.

This is a good idea, and it should prevent some of the issues that have been brought up before. If the parts are made more resilient or marginally more efficient, but more expensive by an upgrade (perhaps based on the materials you've researched), and you can choose whether to apply that upgrade to a given design, then that gives you more flexibility in deciding how to approach a given task without either forcing the player to pay for the upgrade or really reducing the part count. For something like thrust vectoring, I think that's fine as-is, seeing as that's the sort of thing that requires quite large changes in the design of a rocket.

Have the Kerbals aboard a ship report the failures when they happen, perhaps with a semi-humorous message. This would increase interaction between player and kerbal (which I think would be good).

Then provide the capability for an engineer kerbal to repair said damaged parts.

I can imagine this producing a lot of laughs, which is always a good thing . Giving engineers more purpose than they currently have is good too

[Merill]

I'm writing a plugin to upgrading part with tech node unlock

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/123323-WIP-Merill-s-plugins-PartUpgrade-NoseConeWithTank

I need some feedback to make it more stable&useful.

[tater]

Since new tech is the only reward structure in KSP, and the bulk of the "tech tree" is actually stuff that should be concurrent, this idea should have happened a while ago.

Then have a wider tech tree, with the nodes unlocking improvements. Make the entry parts worse than they are now, with the current values a sort of middler range, and the later values improved.

[randomness5555]

Hey, um, I had an idea for this as well. I thought of it a little while ago and wanted to make it as a mod-but upon looking into modding I found that I didn't have a clue what it all meant or where to start. My idea was, firstly, that you would start off with 'downgraded' versions of parts. These parts are super cheap, but heavy and/or fragile, with engines having less power ect. and different looking models for these parts. Then, you can unlock the normal versions, and then upgraded versions aka pretty much what you've said, but maybe also add pressurised tanks that hold more fuel at the the expense of weight but without increasing the size of the craft. This would allow the option of spending less money, but having a worse craft or having to spend more but getting an even better craft than the stock parts would give you.