More docking port diversity.

[CaptainKipard]

Docking ports should have probe-and-drogue varieties and allow/forbid fuel transfer.

Toadicus has written a plugin, which I use in two of my mods that among other things allows male and female (or active and passive) docking ports.

The problem ATM as I see it is that people tend to grind to get to any of the docking ports ASAP, just to build stations and orbital rendezvous missions.

IMO The progression should go like this.

Tier 1

1. Active/passive pair of 0.625m parts. With fuel transfer - For your Gemini-type missions and satellite refueling.
   
2. Active/passive pair of 1.25m parts. With fuel transfer - For your Apollo-type missions
   

Tier 2

1. Androgynous parts; 0.625m. Without fuel transfer - All three for your mid-game space stations.
   
2. Androgynous parts; 1.25m. Without fuel transfer
   
3. Androgynous parts; 2.5m. Without fuel transfer. - This and all of the above would encourage part diversity for various uses.
   

Tier 3

1. Androgynous parts; 0.625m. With fuel transfer - All three like the new proposed NASA Docking System - For all your near-future needs.
   
2. Androgynous parts; 1.25m. With fuel transfer
   
3. Androgynous parts; 2.5m. With fuel transfer
   

Edited January 14, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[vexx32]

But what is the point of having ports that can't transfer fuel? I feel as though most people will just end up using both male and​ female parts on their station parts and just about everything as a just-in-case measure. The non-fuel-transfer parts would never really get any use at all.

[Hirumaru]

Personally I'd switch up Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 should be Active/Passive with no fuel transfer in 0.625m and 1.25m size. Tier 2 should be Active/Passive with fuel transfer in all three sizes.

[CaptainKipard]

But what is the point of having ports that can't transfer fuel?

Docking doesn't just allow fuel transfer. I use it to keep my various ships together in one orbit when doing other flights, and it's also used to reset science parts on a ship if you dock to a science station. There may be other station-related things on the horizon that could also be relevant.

There's also the point that parts that are unspecialised result in really boring gameplay. Can you imagine having the Rapier as your only methed of propulsion? If you never knew any other method, you might be making the same argument against adding rocket engines and jet engines to the game.

Finally there's there's the point about tech tree balance. It may be too early for that discussion since a reworked techtree is coming in the first beta patch, but if and when the game is balanced to give the player a long campaign, you may actually wish for some cheap docking ports earlier than they're available.

I feel as though most people will just end up using both male and​ female parts on their station parts and just about everything as a just-in-case measure. The non-fuel-transfer parts would never really get any use at all.

This is a matter of balancing the cost of parts, and it's way too early to raise that objection.

[vexx32]

It's often too early to raise objections; everyone does it anyway. (Source: all the kerfuffle going on right now with the aerodynamics)

But no, you're right, you could cost-balance it, but in some sense that would feel somewhat forced -- the docking ports that don't allow fuel transfer are still fairly useless once you have the funds. I guess I just don't like the idea of having intermediary parts like that if they would serve almost no purpose once you've unlocked the later ones.

[CaptainKipard]

the docking ports that don't allow fuel transfer are still fairly useless once you have the funds.

That's correct. I'm probably going to revisit this thread once I play through at least one career with the new tree, but yes, once you have the funds you're completely justified in using only the most high-tech stuff. That's pretty much how all games progress.

I guess I just don't like the idea of having intermediary parts like that if they would serve almost no purpose once you've unlocked the later ones.

I know, it seems like wasted effort, but:

1. Is that not the case with many other parts?
   
2. If career is balanced to be very long then having cheaper simpler ports early would actually be a relief.
   

Edited January 15, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[tater]

Personally I'd switch up Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 should be Active/Passive with no fuel transfer in 0.625m and 1.25m size. Tier 2 should be Active/Passive with fuel transfer in all three sizes.

Yep. Having fuel transfer for the first docking ports makes no sense.

[vexx32]

@Kipard: I would argue that, with very few exceptions, all parts currently in the stock game have a specific purpose, and all remain to some degree useful. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are the early probe cores, which quickly become redundant and useless for almost every purpose once the more functional ones are unlocked. And even those, I wish there were a better way of implementing.

[Louella]

a different way to have tiers would be:

1: mechanical connection only

2: allows electricity and fuel transfer

3: also allows crew transfer

with the higher tiers being more massy and expensive, maybe they even have a small electricity consumption.

that way, there'd still be a niche for tier 1 docking ports, which would be deploying things like probes, and attachment points for things assembled in orbit, that don't need to transfer resources.

@Kipard: I would argue that, with very few exceptions, all parts currently in the stock game have a specific purpose, and all remain to some degree useful. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are the early probe cores, which quickly become redundant and useless for almost every purpose once the more functional ones are unlocked. And even those, I wish there were a better way of implementing.

I used Stayputniks on the top of the 1-seat capsules, for testing Mun and Minmus mission designs, to see if a capsule could go and return safely. If the robot mission succeeded, then it was go for a crewed mission.

I also use the cheap probe cores for space stations, and testing space stations, to minimise risks to crew, and so I could leave a station uncrewed and it would still be controllable.

[tater]

I'd go the othe way, mechanical, then crew + electrical, then fuel. Fuel is the most difficult, and should be last.

[Dodgey]

Well there are other variables to consider as well, such as joint strength, if you want fuel transfer capability you need to sacrifice structural strength.

[CaptainKipard]

Why do you say that? The latch mechanism for the Russian probe-and-drogue systems are the same regardless of the presence of fuel pipes.

[tater]

There is another part, or tweak. Maybe the clamp-o-tron sr. should be VERY strong. Face it, it's a part to make stations, large ships, etc, not routine docking. Make it virtually weld the 2 parts together.

[Dodgey]

Why do you say that? The latch mechanism for the Russian probe-and-drogue systems are the same regardless of the presence of fuel pipes.

Gameplay reasons, it gives them different uses.

[Jouni]

Every part added to the game makes it worse, as additional parts increase the overall complexity and clutter. In order to have a net gain from a new part, the part must do something no existing part does. Bigger docking ports that allow stronger connections are fine, while less capable docking ports just add complexity for complexity's sake.

[Louella]

I'd go the othe way, mechanical, then crew + electrical, then fuel. Fuel is the most difficult, and should be last.

Is it ? why ? because of all the plumbing that is needed ?

My thought about having crew transfer last, was that that's the one that requires an actual door in the port, whereas electricity and fuel connections don't actually need a hole in the hulls, just connectors for the plugs and pipes.

[CaptainKipard]

Every part added to the game makes it worse, as additional parts increase the overall complexity and clutter. In order to have a net gain from a new part, the part must do something no existing part does. Bigger docking ports that allow stronger connections are fine, while less capable docking ports just add complexity for complexity's sake.

Do you mod your game?

[Jouni]

Do you mod your game?

I play with some mods, but I usually avoid part mods, because they always contain too many redundant parts.

[tater]

It would be nice if stock had a system of reusing parts with different stats, then improved parts via tech improvements. So each part gets one new value added, "tech level" (whatever they want to call it). Then you could improve parts over time without cluttering up the VAB.

For docking ports, there would be a master cfg that would assign certain stats to each level. lvl 1 allows docking, OK strength. lvl 2 allows electrical connection. lvl 3 adds fuel cross feed, stronger joint. All use the same models as now.

The only weird one is the junior, which is sort of absurd.

All new ships use the latest version of the part.

[CaptainKipard]

It would be nice if stock had a system of reusing parts with different stats, then improved parts via tech improvements.

That would be ideal, and I've seen this idea here countless times, just not in the form of a suggestion thread.

[Redchrome]

I'd go the othe way, mechanical, then crew + electrical, then fuel. Fuel is the most difficult, and should be last.

Or, like the Real World, you could make some types of fuel transferrable and others not at a certain tech level.

NASA has been doing microgravity transfers of monoprop/storable/hypergolic fuels across docking ports for some time. Cryogenic fuels are an entirely different matter.

So make ports able to transfer monoprop happen comparatively early in the tech tree, ports capable of moving LF+O should come much much later. Especially if coupled with a mod that required ullage rockets or advanced pumping technology to light LF+O engines in microgravity, this would make it sensible to build interplanetary ships that run on monoprop. Note that the Apollo CSM & LM ran on hypergolic fuels, and the planned Apollo Venus flyby mission would have run on hypergolics after leaving Earth orbit.

[zeel]

What if different ports had more or less strength or flexibility? Currently bigger ports keep the vessel more rigid simply because they are bigger, and small ones let the whole thing twist and sway like crazy. Perhaps the more complex ports (resource transferring ports) would not be as strong, and they may become uncoupled under enough stress, while the mechanical clamps that transfer nothing would hold firm as if it was one ship. There could also be different shapes - such as square, or hexagonal ports, that would be more effective structurally, and transfer resources/crew, but would be more difficult to dock (though the forced alignment could be an advantage). Furthermore, port magnetism could vary, so that some ports are much easier to dock than others, due to a greater or lesser pull when they come neer. There could also be a (very expensive) "universal" port, that would attach to multiple other ports, but would be much larger, heavier, and thicker than standard ports - mainly used for stations.

[av8r1]

The current game makes you upgrade the research center before you can transfer resources, right?

Given that, if the clamp-o-tron Jr. was available before that point, you could use the Mk. 1 command pod to perform very Gemini-like missions, in which docking was the whole goal of the mission. Advance a bit through the tree, and you can transfer resources. Shortly thereafter, you get the clamp-o-tron classic, which allows for more Apollo-like performance where you can easily transfer crew and supplies back and forth. Finally, you get the clamp-o-tron Sr., which I agree is pretty much only good for space station construction.

A small tweak to the tech tree and the existing parts can provide quite a bit of emergent gameplay. As it is, I go from Mercury-style orbital missions immediately to a moon mission, often by adding legs to my command module and a bigger booster. Having additional Gemini-like goals of EVAs, dockings and orbital maneuvers before "Explore the Mun" would be pretty fun I think.

Here I'll admit that I haven't ever used the COT Sr. Since I can launch every single space station part on one rocket, and most actual ships use the normal size, I haven't found a need for the biggest one.

[CaptainKipard]

What if different ports had more or less strength or flexibility?

This doesn't make any sense to me. The whole idea of flexibility is weird anyway because docking ports have to be air-tight.

[zeel]

This doesn't make any sense to me. The whole idea of flexibility is weird anyway because docking ports have to be air-tight.

The only way that the current ports make sense, given the way they react physically, is to assume that the clamping ring is not attached to the node by metal - instead the conical part is some thick but flexible plastic that allows the attachment point to flex without breaking. Given that assumption, new ports could use this as a feature, along with a certain breaking point at which the force will decouple the port - as it is a strong enough force will destroy the vessel, instead of simply breaking away at the port. Some ports would be extremely rigid and strong, acting like you built the ship that way in the VAB - others would break apart if you spin too fast.