Damage state models for all parts (or just a lot of them)

[Whirligig Girl]

So here's the idea. If you hit an object at 15 m/s, but the crash tolerance is 18 m/s, then it will have a different model that displays some wrinkling or dents or something, and the part would be affected. Batteries would loose charge, tanks would leak, engines would sputter their thrust (like in Lunar Flight, if you hit the lander too hard), etc.

There could be several ways of doing it.

1: Rover wheels. You change the model to a different model to reflect damage, would be done for fuel tanks, engines, or structural parts.

2: Solar Panels. Each model is actually two separate models. When you hit the object, part of it separates. Use for batteries falling out of the case, some utility parts.

3: A Procedural thingymuffin. If you hit a model, a procedural/random thing happens to it to make its shape deform in a bendy-wendy-crunchy-munchy way. Use for structural parts, fuel tanks, command pods, etc. This would be the one that requires least work on the modder's part, or anyone adding new parts, because they wouldn't have to make a new model for a crashy part.

4: soft-body physics. Nope. Nope. Nononononono. Nope.

[Wallygator]

I wonder if there could be a procedural mesh deformation routine written which could operate on existing loaded parts? I know nothing about how parts are loaded and transformed when in unity, but it would be cool to see your idea put into reality in a dynamic manner which doesn't require construction of a small multitude of part representations. Part collides at high threshold, run routine, bend up the mesh and then redraw it. lol - it might work but at like .5 FPS for all I know.

Then again I could be speaking out of my lower end, as I only loaded a white cube into unity and got it to finally show up in the VAB. Then I ended of those efforts...

[Tex]

I do agree that KSP would benefit from a damage system. Especially because it seems more Kerbal-ly to fly into space on a dented tank!

And damaged engines and things could have bent gimbals, reduced thrust, or could leak fuel. Although most engine problems would likely cause explosions, which would cause SQUAD to not do it on the "random failure" issue.

[Tuareg]

I wonder if there could be a procedural mesh deformation routine written which could operate on existing loaded parts? I know nothing about how parts are loaded and transformed when in unity, but it would be cool to see your idea put into reality in a dynamic manner which doesn't require construction of a small multitude of part representations. Part collides at high threshold, run routine, bend up the mesh and then redraw it. lol - it might work but at like .5 FPS for all I know.

Then again I could be speaking out of my lower end, as I only loaded a white cube into unity and got it to finally show up in the VAB. Then I ended of those efforts...

lol. we are long over those times when realtime physical meshdeformation runs on 5 fps check out spintires. the entire terrain has permanent physical meshdeformaition and runs on 120 fps on my pc

Edited February 17, 2015 by Tuareg

[klgraham1013]

Actual damage models would be nice. Even different textures based on damage would be fine. As with deform-able terrain, I think procedural damage isn't really in the cards.

- - - Updated - - -

This would also give engineers something to fix. I'm not the biggest fan of random failures, but part degradation has always intrigued me.

[Wallygator]

lol. we are long over those times when realtime physical meshdeformation runs on 5 fps check out spintires. the entire terrain has permanent physical meshdeformaition and runs on 120 fps on my pc

Fair enough - I learned "computer graphics" back on an Apple III running pascal in 1982. I'm making a best guess here (someone correct me if I'm wrong please) that some things have moved on.

[Renegrade]

I support this - I'd love to see progressive damage. The "Okay, we're fine" to "Critical existence failure" thing we have now is annoying. Dinged that engine at 5.9m/s. It's fine. Dinged it at 6.0--BOOOM! What the heck?

This would also give engineers something to fix. I'm not the biggest fan of random failures, but part degradation has always intrigued me.

Yeah, exactly!