Better Than Starting Manned (Flower's WIP KSP mod )

[Idrick]

Following up on my earlier post, attached is a Dropbox album of my ship progression so far: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yop5z7vbei2b ... BWKKMs?lst

Order and description of progression/experience.

Dodo I: Simple Rocket to take both low and upper atmospheric temperature readings, allowing for Progression to Tech 1.

Dodo II: Modified with small boosters, batteries and a Barometer. Took pressure scans at low atmosphere, high atmosphere, and low "orbit", as well as temperature reading from space. Researched Stability.

Dodo III: Modified with the smaller more efficient core and nose cones. Intuitively taught the benefits of aerodynamics and the nose cones allowed for reaching high orbit, and taking my high orbit pressure and temperature readings. Researched General Rocketry. Also, intuitively taught the need for heat shields as the entire rocket burned up on reentry from 250km.

Dodo IV: Removed Thermometer, Barometer. Added Gravioli detector and batteries to allow for the longer transmission. Took a single low orbit gravitational scan. Researched Survivability.

Dodo V-VI: Modified Dodo IV with fins and additional batteries, used to take additional biome gravitational scans. Intuitively taught the need for fins for directing rockets where you wanted them to go, as well as for lowering your center of lift below your center of mass, so that your rocket doesn't pendulum out of control. Researched General Construction.

Kamikaze I: First manned flight, very intuitively taught the need for pressurized cockpit, as my first attempt shot into the upper atmosphere. Further reinforced the need for fins, allowing me to directl the flight out more horizontally. For me, also intuitively taught me to rotate the launch direction and plan my landing zone, so that I had a straight shot over the ocean. The cockpit didn't like to survive landing on solid ground with the basic parachute ;). Took a crew report in low atmosphere. Researched Science Tech.

Kamikaze II: Second manned flight with the pressurized cockpit. First attempted with solid rockets again, however the joint between the booster and the cockpit always broke on chute opening. Thinking this is due to the disparity in radius of the cockpit vs solid boosters. Not sure if you want this by design, or maybe if the joints need to be reinforced. Moved to using my first liquid engine which reinforced the need for lowering the center of lift, as the larger/heavier rocket was much more prone to losing control if not setup properly. Taught the need for thrust control, due to engine overheating and avoiding going too high, but also to ensure you burn enough fuel without overspeeding and burning up your rocket, so that you aren't too heavy for the chutes. End up being a difficult flight, that made me very aware I wanted the ability to dump my rocket/engine so I didn't have to deal with the weight coming down, but due to only having stack mounted parachutes, they couldn't be used on the pressurized cockpit, requiring me to keep the craft intact/not use stack decouplers. Obtained high atmosphere crew report, as well as low and high atmosphere mystery goo ratings. Researched Advanced rocketry.

Dodo VII: Redesigned with liquid fuel main engine. Originally meant to take gravitational readings from high orbit, but upon reaching 250km, found the sensor was not intended for said readings. On descent took two more low orbit Biome gravitation readings. Researched Flight Control.

All in all, it was a very fun experience, with every flight having a planned purpose and design. FAR is definitely adding a needed component, with the improved aerodynamic design, forcing you to build sane rockets and put proper weight distribution so your CoL is below your CoM.

[Renegrade]

Hmmmm, that's odd as I find that thick soupy layer tends to lend itself to very powerful and short duration first stages followed by much more economical 2nd ones. If anything, emphasizing the role of serial staging rather than diminishing it.

I find myself wanting to ditch all those extra low efficiency engines (and extra drag from the side mounted tanks) as quickly as possible :)

Is there a particular reason you're leaning towards single stage designs like that?

Ah, it kinda evolves that way. I'm not actually aiming for SSTO, it just happens. A single Jumbo64/Keel Haul just doesn't hack it in terms of thrust/weight and delta-v, so I try triple - better, but not quite enough, so I move on to a quint design. And then I eventually get Mainsails, and I just replace the Keel Hauls instead of building a whole new boost stage, and then zoom.. orbit in one stage by surprise. Also that parallel design is fairly sturdy - that's important when wiggly rockets are hard to fly even without FAR.

One important consideration is that I always put a smaller tank under the Jumbo64s whenever possible, as the Jumbo64 has buggy heat transfer, so it kinda puts a minimum size on things hehe.

Also um, what do you mean by low efficiency? I know the mainsail is pretty horrible all around (except thrust/weight ratios) but uh.. is there something different I should be doing? :S

Or do you mean cost? I'm sure the Kerbal taxpayers are asking why a simple probe costs four trillion dollars but hey.. they weren't using that money anyways! (Rocket debris shelters? Bah! Who needs those?) :)

By the way - I love the Keel Haul. Fits in there nicely in terms of progression and nomenclature ;)

[FlowerChild]

Also um, what do you mean by low efficiency?

More just overall design efficiency in terms of total weight and fuel consumed, which yeah, doesn't make much of a difference right now, but hopefully will once Squad integrates an economy into the game :)

Thanks for the additional info man. The reason as to why players do things is often more valuable than knowing what it is they're doing ;)

[FlowerChild]

FAR is definitely adding a needed component, with the improved aerodynamic design, forcing you to build sane rockets and put proper weight distribution so your CoL is below your CoM.

Please cool it on the hard sell man. I understand it's your personal preference, but statements like the above just make me feel like I'm being conned.

ExEvolution I presume?

[Renegrade]

More just overall design efficiency in terms of total weight and fuel consumed, which yeah, doesn't make much of a difference right now, but hopefully will once Squad integrates an economy into the game :)

Oh yeah, that thing is a monstrosity. It's total weight is 304.54 tons, and it's cost (using Kerbal Engineer's cost summation thingy) is 166,722 whatever-dollars. I tried to redo it with better efficiency overall (fewer parts, less weight, better Isp, less cost) and got one that was 52.3 tons and 42,915 whatever-dollars.

Squad's economy fills me with both tremendous hope, but also dread...

Oh, in case I didn't mention this, I get a giggle out of the Xbox/Potato-batteries, and I love the new cost progression in the Science tiers. Much easier to remember now! :) Thank you!

Thanks for the additional info man. The reason as to why players do things is often more valuable than knowing what it is they're doing ;)

No problem, anytime!

[FlowerChild]

Oh, in case I didn't mention this, I get a giggle out of the Xbox/Potato-batteries, and I love the new cost progression in the Science tiers. Much easier to remember now! :) Thank you!

Hehe...thanks man, I've been having fun with the whole line of potato-parts overall.

It's funny actually, in that when I was thinking of adding a 2.5m part, the XBox 360 elite immediately came to mind with regards to overpriced increased storage capacity, then when I was adding the 0.625 one, I remembered the "Core" version that Microsoft put out on launch without the hard drive, and I was rather dumbfounded by how well that fit given the smaller storage capacity and since it's intended for use with probe cores :)

There's just a whole wealth of potential satire around the 360 release and the various games that Microsoft was playing with the public in order to squeeze a few more dollars out of them with their various gimmicks. I think most people have forgotten about that whole episode by now, but I haven't ;)

[jkievlan]

Sheesh, I'm getting really frustrated with that guy who likes to figure out blatant exploits and then tell everybody how to do it. I like to think I've got the self-control to avoid it but I'd still rather not hear about it :P

[FlowerChild]

Sheesh, I'm getting really frustrated with that guy who likes to figure out blatant exploits and then tell everybody how to do it. I like to think I've got the self-control to avoid it but I'd still rather not hear about it :P

Now imagine if you had invested hundreds of hours in designing and implementing a gameplay experience only to have him consistently promoting how to bypass that same experience at every turn, and the amount of self-restraint that would then be required not to lose it in response ;)

I'm honestly torn between thinking he just doesn't know any better and thinking he's intentionally trolling.

[Idrick]

ExEvolution I presume?

Not even sure what you mean by that, but I feel like I should be offended. I'm just stating my experience and opinion on what you have done. I have always played vanilla KSP and just got back into it a few days ago (hadn't played since .21), and one of my biggest problems with the game was that I was penalizing myself by building sane rockets.

The last two days are my only experience with FAR. Sorry if I got a little over excited, as what you are doing with BTSM, and then FAR and DR are exactly what I was looking for and makes KSP a lot more fun to me. I mean, I can stop with my feedback if you want, was just trying to be honest.

[jorgebonafe]

I'm honestly torn between thinking he just doesn't know any better and thinking he's intentionally trolling.

To be fair I was also surprised the manual fuel transfer thing was suposed to be an exploit. My lander actually had some radial tanks that carried some extra fuel for me (the one I was having problems with the self-exploding octo struts, you can see them in the screenshots I posted before) and I never even considered the possibility that was something I shouldn't be doing...

[FlowerChild]

Not even sure what you mean by that, but I feel like I should be offended.

My apologies. I thought you might be someone I had sparred with recently.

I'm just stating my experience and opinion on what you have done. I have always played vanilla KSP and just got back into it a few days ago (hadn't played since .21), and one of my biggest problems with the game was that I was penalizing myself by building sane rockets.

The last two days are my only experience with FAR. Sorry if I got a little over excited, as what you are doing with BTSM, and then FAR and DR are exactly what I was looking for and makes KSP a lot more fun to me. I mean, I can stop with my feedback if you want, was just trying to be honest.

No, it wasn't that man, and I do appreciate the feedback. I'm just wrestling with pros and cons as to what this version does to the overall experience right now, and I'm frankly not used to receiving such a positive response on these prereleases, so I tend to be rather skeptical when someone is so positive about it :)

I also know there are many in the KSP community that approach such topics with almost religious fervor, so I'm a little wary. If you've never even tried FAR before though, I apologize for assuming that's what was going on here.

[FlowerChild]

I'm honestly torn between thinking he just doesn't know any better and thinking he's intentionally trolling.

To be fair I was also surprised the manual fuel transfer thing was suposed to be an exploit. My lander actually had some radial tanks that carried some extra fuel for me (the one I was having problems with the self-exploding octo struts, you can see them in the screenshots I posted before) and I never even considered the possibility that was something I shouldn't be doing...

Honestly Jorge, it's not something I would have even mentioned if others in the thread hadn't gotten into it about it and I felt the need to make some statement one way or another. It's one of the many many things I intend to eventually address with the mod, but that's a long list, and what stood out to me more in his pictures was actually the use of the Mk1 command module as a munar lander, which is why I decided to tackle life support today. But again, I probably wouldn't have commented if others hadn't first, I just would have addressed it through the mod.

With the guy in question, it has to be taken in the context of his previous posts. I'm sure if that was the only thing he had popped up with, it wouldn't have been worth comment, but if you look back over the past few days on the thread, I think you'll get an idea of why it turned out the way it did. He's the same one I mentioned a couple of days ago when I said "I should have known the moment he mentioned Mechjeb" ;)

[Idrick]

My apologies. I thought you might be someone I had sparred with recently.

No worries, was just a little taken aback.

One thing I've noticed is that rockets seem a little more wobbly with FAR installed, which could be directly related to FAR, or a symptom of building taller rockets due to the aerodynamics. As a side effect, rockets seem to go off course even with fins more than normal due to their wobble, even when they are not absurdly tall. Digging around it looks like Ferram created another mod to address this directly, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. Not sure if others have noticed this as well; but it seems like reinforcing some of the joints might be beneficial, and it still leaves room for game-play progression to use struts to attach non-similar sized pieces, horizontal stages, or when working with very tall rockets.

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, I'm aware of that mod, but so far I'm comfortable with the level of wobble. Much like I mentioned with the non-FAR version, before you have access to struts you really don't need to be building that big, and if you are it generally indicates that you're over designing. When you do have struts, they can largely be used to correct such problems at minimal cost in terms of mass.

I'm not too keen on adding additional mods to the package as it both increases installation complexity upping the amount of tech support I will have to do due to player confusion, and increases the amount of work in maintaining the mod overall. I'm trying to keep the "required mods" list to an absolute minimum as a result as I find that with each one I add the amount of work I have to do skyrockets.

In fact, that effect is so pronounced that I'm finding myself leaning more and more towards writing my own code when I feel the mod really needs something, rather than adding another required mod, as except with the larger mods, I think while the initial investment may be higher to write my own stuff, in terms of ongoing maintenance it may actually wind up being cheaper. Plus, it provides me with a level of control I can't really get with other mods, so I can ensure that things are working exactly the way I want them to.

The life support thing I'm doing now is a good example. Sure, there are a few life support mods already out there, but I actually want something way simpler than what I've found elsewhere and would prefer BTSM not become dependent on another mod in the process, so I'm just writing my own.

No worries, was just a little taken aback.

Yeah my apologies once again. I'm finding dealing with the general public again outside of these forums is putting me in a rather foul mood overall. The KSP community is definitely better than the MC one in that regard, but the KSP forums are still filling my day with more face palms than the recommended limit :)

[Idrick]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. The two biggest things that struck me where when my cockpit kept ripping off my booster on parachute opening (doing my initial high altitude flight) and any time I try and stage a rocket it gets all funny. Not a systemic problem with all joints. But I also found ways around these problems, so your reasoning definitely holds truth.

Edit: Speaking of parachutes just unlocked space exploration and sent up the Command Pod Mk1, got a couple crew reports over different Biomes, hit my heat-shield perfectly, had a nice descent, deployed the chute, slowed down nicely, then when it opened at 500m ripped apart and explosions. Guess I need to wait to get the XL parachute to enter orbit manned. :)

I'm not too keen on adding additional mods to the package as it both increases installation complexity upping the amount of tech support I will have to do due to player confusion, and increases the amount of work in maintaining the mod overall. I'm trying to keep the "required mods" list to an absolute minimum as a result as I find that with each one I add the amount of work I have to do skyrockets.

Sorry for not being clear, didn't mean for you to integrate the mod, but more like you said. Was suggesting more just a touch up of some individual joints, not an inclusion of that mod.

[FlowerChild]

Ok, so I think I'm ready to make a decision on this FAR branch. While working on BTSM today, it became clear to me that by putting off this decision I'm amplifying the amount of work I have to do here and throwing a monkey wrench into my own design process as I'm basically simultaneously trying to balance two different versions of the game. Heck, I don't even know which version to play myself anymore, and in addition to splitting the community on a very young mod, that's also messing with my own playtesting which is of course an integral part of this whole balancing process.

Meanwhile, it's become clear to me working on the non-FAR branch the past couple of days, that there's enough that I like about the effect FAR has on BTSM (such as appropriately strengthening the whole aero branch of the tree, and generally making for more meaningful node purchase choices for the player), and with the vast majority of the work of integrating it already done, that I think I'm willing to commit to this branch and to resolving any issues that may remain in it.

So I just wanted to put that out there in case any of you are holding any last minute "NOOOOO! DON'T DO IT!" type reactions in check. So far/FAR, I think Sarudak was the only one that had a strongly negative response (as valid as I considered his opinion to be), and like I said, I'm willing to commit to resolving the kind of issues that caused that. Almost everyone else seems to be of the same pros and cons kinda viewpoint that I'm at, so at the least I can be fairly certain I'm not doing any major damage here overall.

In some ways, it may be a small step back for the mod in terms of overall level of polish, but I think I really need to make the decision one way or the other to keep moving it forward. Right now I'm kinda running in circles torn between the two versions and that's become increasingly disruptive, so I think it's time for me to make a judgement call and just go with it.

Please fire away with comments if you have them, as I'd still very much like people's opinions on this one way or another, and now that they've hopefully had a chance to play around with these prereleases some.

Sorry for not being clear, didn't mean for you to integrate the mod, but more like you said. Was suggesting more just a touch up of some individual joints, not an inclusion of that mod.

Yeah, it's a fair point. I'll take a note to take a look at it down the road now that it looks like I'll be following through on the FAR integration.

[Stormweaver]

I'm at the interplanetary stage now, so a little more feedback is in order I suppose.

I'm noticing that my 'big' rockets don't seem to be as big as before. This isn't really a bad thing - I used to suffer horrible wobbles with some of my old ones, strutted to hell as they were - and orbit is still more of a challenge than it was, since the thrust/mass ratio thing is lower at lower altitudes anyway. It does seem that I'll have a bit more wiggle room for when I get to the complex interplanetary stuff though, which will be nice.

I missed the version previous to far integration which is where the science costs and the like were changed iirc, but I've found that it's enough of an increase that I've actually done more then one Mun landing for samples. And now really want the rover tech, after realising exactly how slow kerbals are despite being right on the boarder between two biomes. And I get the impression minmus rovers are going to be hilarious, though that's a fair bit further down the line.

The Variable wavelength imager thingy being one-use-only caught me by surprise, and made me further regret not buying it as my second node in that tier. Ah well, just means I need to send more missions than I had planned. Also, building aerodynamic rockets with the low-tech solar panels is....really hard. well, it is if you want to go to duna anyway - I haven't figured out a way of positioning them so I get a positive return on a rocket that doesn't spin out of control yet. I managed eve with 6 radially, but was keenly aware that half of them weren't doing anything more of the time :s

Otherwise, since I heard about it, I haven't been able to forget that the aircraft landing gear weigh half a ton each. It seems...rather heavy for landing gear for light aircraft. And the parachute/Mk-1 command pod issue is a pain, what with the detachment and exploding.

[FlowerChild]

I missed the version previous to far integration which is where the science costs and the like were changed iirc, but I've found that it's enough of an increase that I've actually done more then one Mun landing for samples. And now really want the rover tech, after realising exactly how slow kerbals are despite being right on the boarder between two biomes. And I get the impression minmus rovers are going to be hilarious, though that's a fair bit further down the line.

That's actually a change that's specific to these prereleases, so you didn't miss it :)

I wanted to save that change for a version where a restart would be otherwise required, which is the case with the FAR version. Otherwise, it would seriously mess up save games.

The Variable wavelength imager thingy being one-use-only caught me by surprise

It's not supposed to be man, and I haven't changed anything with it since first releasing it. Are you sure that the interface didn't mess up on you in KSP fashion?

Otherwise, since I heard about it, I haven't been able to forget that the aircraft landing gear weigh half a ton each. It seems...rather heavy for landing gear for light aircraft. And the parachute/Mk-1 command pod issue is a pain, what with the detachment and exploding.

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff I can look at down the road. I never noticed the landing gear thing on aircraft though. Weird.

So what do you think man? Yay or nay on moving forward with FAR? You're probably the person that's played the two versions the most that I'm aware of, and you know my design style very well, so what's your verdict?

[Battlecat]

Please fire away with comments if you have them, as I'd still very much like people's opinions on this one way or another, and now that they've hopefully had a chance to play around with these prereleases some.

Sadly I haven't had time to try out the FAR version, so I won't comment on the merits of adding it.

However, I would just like to express a small concern about your workload. It appears BTSM has exploded into something far larger than you expected in terms of design. If adding FAR and any other mods is going to exponentially increase your workload and the overall difficulty of maintaining BTSM, I'd recommend not adding it. It might improve overall gameplay but at the end of the day can you afford the time to maintain that extra compatibility as KSP updates? After all, I'm sure you'd like to kick off Return to Home at some point soon.

But you know your abilities better than any of us, so the workload side of things is your call. I just thought I'd mention it. Keep up the great work regardless of the final choice. :-)

[FlowerChild]

It's a valid concern and definitely something I've put a lot of thought into, but in the case of FAR I think I am comfortable doing so as it's one of the best maintained and consistent mods out there.

Anyways, believe me in that it's something that's constantly on my mind these days, so not something I need to be reminded of ;)

[Stormweaver]

That's actually a change that's specific to these prereleases, so you didn't miss it :)

I wanted to save that change for a version where a restart would be otherwise required, which is the case with the FAR version. Otherwise, it would seriously mess up save games.

Oh. Fair enough then ^.^

It's not supposed to be man, and I haven't changed anything with it since first releasing it. Are you sure that the interface didn't mess up on you in KSP fashion?

Nah, had the message pop up and everything. I didn't have it bound to an action key (which may bypass it in KSP fashion) and after use, it was inoperable.

Yeah, that's the kind of stuff I can look at down the road. I never noticed the landing gear thing on aircraft though. Weird.

So what do you think man? Yay or nay on moving forward with FAR? You're probably the person that's played the two versions the most that I'm aware of, and you know my design style very well, so what's your verdict?

Yay. It may not be the immediate "This is awesome!" Feeling that came with DRE when it was integrated, but it definitely adds a lot to the gameplay. Plus, it's going to open up a lot more of the mod-using community to BTSM, given how prolific FAR is (and how hard it is to go back to vKSP afterwards).

[FlowerChild]

Yay. It may not be the immediate "This is awesome!" Feeling that came with DRE when it was integrated, but it definitely adds a lot to the gameplay. Plus, it's going to open up a lot more of the mod-using community to BTSM, given how prolific FAR is (and how hard it is to go back to vKSP afterwards).

Fair enough. I think what I'm going to do is stop working on it right now as I'm at a point where it's going to be a pain to integrate my changes into both versions later, which is what prompted me wanting to resolve this now.

I'll do something else for now, sleep on it, and make a final decision on it in the morning. Still time for feedback from people too tonight if anyone has any last minute input to add to the mix.

[FlowerChild]

Nah, had the message pop up and everything. I didn't have it bound to an action key (which may bypass it in KSP fashion) and after use, it was inoperable.

On this point, you might want to try leaving your vessel, returning to the space center, then coming back to it. That seems to reset some interface funkiness in certain cases.

[Stormweaver]

Nah, had the message pop up and everything. I didn't have it bound to an action key (which may bypass it in KSP fashion) and after use, it was inoperable.

On this point, you might want to try leaving your vessel, returning to the space center, then coming back to it. That seems to reset some interface funkiness in certain cases.

I've just gave it a test; it's not interface funkiness. Once it's been transmitted, right clicking no longer gives the options, an the only action group command which works is the 'toggle cover' which...just toggles the cover. Going to the space center and back didn't change anything, quitting the game and going back didn't change anything.

It's behaving identically to the vKSP 0.23 goo capsule.

[FlowerChild]

I've just gave it a test; it's not interface funkiness. Once it's been transmitted, right clicking no longer gives the options, an the only action group command which works is the 'toggle cover' which...just toggles the cover. Going to the space center and back didn't change anything, quitting the game and going back didn't change anything.

It's behaving identically to the vKSP 0.23 goo capsule.

Yeah, that's not right. I ran into a few "jams" like that when I was first implementing it, but thought I had resolved them before release. Will take note on it and see what I can do.