Being able to generate DU's through static fires

[Tonas1997]

I've read #61 and, while I get the logic behind R&D teams and only getting data units by flying the engines, TestFlight could have the option to generate data through "clamped", static-fire setups. This aims to simulate integrated stage testing - as it happens in real-life - with assembled rocket stages in a more fun way than just throwing money at research teams or risk losing missions to faulty engines.

Also, it would allow players to exploit and design static fire setups that, in the presence of TestFlight, could have an actual usefulness (not to mention giving a job to the dedicated static fire scaffolds that come with some KerbalKonstructs packs).

As this will certainly be controversial, the possibility of generating data units with clamped vessels should be optional. Further development could introduce some interesting balance between getting DU's from R&D or static-firing.

[jwvanderbeck]

Static firing was intentionally removed in favor of the R&D system. From a gameplay perspective static firing may be real but isn't a good or fun mechanic. When it existed everyone felt obligated to put every engine on a stand, fire it up and go watch TV/YouTube until it was good. Game design is all about risk vs reward and static fire is 0 risk for lots of reward. The R&D system forces you to trade funds for the data.

[Tonas1997]

Yes, that makes sense. The suggestion was posted as an optional mechanic, as most people seem to enjoy the current R&D system. I reckon RP-0 would never use it, but others could.

[KerballOne]

intentionally removed in favor of the R&D system

This should be reconsidered now that R&D is gone.
There does not appear to be a way to get DUs at all, other than testing in production ( a real rocket leaving the launch pad ). That's not realistic, and not even fun.

When it existed everyone felt obligated to put every engine on a stand, fire it up and go watch TV/YouTube until it was good.

No more so than with any flight managed by KOS or MechJeb ;)

Game design is all about risk vs reward and static fire is 0 risk for lots of reward. The R&D system forces you to trade funds for the data.

I get that. Real rocket design is also about mitigating unnecessary risk too. There is no way a space program will not test engines prior to mission with static fires. But you're right, there is always a cost to it.

Simulation doesn't cost any funds when reverted back, but also DUs don't save either. An alternative would be like KRASH (without RO/RP-1), which charges for simulation time.

When you actually build a test stand, fire with launch clamps providing resources,... there is still an overall costs. I guess recovery returns all (most?) funds for the build itself. But engineers are paid salary, and time is money. RP-1/KCT does charge time and funds for each build, rollout and LC refurb. Maybe they should also track resources consumed by LC clamps, that way there is an increasing cost for longer burns.

I haven't played with earlier versions with R&D. So I don't know, but it seems like it was a simple way to get DUs prior to an expensive mission. There is still reference to it in the SpaceCenter TestFlight app menu. But since it looks like nothing will replace/fix R&D, then please reconsider allowing static fire data collection. Thank you.

+1 @siimav

[siimav]

The reliability numbers of all engines already assume that static fires have been conducted. So no, generating DU through static fires will never become a thing.

[KerballOne]

Okay, and R&D isn't going to be replaced or fixed? Any other options for getting DU prior to mission?

[jwvanderbeck]

Hi. The point siimav was trying to make is that the numbers are all set so that the very first time you fly an engine, it's reliability is the same as the very first time it was flown in real life. Therefore no static testing, no R&D is necessary to mimic history.

[KerballOne]

Alright, that's fair.