BASPM doesn't simulate R&D.

[ferrinova]

The more difficult space programs need to be compensated by R&D effectivenes. This effectivenes should increasing in later game years.
Original "BARIS transfer technology matrix" will not work in BASPM.


In original Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space (BARIS) unmanned test missions are unprofitable but in BASPM is even worse.
Penalty for failure is too big. R&D progress is asymptotic hence R&D is starting quickly to slow and is very difficult to achieve 80 - 90% reliability.
Flight failure should cause delays in program (in game mechanics of BARIS this works because growth of reliability is mostly linear) but in BASPM this leads to lost the entire project.

My suggestions for R&D.
1. An available R&D personel in the 1955 should have low skills, at the begining we should have only unexperienced personel. Better personel for hire should be available few years later, or when we will have higher prestige. This should simulate growth of overall space science knowledge.
3. R&D skill of engineers should
grow slightly through participation in the space program,
grow moderately at successful flight step,
grow at failed step (but only when we will know cause of this failure). This will simulate practical knowledge.
4. Transfering of R&D engineer from one program to another should cause drop of his skills, the greater technology difference, the greater penalty.
5. Reliability of unused hardware should decrease.

[Nacho84]

Hello ferrinova,

Welcome to the SPM forums Indeed, points 1 and 3 are planned for a future update. Point 5 is a very good idea, we'll add it to the list.

I like point 4, but I'm not sure how straightforward is to convey this rule from a UI point of view. We'll discuss it with the team.

Cheers,

[N_Molson]

Hello, don't worry about the tech transfer matrix, I can tell you I have a table on my disk that features all mission components and something like 500 cases to fill, and they will be filled, but not right now. We really considered this point carefully, and have a fine control (Nacho84 would say "a high level of granularity" ) over it. There will really be a huge amount of possibilities there, as long as the two components are more-or-less of the same category.

[ferrinova]

I clicked on dr von Braun's advice (circled i) and he says "I strongly suggest you spend more funds in R&D before attempting to launch this mission".

I called the one of my SET employee. "We are starting new space program codename: Skylab."
I asked him last assigment. "Apollo Program". he said.

Hmmm....

I look into his personal files.

I swiftly calulated his skills for new space program.

Code: Select all

years             program                achieved skills      time penalty	 technology penalty       skills
                                                                10% per year     from tech matrix          
                  base                  10                 none                  none                       10
     - 1955       previous career        5                 85%                      ?                      0.75
1956 - 1962    Mercury                  40                 69%                    75%                      3.1               

75%penalty=25%transfer
1963 - 1964    "Advanced training"      10                 61%                    none                     3.9
1965 - 1972    Apollo                   60                  0%                    10%                      54

total = 81.75 or 56% (1-exp(-x/100))

"Ok, you are hired."

===========


The above career Informations may be under (i) button,
or in the museum. BARIS had only "astronaut history", BASPM may have full "personel history".
Only the most important information (like last assigment) should be visible from window like "Personnel Selection".
For unassigned employee this should be calculated for last assigment, and name (or null/zero symbol over program picture) of last assigment should be visible.

Thats only my imagination.

[KyleS]

Some feedback, use of the Soviet equipment leads to very slow R&D times, after doing first spaceplanes (1955-57) and then Sputnik (1958-60 with a failure) I've yet to see the R-7 Vostok launcher or Vostok itself pass 80% reliability.

My mission controllers and cosmonauts have spent more time in classrooms than at their jobs

I didn't have this issue using US equipment. I'm not sure of what the "difficulty" rating of equipment means, but if the price for cheaper Soviet stuff is its slower research times, well this is rather out of proportion. It's simply impossible that I could get a Vostok in space with 90+% reliability by 1961 as in history, did they launch with 40%? haha

[KyleS]

Interestingly, the Gemini lunar programme could not be opened. This is interesting since I have already opened the Apollo lunar programme.

[ferrinova]

Some feedback, use of the Soviet equipment leads to very slow R&D times, after doing first spaceplanes (1955-57) and then Sputnik (1958-60 with a failure) I've yet to see the R-7 Vostok launcher or Vostok itself pass 80% reliability.

Failures only decrease morale.

I want to see that engineer personel LEARN from their mistakes.

[Nacho84]

Hello ferrinova,

I want to see that engineer personel LEARN from their mistakes.

Please check the changelog. What you describe has already been implemented and will be included in the next patch

Cheers,

[N_Molson]

I didn't have this issue using US equipment. I'm not sure of what the "difficulty" rating of equipment means, but if the price for cheaper Soviet stuff is its slower research times, well this is rather out of proportion. It's simply impossible that I could get a Vostok in space with 90+% reliability by 1961 as in history, did they launch with 40%? haha

Actually, the R-7 "Vostok" that carried Gagarin into orbit was considered 60% reliable. The Atlas-Mercury wasn't a lot better, there were a lot of failed test-flights.

But I see what you mean. Yes, I noticed that the R&D values are currently unbalanced. This is going to be fixed, in fact, some Soviet hardware (but not all) will have slightly shorter R&D processes, will be slightly cheaper, but will also be slightly less safe. Voskhod is the perfect example for that

[ferrinova]

Actually, the R-7 "Vostok" that carried Gagarin into orbit was considered 60% reliable. The Atlas-Mercury wasn't a lot better, there were a lot of failed test-flights.

It seems that the Russians engineers loved to test unrieliable hardware, but after tests they managed to carry five successful manned missions (Vostok 1 - 6). Also before Gagarin's flight they had 2 successful test flights.

We can never know real reliability, we may only estimate its value from statistical data. The data comes from reliability tests.
You may test the whole hardware or individual components.

I think that what we can see both in the game and in reality, it is only estimated value.
After every flight we have following situation:
"We thought that reliability our hardware was X%, but after (test) flight we reevaluated it to Y%, this is (Y-X)% change."

[ferrinova]

Please check the changelog. What you describe has already been implemented and will be included in the next patch

I am very impressed