• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

549 Excellent


About Yemo

  • Rank
    Senior Rocket Scientist
  1. From my experience, I strongly recommend a fixed dry mass to capacity ratio for the following reasons: 1. Gameplay/Design The "lego principle" of being able to substitute 1 triple tank with 3 normal tanks might not be realistic, but is a concession to the design limitations when using fixed block sizes. In reality a tank would be custom made to a specific size. In KSP there are instances when the right tank size is not available. Eg If there is a normal shuttle tank and a triple shuttle tank, but not a double tank. With fixed ratios, you have a linear increase of capacity and mass for length 1, 2, 3, 4 (multiples of normal length, as 1 = 1 normal, 2 = 2 normal tanks, 3 = 1 triple tank, 4 = 1 triple tank + 1 normal tank) etc. With non-fixed ratios it would go like 1 - 2 linear, 3 drastically better fuel to mass ratios, 4 worse fuel to mass ratio than length 3, 5 (one triple, 2 normal tanks) even worse fuel to mass ratio than length 3. This would introduce efficiency mali simply based on the available block sizes and their combinations, which would imho be detrimental to design choices. 2. Mod compatibility 1st degree Mods like TweakScale and Procedural Parts are linear. Thus if someone has eg engines for 1.875m diameter from another mod, but does not like the provided 1.875m tanks. The person has TweakScale installed to make up for such part catalogue limitations. If a 1.25m tank is upscaled to 1.875m, it would have drastically worse stats than a downscaled 2.5m tank (eg because the player likes the orange tank color from 2.5m). Same goes for round/special shape tanks when designing landers and so on. 3. Mod compatibility 2nd degree Mods from point 2 might be used or configured for other mods, eg rescales, tech trees etc., compounding the issues from 2. 4. Other reasons While real life rocket tanks are mostly designed around a unidirectional force vector, which drastically reduces the need for structural load considerations, many players in KSP use the tanks for other applications as well. For example space planes, or as structural parts on space stations, rovers, etc. There is currently no way to distinguish between those applications in terms of structural loads. As to the actual values for a fixed ratio approach, I recommend the following: For liquid fuel/oxygen tanks (as are nearly all stock tanks) mass = 1 ton, liquid fuel = 720, oxygen = 880 For monoprop (no stock ratio, all over the place) mass = 1 ton, monoprop = 2000 Based on tests with monoprop vs LOX rockets, there is a range of ratios suitable to preserve desired efficiency differences for design/gameplay considerations. The actual value within this range is arbitrary. However between all those alternatives, the 1 ton = 2000 monoprop capacity value stands out from a design perspective, as it results in the same wet mass as a LOX tank with the same dry mass. For 95% of the players, this is probably irrelevant. But when combined with fuel switching mods/procedural parts, it seriously improves the design/redesign process for the 5% of players who are into that. As a tank content/part switch does not alter the center of mass for already designed spaceplanes and landers (where a CoM change might affect the placement of lifting surfaces on spaceplanes and RCS thrusters on landers). Different fuel options and ratios can be tested in the design stage without having to recheck/redo the parts which are placed around the existing center of mass. And when the value within the desirable range is arbitrary, why not make life easier for those 5% when it does not cost anything.
  2. Hey, last time I tried, strategia did not cause any technical issues, not sure about gameplay balance as I rarely use that facility anyway. I m not too familiar with all the contract packs at the moment. But as a general advice, SETIcontracts replaces the standard progression from first flight to planet flyby and landings. So any contract pack which does not do that would work fine. Anomaly Surveyor is great, but not updated at the moment. Field Research is good as a fall back, if you need some more money or an incentive to do some less science optimized biome hops. Tourism is also a fall back money generator with roleplay potential. Kerbin Space Station is another great mod, but I usually play with Station Science installed, so I m not sure how good it is with stock parts only. That is my standard package. But as I said, any contract pack which does not provide general progression contracts should work fine. About the bigger kerbin system, I have little experience with rescales and SETIcontracts, though I can't see any reason why they should not work. Also SETIcontracts does not work for Galileo at the moment. OuterPlanetsMod works fine, though there are no contracts for it in SETIcontracts. I would also recommend some other mods, like waypoint manager, especially for contracts. You can find a full list of mod recommendations and suggestions under the SETIrebalance download, there are a lot, but it might be worth it going through them for inspiration.
  3. Good idea, thank you, must have slipped in one of the OP updates or the forum update. Ammended the section beneath the patreon logo/link including the reason to go for ARR in the first place (burnt by previous experience, thus my question earlier about pulling mods).
  4. Not continuing this discussion as I said that I was out, but this is important as it was a promise I made to the people who donated via patreon. When I started patreon I stated that the mod will not die because of my desinterest in it and that I consider it to be my responsibility, when accepting donations, to hand it over before that happens.
  5. This is ridiculous. You complain that a license forbids you to pull and change parts from that mod (without asking the modder first). Then I ask you if you did pull and change parts from other mods without asking the modder, just because their license allows you to do so. Then you get angry about me accusing you? You know, I started here with that attitude as well, and I was rightfully slapped on the wrist for it. I did not expect you in particular to act as badly as I did in my earlier days on this forum. You know, I came in here offering help and information/experience from someone who did rebalance ksp for over 2 years. Fighting incompatibilities and imbalances based on over 2 years of feedback. And I got ignored and false statements thrown at me for trying to prevent incompatibilities and imbalances between mods, which are totally avoidable. If you want to make the same mistakes I did over the last 2 years, be my guest. Which is coincidentally the reason why SETIrebalance is ARR, so that people can't just pull and change parts without consulting me, so that the countless contributions, bug reports and compatibility feedback from other forum members of over 2 years are not undone in an instant by someone simply unwilling to even talk to a person who remembers them. It is not about coming to different conclusions, it is just about not repeating the same mistakes for no reason. For anyone interested in stockish balance based on over 2 years of feedback and willing to learn from the past mistakes of others instead of repeating them, you know where to find it. Good luck and happy "avoidable imbalance/incompatibility fixing" for the ones who dont. I m out.
  6. You said the license of SETIrebalance whould not allow you to pull or change parts of it. So I was wondering when/if you did to so with other mods which had different licenses.
  7. Because then larger tanks would be strictly more mass efficient than procedural parts. edit: Of the same volume. SETIrebalance uses crew size, modules (eg reaction wheel strength), resource storage (eg monoprop capacity) and capsule strength against external forces (eg impact) as a base for mass values. Oh, and making stats only better is impossible if you are serious about balancing the monoprop tanks. And thus your patches will affect craft sharing in the same way as SETIrebalance does.
  8. And when did you pull and change parts of other differently licensed mods instead of just going into their thread and talking to the mod authors about things you disagree with first?
  9. Yeah, but there is no reason to introduce incompatibilities when seeking a balanced game, just because I can't be bothered to talk to another modder who does the same thing I want to do for a few years now. Without having any content related differences! ... Which would introduce massive imbalances when players use eg procedural parts or tank content switching mods. Somewhat contrary to your goal of increasing balance. I m not at my gaming pc, so I can not do it myself at the moment. But why not simply install SETIrebalance (and eg procedural parts and look at the liquid fuel tank and its options) and look at the result, before deciding what you want to do? Why introduce incompatibilities/imbalances between mods when there might not be any actual content related differences of opinion? Is it not worth 10 minutes to check out what a rebalance mod has done for years, to avoid incompatibilities/imbalances between mods?
  10. SETIrebalance does not change anything regarding the tech tree. It is precisely an easy to use MM-patch making stock parts have consistent balance in a stock-like way.
  11. Yeah, but the thing is, that SETIrebalance already is this comprehensive rebalancing package. It certainly includes more than fuel tanks and command pod masses. And if there is already the idea of "if fuel tanks are rebalanced, we should rebalance command pods as well" then I really dont see why you would stop there. Like, why does a thermometer in stock cost so much? And why does it not transmit for 100%? And why stop with the part values, what about their tech tree positions? Why do ladders come so late? etc... I mean, what is the issue with simply installing SETIrebalance? It is on ckan as well, so easy to put in the "recommended" or "suggested" field of other mods, so I really dont understand. Fuel tanks have negatives (masses, costs) AND positives (capacity) based on volumes (at least if they are balanced). The problem with crew parts is, that you can hardly offset a volume based increase in mass by a positive like crew capacity, if you want to stay in line with visuals/model interiors.
  12. Well, why not simply install SETIrebalance? It balances tanks, masses and so on...
  13. I don't fully understand the need for something which already exists. Both in the form of singular MM patches by Alshain as well as a MM patch compilation like SETIrebalance. Why invent the wheel a third time?
  14. SETIrebalance mod (which is about 2 years old), link in my signature. Yep, the Mk1-2 pod is bad with its 4 tons dry mass for 3 kerbals. SETIrebalance corrects that as well.
  15. Stock tanks are not balanced, especially monoprop tanks are totally out of whack between their volumes. As someone already said, for compatibility (procedural parts, fuel switchers, etc) only volume based factors are workable. You can install SETIrebalance and Procedural Parts. Then just stretch the procedural liquid fuel tank to the size of the tank you want to rebalance, select the tank content and use that value. And coincidentally, with SETIrebalance, stock tanks are balanced between each other as well. Also displays the volume/mass/units/costs and so on ratios. edit: And I would stay away from the upgrade feature, as you said, it kills craft sharing. And compatibility with different tech trees.