Balancing Issues?

[HoloYolo]

So I was going to build a ship, and I noticed what I believe to be a massive (lol) issue. Two pods seem to be off balanced? I don't know if this was intentional but I'll post what I found.

http://imgur.com/Bs8n2oi

http://imgur.com/zZbJUvx

http://imgur.com/JHjGZ6V

Sorry for the pictures not showing up, but I just found this very weird. Do you personally think these parts are off balanced?

EDIT: They are stacked on each other to show size comparison. By balancing I mean stat wise.

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by HoloYolo
Lol

[Corona688]

You can literally see why its happening -- just look at it!  The shape of the 3 man cockpit isn't symmetric in that direction, your cockpit attaches to the "left", as pic #1 shows it.  This isn't a bug, just the way the 3 man cockpit is built.

Put the 3-man inline cockpit behind it instead.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Corona688

[magnemoe]

The front node of the MK3 pod is not inn line of center of mass.

This is a problem if you try to push something heavy or put a large heatshild in front

[Rocket In My Pocket]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

You can literally see why its happening -- just look at it!  The shape of the 3 man cockpit isn't symmetric in that direction, your cockpit attaches to the "left", as pic #1 shows it.  This isn't a bug, just the way the 3 man cockpit is built.

Put the 3-man inline cockpit behind it instead.

 

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

The front node of the MK3 pod is not inn line of center of mass.

This is a problem if you try to push something heavy or put a large heatshild in front

The OP is talking about the balancing of the stats not a center of mass issue.

Your first clue was that the COM indicator isn't even displayed in the image. Your second clue was the detailed stats page that is open. Your third clue was the third image with the giant red arrow that said "more mass?" pointing at the top pod.

Specifically the balance issue that's being pointed out here is that the visually smaller pod is heavier. Feel free to discuss now that you know what's going on.

[Archgeek]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

What's being pointed out here is that the visually smaller pod is heavier. Feel free to discuss now that you know what's going on.

Clearly they ran out of berillium and had to sub in aluminium, making for a denser, heavier craft.

[MDZhB]

It could be explained by saying that the capsule is denser in order to survive space travel, and the cockpit is lighter because it had a lot of empty space, just for aerodynamics. But, it probably is just unbalanced.

[Mjarf]

Yeah, i rarely use the 3 man pod because it's so darn heavy.

[fourfa]

These things are a bit nonsensical in sandbox mode - that's because they make perfect sense in Career, where there's a progression of technology levels over time, and money is a constraint. Kind of how old cars IRL are heavy, underpowered, and polluting compared to new cars. But we shouldn't point at new cars and say "OP! Nerf!"

Same with rockets IRL - compare the Mercury/Redstone flights to the Blue Origin rocket that will fly 6 suborbital tourists AND land the booster to fly again. 

[Snark]

Lots of people have noted that the Mk1-2 command pod is extraordinarily overweight.  Its mass-per-kerbal is way out of line with the other crewed pods-- it masses over five times what the Mk1 command pod does!

The Mk2 lander can is similarly overweight:  over four times the mass of the Mk1 can, despite having only twice the capacity.

It used to be that I never, ever used these parts, ever, simply because they were so ridiculously overweight.  Heck, I can put a Mk1 pod on top of a Mk1 crew cabin and carry three kerbals for less than half the mass!

So when I finally came to the realization that I can do whatever I want without using them... and am doing so... and they're simply sitting there uselessly taking up space on the parts tab... I might as well mod them into something that's actually useful and usable, and can do so with a clear conscience.  So I wrote a little ModuleManager snippet to reduce the Mk1-2 pod's mass down to 2700 kg (a bit heavier per kerbal than the Mk1, but not ridiculously so), and the Mk2 lander can down to 1400 kg (ditto).  Now they're actually reasonable, and I actually end up using them reasonably often.

 

[SpacedCowboy]

Yeah, You got Flipper there trying to balance a beach ball!

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

The OP is talking about the balancing of the stats not a center of mass issue.

Your first clue was that the COM indicator isn't even displayed in the image. Your second clue was the detailed stats page that is open. Your third clue was the third image with the giant red arrow that said "more mass?" pointing at the top pod.

Specifically the balance issue that's being pointed out here is that the visually smaller pod is heavier. Feel free to discuss now that you know what's going on.

I saw the post below who also missed this
Old part who is not been balanced, also the MK3 is higher in tech tree. 
MK2 landing can has the same problem, a shame as its an pretty useful part for larger landers. 

[Red Shirt]

14 hours ago, Snark said:

So I wrote a little ModuleManager snippet

Is this available somewhere as a download? 

[moogoob]

Some bring up the rather ridiculous 45m/s crash safety margin of the size-2 3-kerbal pod, but that rarely matters unless you're trying to lithobrake or something.  What WOULD be nice is if they didn't change the mass too much, but added 1) built-in RCS jets (at least for attitude control) and 2) built-in chutes. Those two would make up for the extra mass, IMO.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

This is the MM config I use, the last bit removes monoprop from command pods by default:

@PART[Mark1-2Pod]
{
    %mass = 3.15
}
@PART[mk2LanderCabin]
{
    %mass = 1.85
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],@RESOURCE[MonoPropellant]]
{
    @RESOURCE[MonoPropellant]
    
    {      
    %amount = 0      
    }
} 

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by Waxing_Kibbous

[Corona688]

I'd argue that the mk3 cockpit weighs too little.  As I recall it, the mk1-2 weighs so much because of its insane impact resistance.  They bumped its weight up and up until re-entering without a parachute stopped being survivable.

The mk3 cockpit also has much less drag, though, which also makes re-entering without a parachute less practical.  It might balance after a fashion.  Not sure.

They both have impact resistance over 100 miles per hour.  That's crazy!  Given airbags, seat belts, and crumple zones, you might hope to survive that sort of car crash, but your car certainly wouldn't.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Corona688

[Snark]

7 hours ago, Red Shirt said:

Is this available somewhere as a download? 

No, but it's pretty straightforward to rig it up yourself, assuming that you have ModuleManager installed (as you likely already do, if you're running some mods).

Just make a text file whose name ends in ".cfg" located somewhere in your GameData folder (I like to just make my own subfolder there and put all my tweaks in it), containing the following text:

@PART[Mark1-2Pod] {
    @mass = 2.7
}

@PART[mk2LanderCabin] {
    @mass = 1.4
}

I'm not in front of my KSP computer right now, but I believe that ought to do the trick.