Jump to content
  • 1.11: Weighing in on some changes


    Maxsimal
     Share

    There’s a lot of cool stuff in 1.11 Some Reassembly Required, and the Squad team hopes you’re enjoying it all!   I’m here to share a few thoughts on some tuning changes we’ve made to the game.

    Kerbals on the Scale
    Kerbals have always had a mass in the game when they’re EVA - 93.875kg.   That included themselves, their suit, their EVA jetpack, and their parachute, plus any Snacks they managed to hide on themselves.

    Now with jetpacks and parachutes being something Kerbals can choose to go without - for better or worse we’re taking the time to update and rectify some things around this.

    On the Scales:
    First, Kerbals got a little fatter - now tip the scales at a full 94kg, fully loaded.  A little weight gain is expected after almost 10 years on a job this stressful.  Here’s how that breaks down:

    _uRr2gUxijhJ8EhUVvyyJCSmhrFA5WGb7CDMyUWa


    IVA Kerbals have mass now:
    Second, we’ve gone ahead and made Kerbals have a mass IVA.  Previously, whenever a  Kerbal got into a craft, their mass would be nulled out.  Now, the weight of the Kerbal itself - 45kg with their suit on, plus anything their carrying - gets added to any part they’re riding in.    

    Note: The command seat was a special case as that’s still an EVA Kerbal, and the Kerbal’s mass always counted.

    To keep everything roughly as it was before, all command pods are now automatically 94kg lighter per seat - that’s the weight of one Kerbal plus an EVA jetpack and a parachute.   All other parts that could contain a Kerbal - crew cabins and the MPL - are 45kg lighter per seat, as you hopefully won’t be kicking your untrained passenger

    Cq2xfAxVgKRDQYfLM5zKT57lJBu9vHin1Z23musH

    This automatic readjustment can be disabled on a per-part basis for modders who might want to do so.
     

    EVA fuel has a density now:
    Kerbal EVA fuel was always a bit abstract.  With the addition of separated jetpacks and the EVA Fuel cylinders, we’ve adjusted that.  Now EVA fuel is 5kg/unit, and the Kerbal respond as you’d expect as it's burned up - jumping a little higher, being able to accelerate faster with the Jetpack.

    Crewed part tuning adjustments:
    Since we’re already messing with pod masses a bit, we went ahead and made a few changes to the tuning of certain pods.

    First, all of them have inventory capacity, to store some baggage if you’d like.  The amount of space involved depends on the part.

    Second, we’ve adjusted a few to align them more with other parts.

    PPD-10 Hitchhiker Storage Container:  Its mass was adjusted from 2.5 tons to 2.07 tons, and it now has some significant cargo storage capacity.  This makes it closer to the average .5 tons/passenger that other passenger containers had, accounting for the extra benefit of that large storage.

    Mk3 Passenger Module: Its mass goes from 6.5 to 7.18 tons:   This part was judged to be too mass efficient vs other passenger storage modules, so it got bumped up.

    PPD-12 Cupola Module: Its mass was cut from 1.8 tons to .886 tons:  Despite giving some glorious views of the cosmos, it's always been much too heavy, given how few Kerbals could get a view from inside it.  Perhaps its now being built with transparent aluminum?   Its cost was also cut in half, from 3200 to 1600.

    Mk2 Crew Cabin: Its mass goes from 2 to 1.85 tons - which is slightly less than the tuning adjustments for the passenger mass might otherwise have lowered it to,, since its built in lifting surface is now accounted for.

    There’s a lot more that’s gone into 1.11, and I hope you check all the changes out at the 1.11 intro and change log.  Feel free to add a comment here if you’d like more info on some of the details behind the game design of this update!
     

     

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    15 hours ago, eberkain said:

    Multiple mentions of Snacks...  is this a hint of a future expansion adding a stock life support system?  

    That would be great by the way.

    hmm... perhaps indeed.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 hours ago, eberkain said:

    The DV display will probably show a higher number, but it shouldn't actually give you a higher number.... That definitely should be tested. 

    I just tested it and it really does give a higher dv (as well as displaying it). It's not that surprising though - might be a bit of a pig to include the mass of Kerbals on ladders, no?

    Edited by Neilski
    typo
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    14 hours ago, Neilski said:

    I just tested it and it really goes give a higher dv (as well as displaying it). It's not that surprising though - might be a bit of a pig to include the mass of Kerbals on ladders, no?

    you are right, I tested it too and it seems kerbal's on ladders don't add weight to the vessel.  in the command seat the engine performance is reduced, but on the ladders or leaving the kerbals behind I got the same performance. 

    aeWBilJ.jpg

    I wonder if you just caught some kerbals in a "cup" and pushed them, would that effect the engine performance? 

    LonelySphericalHoopoe-size_restricted.gi

    It doesn't seem to which really surprises me. Plus my wife gave me a look like... what exactly are you doing? 

    Edited by eberkain
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    32 minutes ago, eberkain said:

    It doesn't seem to which really surprises me. Plus my wife game me a look like... what exactly are you doing? 

    I hope you replied, pointing in the air, "SCIENCE!"

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/17/2020 at 7:41 PM, eberkain said:

    Multiple mentions of Snacks...  is this a hint of a future expansion adding a stock life support system?  

    That would be great by the way.

    Or maybe I was hungry while I wrote this post :confused:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    45 minutes ago, Maxsimal said:

    Or maybe I was hungry while I wrote this post :confused:

    Or, you see that there are five different actively developed life support mods and realize it is a popular feature that many players want to have. :cool:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think you should default the automatic IVA Kerbal mass to off, not on, otherwise it's going to break literally all parts mods with command pods without adjustments. And not all of them are continuously maintained.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

    I think you should default the automatic IVA Kerbal mass to off, not on, otherwise it's going to break literally all parts mods with command pods without adjustments. And not all of them are continuously maintained.

    The adjustment is applied automatically to all modded parts, based on their crew capacity and whether or not they're a command part, and the modder has the option to turn it off if they don't want it, so unmaintained modded parts should generally be just fine.

    Edited by Maxsimal
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/22/2020 at 11:17 PM, Maxsimal said:

    The adjustment is applied automatically to all modded parts, based on their crew capacity and whether or not they're a command part, and the modder has the option to turn it off if they don't want it, so unmaintained modded parts should generally be just fine.

    Oh, ok. The way I understood it is that the dry masses were changed manually, rather than automatically based on seats inside, and the automatic part is the addition of Kerbal mass on top of it. If that is not the case it will only break pods that are lighter than the sum of Kerbals aboard, as their dry mass will go negative. Which should not be a problem as long as they're reasonable.

    Edited by m4ti140
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'd like to chime in and say that I appreciate the attention to detail, so thanks for that.  I am curious, though, about the decision to make EVA propellant equal to 5 kg/unit in density.  There has been a long-standing fan idea that EVA fuel, in function if not in its exact formulation, is some variation of monopropellant (and there are a few mods that make this relationship explicit), so I am a little surprised to see that you've chosen to give it the same density as the bipropellant mix rather than the 4 kg/unit of monopropellant.

    That being said, I have not looked too deeply into the legacy system, and so if it turns out that EVA propellant has always been treated as though it had an assumed 5 kg/unit density (whether or not the mass was actually accounted), then I suppose my surprise is borne of ignorance.

    Either way, I am still curious about the reasoning that went into defining the density that you did, and would like to know:  would it be possible for you to explain the rationale for that choice?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    49 minutes ago, Zhetaan said:

    That being said, I have not looked too deeply into the legacy system, and so if it turns out that EVA propellant has always been treated as though it had an assumed 5 kg/unit density (whether or not the mass was actually accounted), then I suppose my surprise is borne of ignorance.

    Nah it was massless before. The new system is definitely an improvement.

    Fair point about the density, though I don’t think we’d get realism or consistency regardless... real-world MMUs provided 25 m/s of dv using cold nitrogen gas, while the ones in KSP gave upwards of 600 m/s using their magical propellant.

    I don’t know if the new EVA propellant has an assigned volume value, but if it’s 5L/unit like the other stock fuels then I don’t know where the backpack has room to store 25L of it... best not to look too hard under the hood.

    Edited by PocketBrotector
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    42 minutes ago, Zhetaan said:

    I'd like to chime in and say that I appreciate the attention to detail, so thanks for that.  I am curious, though, about the decision to make EVA propellant equal to 5 kg/unit in density.  There has been a long-standing fan idea that EVA fuel, in function if not in its exact formulation, is some variation of monopropellant (and there are a few mods that make this relationship explicit), so I am a little surprised to see that you've chosen to give it the same density as the bipropellant mix rather than the 4 kg/unit of monopropellant

    I might be wrong but didn’t one of the early 1.x versions replenish EVA fuel with monopropellant from the capsule (if any available)? I think the point being to end “EVA pushing,” but the feature got dropped quickly—maybe even with a bugfix release. My memory might be playing tricks on me though.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    7 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

    I might be wrong but didn’t one of the early 1.x versions replenish EVA fuel with monopropellant from the capsule (if any available)? I think the point being to end “EVA pushing,” but the feature got dropped quickly—maybe even with a bugfix release. My memory might be playing tricks on me though.

    I think that this was an intended feature in the extreme early days, which is why command pods contain an amount of monopropellant too small to be useful for docking. I don't remember that it was ever implemented in stock, though.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    By the way, my calculations show that now, when the mass of kerbal and fuel is determined, the EVA jetpack Isp is 210-211 s.

    So EVA fuel properties really close to monoprop.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    21 hours ago, PocketBrotector said:

    command pods contain an amount of monopropellant too small to be useful for docking

    Command pod monoprop is more than enough for multiple dockings if you're careful. I only bring up extra monoprop containers if I'm mining and processing fuel.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/22/2020 at 5:17 PM, JIMMY_the_DOG said:

    Great, More mods being smashed with the stock hammer

    which is a good thing imo. Mod systems are always a little clunky, break when there's an update, get abandoned etc. Plus some of us just hate using mods. Besides, what on Kerbin are they going to add to the game that isn't featured in one mod or another?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 12/24/2020 at 6:23 AM, PocketBrotector said:

    I think that this was an intended feature in the extreme early days, which is why command pods contain an amount of monopropellant too small to be useful for docking. I don't remember that it was ever implemented in stock, though.

    It wasn't. There are a couple references to it in the Wiki, which seem to have this forum thread as their root. It was never confirmed by a dev at that time as far as I can tell. The small amount of monoprop was added to all the CMs in 0.23. The best post on the details and background is this one from 2016.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...