Aedile

Members
  • Content Count

    229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Aedile


  1. Well higher ISP is balanced by heavier tanks (for every 100ton of LOX you carry about 12.5t of structural 'tank' weight, but for LH2/Ox this number is much higher: 22t).

    So in the end gains aren't that high; with typical cargo you have like 10-12% gain of dV over stock chemical engines (and it's still much lower than LV-N). Plus you can't refuel those engines unlike stock ones so I wouldn't call them overpowered. Just my opinion.

    Well, I don't know but they certainly seem to be.

    My simple test of making rocket consisting from MK1 pod, tanks and an engine, and looked for a starting ASL TWR of 1.3.

    With the "swievel" got 13.5 ton craft with 3500dv ASL/4170dv VAC

    With the VL1 got 20ton craft with 4300dv ASL/4980 VAC. (Or 13.5 ton with 3800 dv ASL.)

    So in this particular case, there is 20% boost. With some creative staging superiority becomes even more noticeable.

    Problem is not so much the ISP and trust of these engines (which are rather realistic), problem is how much the isp of stock engines were slashed.

    IMO trust should be reduced little.

    Otherwise - beautiful engines.

    And hilarious naming, granted that Russians historically avoid cryogenic fuels.


  2. I do not really understand what you mean. But if any ribbon won't work: just delete it's graphics from the ribbon folder.

    What he means is - lets say you got the original 4 kerbals. Then when tourist contracts get offered (not sure about the save kerbal), when in flight, those guys appear in the kerbal list, even though they are not actually existing. They don't seem to appear in the list when you are in the KSC screen.

    Also hired tourists in your roster (accepted contracts) seem to appear in the list.

    Not exactly game-breaking, but...


  3. Contracts are marginally better than they were before, but still need a LOT of work and a way to filter out certain types of contracts.

    This leads to another major balance issue: funds are basically meaningless. You get so much from contracts that even on hard you don't have to think about them. It seems like Squad heard people complaining about the building upgrade costs, so rather than adding an extra tier to smooth out the progression they threw money at the player so they could just upgrade them.

    You know - there are difficulty sliders for this. Changing the "cash difficulty" (forget what's called), changes both contract payouts and cost of buildings. It's default position is a "joke" though.

    The big influx of cash really comes from the "record" contracts in the beginning, after that things slow down quite a lot. Kerbals cost rather a lot to hire too, and if you want to exchange cash for science, you'll toss really a lot of cash.


  4. I'll state for the third and last time, because this is just silly.

    The prevailing convention is to express EC as 1EC/Sec = 1KW.

    (Edit)

    The reason is because EC is used for TWO things in KSP... consumption, and storage (which in itself is weird without knowing voltage, etc.) hence the importance that the specific yardstick we're laying down is on the consumption side, not the storage side (which is it's own rats nest). Consumption is expressed with a time component.

    (Edit 2)

    So given this is not a thread about EC, and given nobody here is debating that 1EC/Sec = 1KW (and feel free to extrapolate from there) let us please get this back to the topics at hand.

    All due respect Rover dude, but if 1EC/sec = 1KW, then since 1KW=1KJ/sec by definition, 1EC/sec = 1KJ/sec or 1EC = 1KJ.

    So not sure what you claim is wrong, with that particular statement.

    EC is not used for consumption EC/s is. This is like saying meter is not length unit, because m/s is used to measure velocity.

    Now while this is probably not the place for this, most people do not in fact respect the 1EC/sec = 1KW. RT antennas using 1EC/sec or 1KW. Sounds problematic doesn't it.

    The stock parts are really out of whack too. For example the lamp would use 20W (sounds fine), but the basic solar panel would be 750W(which is around 10 times what you'd expect). On the other hand batteries hold ridiculously small amount of energy. An AA battery is around 5kJ, a cheap car battery around 1800kJ, apollo batteries 30MJ each.


  5. I use Karbonite. But I'm curious: why does everyone prefer a resource that isn't ever depleted? I don't want to start another realism argument; I'm just asking about gameplay. Isn't it more interesting to have to search continuously for new deposits of a resource?

    No because there isn't much searching. You scan and you know. If you want difficulty you go find Karborundum on EVE or Eloo. If you use MKS (or whatever is called now), you'd be looking for a bunch of different minerals and a spot with all of them in a 2 km radius. Setting up and assembling a MKS base anywhere other than Kerbin moons is not particularly easy task, so having to move it just distracts from other things I'd rather be doing. Their isn't any particular difficulty involved, but rather a waste of time.

    Also I don't know why should it be depleted. Oil wells produce crazy amounts of oil before they deplete, so if you think about it for a small group of individuals a single well would be practically infinite. And others would be renewable.


  6. Me neither.

    A kilogram actually makes good sense. This is what was trying to explain, that major difference between carbs and fats/proteins is that they got roughly twice as much carbon (in addition to the hydrogen which also needs external oxygen).

    I suppose all the other compounds go to waste/waste water (eg the urea ends up in your pee). There is this implied trace contaminant removal and CO2 removal working on electricity

    Most of the real LS systems actually capture water condensate. In a lot of cases it which goes directly to potable water. Lots of them split some of the extra water, releasing some oxygen. The resulting hydrogen can further be used in Sabatier process, in turn recycling CO2 and producing methane.

    So in any case the amount of water+waste water should increase. (never bothered to see if TACLS does this).


  7. I've actually been trying to do the calculations to figure out the numbers, but I think I'm hitting a roadblock. The process is C6H12O6 + 6 O2 > 6 CO2 + 6 H2O. So if my numbers are correct, you should have:

    1kg Glucose + 1.07kg Oxygen --> 1.47kg CO2 + 0.6kg H2O

    According to NASA's numbers, 0.62kg food and 0.84kg Oxygen is consumed per day per astronaut. But here's my problem. Even if you assumed that the whole 0.62kg food / day is glucose, the Oxygen needed is only ~0.66kg. So where is that other oxygen going? What happens to it?

    Actually I was "a bit" out of it, you don't lose half to two thirds of oxygen to water.

    But roughly 15-20%.

    Note that glucose already contains all it's water, so you need oxygen only for the carbon (theoretically anyway things are much more complicated). Lipids and proteins to large extent (like most organic compounds) are mostly CH2 chains, so metabolizing them takes roughly 30% extra oxygen. However, since they don't contain the oxygen, in the same weight they would contain roughly twice as much carbon and hydrogen. A kg of pure fat would require around 160% extra oxygen compared to kg of pure glucose. So there's where your oxygen goes.

    This is obviously a severe oversimplification. For example the urea cycle (removes hydrogen), the microflora metabolism (methane production) - but these are rather small part of the whole process (unless kerbals operate more like cows, which would explain frequent explosions).

    The important part is that the result of what comes out need to weigh the same of what comes in (assuming no variance in kerbal weight), or at least not gain extra (we can imagine something was lost to space)


  8. That's actually correct. The net gain in water is due to the water reclaimed from food consumed. Or are you saying that even accounting for that, water is still created?

    We have talked about this many times.

    It is normal and realistic that water is created.

    Food when metabolized, do in fact produce large amount of water and CO2. In reality you'd be losing between half and two thirds of your oxygen to water (I don't think TAC actually does this).


  9. My rocket today also started tilting at liftoff and I can't seem to fix it. I do know why it tilts, the fuel of one of the four outer engines depletes faster than its mirror counterpart. But I double checked fuel lines and put them back on one after the other and in mirror mode - nothing changes. I checked if there was engine clipping, nothing. I checked if I accidentally drained fuel or did something with a thrust limiter again nothing. And if I delete all the fuel lines it does fly straight.

    Is there some known bug where fuel lines don't work properly anymore?

    Using modular fuel tanks by any chance?


  10. If by PC, you mean a desktop PC, amarius, then no. I travel almost 100% of the time for work. A desktop PC, or a cooler to put my laptop on is not an option. Besides, my 18" Alienware laptop puts most gaming desktops to shame.

    My googlefu is strong though, and I did find several programs that can limit CPU load. The compression will take a lot longer, but at least I wont have to clean up melted silicon. I'll give one of them a shot.

    Keep the vents and "grills" clean :D It makes really big difference, believe it or not.


  11. Is there any pattern in karborundum distribution?

    It seems like anywhere on eve/eloo you have very little. After a dozen a probes I ended up hacking the scanner and the best concentration I saw was 0.005%. (with chances of actually finding that legit way probably being crazy low).

    Seems like the best way is just to get it from the sun or get huge installation to eloo


  12. Scientists do in fact boost lab efficiency as far as I saw, at least in theory.

    In any case I usually make a lander with 4 mat bays (makes it pretty stable to land), put the lab in polar orbit of Mun and take 2 in each biome then hop to the next. Once done I transfer to minmus.

    Transmissions are also good for contracts, you can actually make lots of cash that way so it does make some sense collecting them in the lab and transmitting when required.

    It also helps when getting science from far away places, rather than waiting for return window and trip.