• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

75 Excellent

1 Follower

About AbhChallenger

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry to make a third post in a row but I wanted to see what you have done with classic stock so far and when I configured one of the Titan tanks to use Proplox. It seems you have already made it Hydrolox like when it comes to ratio and density. https://imgur.com/KGbzKQw vs https://imgur.com/lddaKYG If this was intended. Then the ISP values you had before seem more balanced. (Its just the thrust that is less balanced) However, If you are willing to edit the density and ratio (If that does not break other things that use classic stock) of Proplox and the tanks and rockets that use it. I think that middle ground between stock and cyrogenics can be achieved. And it is a way to do away with boiloff and still keep balance. So maybe 5-6 tons or so after the rebalance? (That 6 ton tank combined with proplox at 402 ISP is going to be amazing even with the lower thrust) After that is done you can again find a halfway point and use that for Raptalox. I would guess that perhaps the end result would be around 7.5 tons for that tank? You will want it to be a bit less dense than LiquidFuel but the challenge to come from the tech level requirements and perhaps fuel/engine costs. Again all of this is just what I think balance should be. There have been plenty of times when I have use cryogenic engines and thought as I have to stack tank after tank to make an all hydrolox lifter "It would be nice to have a midway propellant between this and LiquidFuel"
  2. Thinking about the Fulcrum. I think it should not get proplox at all. Yes there are multiple first stage engines in real life that use hydrolox. Yet generally they fall into two categories. Very low thrust and meant to use as a sustainer engine (That does not work well in KSP stock scale where launch times are typically well under 5 minutes) Or they have good thrust but are very very expensive. I know KSP is not supposed to be compared with real life engines but it makes it difficult to balance an engine like this when the entire point of the engine is to be very powerful. Raptium makes far more for an interesting alternative fuel here.
  3. So far the thrust and ISP levels look way too high. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10 This is a good example of hydrolox when used for its maximum ISP at the expense of thrust. And it tops out at 465 isp. I think cryogenic engines has one with similar ISP but of course it is difficult to use because of the lower thrust. Perhaps 402 or so? Thrust reduced to 80 for Proplox and 110 for Raptalox (ISP for that should be slightly reduced. But more balance can be achieved via a high cost of the fuel and tech tree requirements) I don't know how to calculate the correct density here. Look at the difference between stock tanks and those configured for cyrogenic and cut that in half? You will want players to need to possibly add another small tank or two. But not have to build rather large rockets to take advantage of the benefits of proplox.
  4. I don't think that is enough of a tradeoff considering how simple it is to make rockets in stock scales. There would be absolutely no reason to use anything but Proplox (Or Raptium if the goal is to make fuel elsewhere) as it would be simple to defeat the lower ASL thrust with boosters. I think a better balance is for Proplox to be balanced to be a halfway point between stock LFO and Cryogenic engines hydrogen. That should make the math to balance it easier. You will want players to still use LFO for the second stages for really heavy payloads into low orbit. But explore the benefits of proplox for payloads going to the Mun and beyond.
  5. First of all. This is awesome! Having a choice in propellant will lead to interesting new design choices and less reliance on building monster rockets to achieve high delta-v. A question of balance however. Will PropLox be balanced to be lower thrust and lower density like Cryogenic engines? Raptium can be balanced via cost but hydrogen without the negatives of density and lower thrust it will possibly end up overpowered.
  6. That is really really saddening to hear. The insane prices for RAM right now are preventing people from buying more. Thus it continues to limit the amount of mods they can install. However, thank you for ending speculation about it. Better to know now rather than get hyped up for a feature that does not exist.
  7. I have seen the Unity changelogs. What we don't know is how much of those changes are actually being implemented and how they will affect things. For instance wasn't there a change to the way assets are loaded? Could this mean mods can be loaded as needed rather than all being loaded at startup? For those of us stuck on 8 gigs of RAM due to the insane prices right now this is very important. What about Vulkan? newer versions of Unity support it. Will KSP take advantage of the benefits of CPU use?
  8. All we ever hear about 1.4 is that it is being worked on or some parts. I understand the team is excited about the expansion but when are we going to get details about what the change to the newer Unity means for mod development? Will it enable lower RAM use? What about he new particle system? Can we PLEASE have a blog centered around 1.4?
  9. Personally I find the potential of this tool to be awesome! I had been waiting for RSS and RO to update to the latest KSP versions but this makes we want to just scale Galileo up and use SMURFF. Most autopilots for KSP can take inclination into account but struggles with LAN and especially upper stages with far less TWR. I want to be able to do 14 minute Centaur style burns to LEO so I cant wait to try this. If you are taking requests about missions you can use this for. I would like to see the Soviet N1 launcher use this. A lunar mission if possible but even just using it to add something to your station would be fun to watch. Or perhaps one of the classic Atlas rockets that used SRBs and the 1.5 staging. It would be fun to see this adapting to those odd launchers. Like you showed in your last video with the Atlas V.
  10. I have been considering trying a Realism Overhaul KSP install (Just my opinion. That REALLY ought to be made into a single install package so that the challenge is the realism of the mod instead of needing youtube videos just to get it running) Yet this seems like a massive difficulty spike for those used to stock career mechanics. Will the default difficulty settings be forgiving for those not yet used to these mechanics?
  11. Just want to say that I can't wait for the next update. Going to be using ProbesPlus to do more unmanned exploration so I can actually visit and explore these planets instead of trying to cobble together a manned mission before I reach the right tech level.
  12. I don't mind if I have to use other mods to build additional relays. I just hope that it feels realistic. For instance the moons are much further out than the Mun so I hope I will still be able to communicate with the probes without having to use a relay satellite. That is a good idea regarding science gain. I will set it to 50 percent. I have decided to also use USI life support and community tech tree to add some challenge to this save. I don't mind the reduced science gain if your mod creates interesting scientific contracts instead of the boring stock crap.
  13. Sorry if this has been asked before. On my next career save I want to use SSTU for the rockets, Galileo's Planet Pack for the solar system, and hopefully this mod for unmanned science. Will this be a balanced mix of mods? Will the increased distances of that solar system mess with the communication parts?
  14. I am planning on starting a new career save with SSTU and Galileo's Planet Pack. Does stage and a half make rockets at stock like scale too OP? If not could you consider making an Atlas Centaur version? What I want to try to do less in this save is making a rocket for every mission.
  15. I really hope they are not that stupid. The modders that have joined the team would have informed them of what a horrible idea that is. That would absolutely destroy the modding community for just a few extra sales of the expansion. NOT worth it. However, as far as expansions in general. We can't delude ourselves into thinking that KSP can be developed forever without them. KSP is not THAT popular. And even if it was most people who have heard about it likely already own it. There are things in the core code that modders simply can't change. So once development stops those issues will be around forever. Or even worse another company could purchase the IP and decide to go full on paid mod like Train Simulator. I hope you will be understanding of them as long as they do not start acting like EA. Especially if this gets them back on the path towards multiplayer.