Maxsimal

If you go to the deltaV app, you can set up various aspects of what you'll see with the dV readout & the expanded readout, including the situation. Consult the KSPedia for more information.

If that was actually the case, wouldn't we have made all of them better than base-game engines?

Cutting and pasting a table from a google sheet also works pretty well, FYI But not from excel or word.

It's worth noting that while the original point of the MH engines was to create real-world analogues, this rebalance was more about doing the minimum amount of change to put things in balance. So regardless of any real world analogue, the Wolfhound was going to remain as a high-efficiency Vac engine - just with more balanced stats. But, as people have noted - KSP doesn't have the sort of tradeoffs in fuel types for LFO engines that exist for real-world engines, nor does it have reliability concerns with different engine cycles. So trying to have a 'realistic' SPS engine - one where the efficiency was traded off for a reliability and not having them boil off - just isn't really possible, no one would use that engine when the Poodle is there.

Yeah - crash tolerances are crazy vs real world equivalents - which, let's face it, you couldn't ever set down on an engine bell and expect to use that engine for anything in the future - just check out the damage pictures of the Falcon 9's recent 'soft' water landing. So in this case it's more of 'staying true to base game tuning' rather than reality. And I don't see that changing even with bigger lander legs. There are some great mods out there though if you like realism though... (and even they allow for higher-than-real crash tolerances) MH Acapello, while looking like a Saturn V, doesn't really have a lot of the same mass ratios. I mean, first it's basically an SSTO given Kerbin's low LKO orbit requirements. So the 2nd stage becomes the trans-munar injection and Munar orbit stage... etc. While it is a concern, it is definitely the case that the Poodle should be used if you don't have a lot of fuel mass to push with your dry mass, and the Wolfhound should be used if you want a more efficient stage with a longer burn time. See! Tradeoffs! That's a good thing.

Mostly small changes. Mastodon costs went down by a factor of 3x as well. But yeah - Woflhound, Mastodon & Kodiak were the reason these changes were a priority. Glad you're happy to see the blogs back. Had some issues with formatting copying this over, there were a couple of other highlight errors - should be all fixed now, thanks! Thanks you and & @Snark for spotting them

1.6 has brought a lot of great changes, and we’re really thrilled with what the team has created for it. One of the changes that we've done, and something we felt strongly about doing, was tuning work that we felt would improve the quality bar of the game. Craft Improvements First, we've gone through all the stock craft, including VAB, SPH, and Making History craft, delivered for the game, with an eye toward updating them for the new parts that have been released in 1.6, and also improving the fly-ability of many of our craft. At one point, the idea was to have some of these stock craft have flaws for the player to correct. This did not have broad awareness in the community, so we've improved the flight behavior of quite a few of our craft - including using features like auto-strutting that weren't around when they were first added to the game. In particular, all of our space planes - the Learstar, the Dynawing, and the Slim Shuttle - have been fine tuned to improve their control behavior. They're still challenging to fly, of course, but you don't have to fight their controls quite so much. We've also strutted and improved the fly-ability to craft like the Albatross, Muna 1 & 2, the Acapello and several others. We encourage you to check the 1.6 change log for the full list. Making History Engine Rebalancing The other major change was adjustment to the tuning of a number of Making History parts - especially the engines. The engine changes in particular may be more controversial, and we'd like to explain the rationale behind them. The overall goal here is to put all the Making History engines in line with base game tuning. To let them have their own niche, and to neither obsolete nor be obsoleted by other engines. And generally, engines that are either bigger, or more specialized, will be unlocked deeper in the tech tree. Finally, we’re trying to make as few changes as needed, so that they won't drastically change the purpose of an engine. NOTE: For all stats in tables - a green background indicates an improvement over the current version, a red background means it was worsened. Small ASL Engine Tuning First, let's look at the smaller ASL engines. There are three Making History engines in this size category - the Skiff, the Bobcat and the Kodiak. Here are the relevant stats vs similar base game engines: Engine Comparison Thrust (Vac) ISP Vac ISP ASL Mass Vac TWR ASL TWR Cost/kN Thrust Tech Level Gimbal EC/s Crash Tolerance Cost Entry Cost Reliant 240 310 265 1.25 19.57 16.73 4.58 General Rocketry (3) 0 7 7 1100 3200 Swivel 215 320 250 1.5 14.61 11.41 5.58 Basic Rocketry (2) 3 6 7 1200 3500 Thud 120 305 275 0.9 13.59 12.25 6.83 Advanced Rocketry (4) 8 0 7 820 3500 Vector 1000 315 295 4 25.48 23.87 18 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 10.5 3 7 18000 115000 Current Kodiak 240 305 265 1.25 19.57 17.01 5.42 Heavier Rocketry (6) 0 3 6 1300 4200 New Kodiak 260 300 285 1.25 21.2 20.14 4.23 Heavier Rocketry (6) 0 5 9 1100 4400 Current Skiff 300 330 265 1 30.58 24.56 5 Heavier Rocketry (6) 2 3 6 1500 4500 New Skiff 300 330 265 1.6 19.11 15.35 7.67 Heavier Rocketry (6) 2 3 7 2300 9200 Current Bobcat 400 310 290 2 20.39 19.07 5 Heavier Rocketry (6) 5 3 6 2000 6000 New Bobcat 400 310 290 2 20.39 19.07 5 Heavy Rocketry (5) 5 8 12 2000 800 Kodiak: Overall, the Kodiak need the most adjustment - it’s just entirely matched or outclassed by the Reliant, which appears earlier in the tech tree as well. Therefore, and in keeping with its real world equivalent then RD-107, the Kodiak's stats were adjusted to give it a much better ASL ISP, a lower cost per kN of thrust, and a better durability. This gives it a niche as a 1.25m liquid fueled booster, leaving the Reliant as the more general purpose no-gimbal engine. The extra specialization helps to keep it at Heavier Rocketry, however, to match its historical partner, the Cub. Skiff: The Skiff's tuning is closer to ideal , but it turned out to be *too* good in too many categories categories - more efficient, better TWR, and lower cost/kN than other engines. It occurs later in the tech tree, so we've chosen to keep its high efficiency at the cost TWR and cost. Now it’s a great sustainer-category engine - its ASL ISP and cost won't justify its use as a main engine anymore, but it’s fantastic as the center stage with some SRBs or Kodiak-powered boosters. Bobcat: The bobcat had tuning most in line with the stock, so few changes were made. It got sturdier, and it moved earlier in the tech tree to give another ASL option in Heavy Rocketry, as we felt the end of the tech tree was getting crowded. Large ASL Engine Tuning Then let’s look at bigger ASL engines: In this category we have the Mastodon. Note: The stats for the Twin Boar reflect what they would be without the built-in tank. Engine Comparison Thrust (Vac) ISP Vac ISP ASL Mass Vac TWR ASL TWR Cost Cost/kN Thrust Tech Level Gimbal EC/s Crash Tolerance Entry Cost Vector 1000 315 295 4 25.48 23.87 18000 18 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 10.5 3 7 115000 Mammoth 4000 315 295 15 27.18 25.46 39000 9.75 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 2 12 20 115000 Twin Boar 2000 300 280 6.5 31.37 29.27 11250 5.63 Heavier Rocketry (6) 1.5 0 20 65000 Mainsail 1500 310 285 6 25.48 23.43 13000 8.67 Heavier Rocketry (6) 1.5 12 7 38000 Skipper 650 320 280 3 22.09 19.33 5300 8.15 Heavy Rocketry (5) 2 10 7 14000 Current Mastodon 1350 290 280 5 27.52 26.57 22000 16.3 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 5 3 6 135000 New Mastodon 1350 305 290 5 27.52 26.17 8000 5.93 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 5 8 15 32000 Mastodon: The current Mastodon has no niche, being outclassed in all categories by other large engines, and being really expensive to boot. The new Mastodon therefore become both more efficient and significantly cheaper. Now it is an ASL workhorse that doesn't perform QUITE as well in Vacuum as engines like the Vector and Mainsail, but it’s more flexible and a little more efficient than the Twin Boar, without quite matching the Twin Boar's amazing TWR and cost. Vacuum Engine Tuning Next we've got the vacuum engines: In this category we've got our most controversial engine, the Wolfhound, as well as the Cheetah. Note: For this chart, ISP ASL is not listed - with good reason. It just doesn't matter for engines that are almost exclusively used in a vacuum, it's not a significant balance criteria. Engine Comparison Thrust (Vac) ISP Vac Mass Vac TWR Cost Cost/kN Thrust Tech Level Gimbal EC/s Crash Tolerance Entry Cost Terrier 60 345 0.5 12.23 390 6.5 Advanced Rocketry (4) 4 0 7 1600 Poodle 250 350 1.75 14.56 1300 5.2 Heavy Rocketry (5) 4.5 8 7 4200 Rhino 2000 340 9 22.65 25000 12.5 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 4 12 7 68000 Current Wolfhound 375 412 2.5 15.29 1680 4.48 Heavy Rocketry (5) 3 8 6 6200 New Wolfhound 375 380 3.3 11.58 3000 8 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 3 8 6 12000 Current Cheetah 125 345 1 12.74 1000 8 Heavier Rocketry (6) 3 3 6 3000 New Cheetah 125 355 1 12.74 850 6.8 Heavier Rocketry (6) 4 5 7 3400 Wolfhound: The Wolfhound is amazing in every category that matters - an ISP that's 20% higher than any other LFO engine, great TWR, unlocks relatively early, and is the cheapest cost/kn for an LFO engine. Sorry rocketeers - the Wolfhound needed adjustment to have some valid trade-offs vs other vacuum engines. It's still an amazingly efficient LFO engine, without having the sort of abysmal thrust & cost of a NERV, but now it doesn't completely overshadow every other LFO vacuum engine. As a more specialized, high efficiency engine, its moved back in the tech tree with the other Making History Apollo-class parts as well. Cheetah: The cheetah, conversely, is too expensive and heavy to justify its relatively low TWR, low-end ISP and high cost, so several improvements were made to help it stand out. Now it’s a bit like a smaller Wolfhound. Small & Maneuver Engine Tuning Finally we've got the small engines - for Making History, this is the Cub. Engine Comparison Thrust (Vac) ISP Vac ISP ASL Mass Vac TWR ASL TWR Cost Cost/kN Thrust Tech Level Gimbal EC/s Crash Tolerance Entry Cost Ant 2 315 80 0.02 10.19 2.59 110 55 Propulsion Systems (5) 0 0 7 1500 Spider 2 290 260 0.02 10.19 9.14 120 60 Precision Propulsion (6) 10 0 7 1750 Twitch 16 290 250 0.09 18.12 15.62 400 25 Precision Propulsion (6) 8 0 7 1600 Puff 20 250 120 0.09 22.65 10.87 150 7.5 Precision Propulsion (6) 6 0 7 2500 Spark 20 320 270 0.1 20.39 17.2 240 12 Propulsion Systems (5) 3 0 7 2800 Current Cub 40 320 270 0.18 22.65 19.11 1000 25 Heavier Rocketry (6) 22.5 0 6 3000 New Cub 32 310 280 0.18 18.12 16.37 800 25 Precision Propulsion (6) 22.5 0 7 3200 Cub: The Cub, relative to other maneuver engines, is too good in too many areas. Its ISP as good or better than all others, great TWR, fantastic (though only 1-axis) gimbal range and it is surface attachable, something most engines pay a penalty. Therefore, it got a bit of an thrust and efficiency nerf - it actually generated far too much thrust relative to its companion, the Kodiak, which helps make its TWR more reasonable as well. Finally, it moved to the appropriate tech node for maneuvering engines. Other Making History Tweaks We've also made the engine plates fall into tech nodes appropriate for their size, rather all in the same node. Anyway, I hope you'll appreciate these changes - we'll be watching community reaction to see how they go over! We encourage you to comment on these changes.

No, it's still coming, not sure of the exact time frame. It will be posted with the other devblogs.

I think @TriggerAu can tackle that one.

There's a dev blog coming up shortly that has all the relevant stats, I believe it'll be posted pretty soon, just needs to be vetted by the comms team.

I'm enjoying the discussion here. We've chosen to go with unlocking the dV information right from the start in all modes. I tend to agree that the tools should be available for players to learn with, as this is a sandbox game. Also, the total dV display twitchiness was recorded with beta code, and has been fixed for the upcoming release by the almighty @JPLRepo. Should be smooth as butter. Or your preferred lactose-free non-dairy substitute.

It'll show up in flight as well.

@nightingale Gotcha - ok, yes I understand the terrible edge cases - was not going to even try this for anything you'd have to construct a station for. Thanks

@nightingale Question for you. I have an idea for improving how some of the grindier side of Realism Progression Contracts work, but to do it i'd need access to the original cost of a vehicle, when it was launched - not the cost of the remaining bits when it finally satisfies the contract. Is there any way to do this with CC, or is it reasonable to add this through an extension? I know you could write a parameter for 'justlaunched', testing vessel state, and you could have a behaviour that runs off that parameter to grab the parts list for which there's a cost field - but I don't know that you could sum the costs in any fashion - and the behaviour could only write to the data store, which there's nothing per-vessel. What I'd be trying to create is a contract that, once satisfied, starts trigger a repeated no-requirements contract that would give the player X amount of funds each month, for which X is some value - the cost of the vehicle the used to originally satisfy it. IE 'no more grinding this repeatable, just assume the player is redoing them each month with his original LV'. And then give another contract to redo-the contract if they want to try again with a cheaper vehicle.

Thank you! - I guess I didn't google the right repository