Parts which should get their Part file modified

[Warzouz]

Reading some discussions, many KSC players know there are parts that aren't "interesting" because they are flowed.

• Mk1-2 Command Pod is way too heavy
• Mk2 Lander-can is too heavy
• ISRU may be too light
• PPD-12 Cupola Module is too heavy
• RC-L01 Remote Guidance Unit is too heavy
• Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 could hold some fuel
• EAS-4 Strut Connector is too heavy and too draggy (usually used to parry joints weakness)
• Cubic Octagonal Strut is way too light (seriously 1kg ?)
• Octagonal Strut is way too light
• Modular Girder Segment too heavy (175 kg ?)
• Rockomax HubMax Multi-Point Connector too heavy (you can do nicer and much lighter with Structural fuselage
• Structural Fuselage probably to light
• Shock Cone Intake not draggy enough (seriously less draggy than nose cones ?)
• Structural Intake could be less draggy or more efficient so they can me used... they look cool
• Nose cones : could be lighter and more heat resistant.
• Basic Fin could be have a reasonable max heat temp. Or we could get some usable small fins
• A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S set 2000K to max temp back. Why this par is LESS resistant than wings... It should be MORE resistant, they are designed to create air resistance.
• Pegasus I Mobility Enhancer way too heavy (you need plenty of them).
• Inline Clamp-O-Tron could have some RCS reserves
• Atmospheric Fluid Spectro-Variometer size doesn't match weight, should be heavier or smaller in size.
• M4435 Narrow-Band Scanner could be lighter and physicless
• Surface Scanning Module could be hevier or smaller and physicless
• Antenna : could be physicless to avoid adding 2
• Illuminator Mk1 and MK2 : could be lighter, they only look nice...
• Hydraulic Detachment Manifold should be lighter. Difference with other decouplers is too high
• TR-38-D is still physicless, it shouldn't be
• SC-9001 Science Jr should have it's interaction range increased
• Mystery Goo™ Containment Unit should have it's interaction range increased

Insights, others ?

Edited January 16, 2016 by Warzouz

[Racescort666]

Maybe I'm just doing it wrong but since you brought up the strut, I can seem to build a large Spaceplane to save my life without having to put struts everywhere to keep it from being too wobbly to fly.

Then, if I put a bunch of struts on it, there is too much drag on it to be a useful spaceplane.

[Frozen_Heart]

I agree with most of these except the physicsless parts. Those open up opportunities for creating building as we don't have hinges and bearings.

[Warzouz]

27 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I agree with most of these except the physicsless parts. Those open up opportunities for creating building as we don't have hinges and bearings.

Physicless parts aren't as in beta anymore. They only add their parts to their parent. The advantage is you don't have to balance them. It's very useful for small parts (science, ladders, antenna...)

[Kerbart]

@Warzouz “liking” your post because you took the effort to link each part name to the KSPedia. A lot of work but it makes it so much easier to figure out what you’re talking about (a lot of posters don't seem to want to go the extra mile of making it easier for their readers...). Thank you!

On the subject; things have gotten better but I agree, there are a lot of idiosyncrasies. Personally I like to see the lander cans have a lot less heat resistance. The description clearly states that they cannot survive re-entry and they shouldn't do so as such. Or perhaps only make the Mk I vulnerable and change the description of the Mk II; it would explain why the “2” is more than twice as heavy as the “1”.

[Warzouz]

Hydraulic Detachment Manifold should be lighter. Difference with other decouplers is too high

I'm not sure about TR-38-D . It used to be physicless. If it still is, it shouldn't. As I understand physicless for small radial parts, I don't understand it for stackable parts.

[SilverWolf]

Personally, I find all of the command pods to be center of gravity disasters, especially the Mk. 1 Cockpit, which is only half as dense as a full Mk. 1 fuel tank, yet three times as dense as any scientific equipment you choose to place behind it.  It's also more dense than any wing you can put behind it.  Wings are built like tanks; they have spars, ribs, and stringers (unless we start talking about monocoque or semi-coque carbon-fiber construction,) all supporting the shape of the skin.  Cockpits on aircraft, like the rest of the fuselage, are paper plates for a reason:  they need to be light.  They're not impregnable fortresses that can tolerate a service truck, much less a ground impact.  I don't think the reaction wheel justification holds water, either.  If reaction wheels are needed, that's what the SAS modules are for.  The Mk. 1 pretty much looks like a Lear cockpit.  The 35 empty only weighs about 4.1t.  This cockpit tries to account for more than a quarter of that. 

Squad continues to push this game in a direction that makes it more of a poor simulation screaming for a total physics and dynamics overhaul louder with each update.  And with the direction they're taking, there are inconsistencies with their methodology...

By comparison, the heaviest Mercury capsule was loaded to 1400 kg.  The Mk 1 Capsule is rated at 840 kg.  Deviation -40%

The Apollo/Saturn V command module was roughly 4,990kg, and that mass includes the reaction wheels, docking port, and the heat shield.  Total KSP value:  5.47 t.  +9.6%

The Apollo lander module (ascent stage) had a dry mass of approximately 2150 kg, but keep in mind that included the ascent engine, dry fuel tanks, and docking port.  Squad's Mk 2 lander can?  2.66t (just the can.) 3.66t w/ fuel tank and terrier.  +70%

The Cupola module currently mounted on the ISS:  1805 kg.  Squad's Cupola:  1.8t.  Rock on.

LOX has a density of 1.141 g/cm³ on earth, compared to Squad's .005 what? kg/L? So, 5g/cm³.  +338%.

H₂ has a density of 0.07085 g/cm³ on earth, compared to Squad's 5 g/cm³.  +6957%

N₂H₄ (Hydrazine, the most commonly used mono propellant,) is 1.021 g/cm³.  Squads?  4 g/cm³.  +292%.

Also, if the shuttle's external tank is any clue, it seems the burn ratio for H2/O2 is closer to 106261kg/629340kg (or 0.17:1) than it is 0.9/1.1. 

Isps are off on the engines they are derived from...

Now here's the real issue:  Kerbin is about 10.607 times more dense than Earth, which predetermines the aforementioned values.  Yet, gravity remains unchanged.  Circumnavigating this fact certainly requires some finagling. However, even assuming that if 1 cubic centimeter of water on earth is 1 gram, the same cubic centimeter of water on Kerbin should be 10.607 grams, the densities above are still off par.  LOX on Kerbin should be 12.103 g/cm³, Liquid Hydrogen 0.752 g/cm³, and Hydrazine 10.830 g/cm³.  Furthermore, the dry mass of all the parts would then be all knuckered up.  Whichever road you take, we come back to an issue with consistency.  If we want to assume all aluminum is ten times as dense on Kerbin, then we have to increase (and unify) the mass on all the parts and ramp up engine output.  If we want to stick with earth values, then we still need to be consistent with what's available (and experimental) on earth.  Can't cherry pick, and can't go making stuff up.

As far as actually figuring out what all the parts weigh dry, that's something that should have been done during the modelling process by cross-evaluating surface area and volume with density of material to be used (aluminum, titanium, iron, steel, etc.)  Now we're stuck to guestimating what a wing weighs.

TLDR:  Everything needs a complete rework.

All this just because I wanted to come in and talk about the cockpits being too heavy...

[Warzouz]

Module Manager makes changing parts data quite easy to change. Do you know a mod that already do that ? Do you want I try to do a mini mod ?

[sjwt]

5 hours ago, Verran said:

TLDR:  Everything needs a complete rework.

All this just because I wanted to come in and talk about the cockpits being too heavy...

Don't forget KSP is a game first.. it is not a Earth based space race simulator, there are plenty of programs that cover that. 

[Padishar]

21 hours ago, Warzouz said:

Hydraulic Detachment Manifold should be lighter. Difference with other decouplers is too high

I'm not sure about TR-38-D . It used to be physicless. If it still is, it shouldn't. As I understand physicless for small radial parts, I don't understand it for stackable parts.

There is a quirk of the physics implementation in Unity that causes joints between rigid bodies that are very different in mass to be much more wobbly than they should.  Try building a big rocket with this decoupler between one of the largest tanks and a KR2-L and then testing it both with and without the flag on the decoupler.

[Warzouz]

Some more

• SC-9001 Science Jr should have it's interaction range increased
• Mystery Goo™ Containment Unit should have it's interaction range increased

 

 

[Warzouz]

10 hours ago, Verran said:

...

TLDR:  Everything needs a complete rework.

All this just because I wanted to come in and talk about the cockpits being too heavy...

OK, I get it. But I'm not about realism or simulation. I'm only try to fix discrepancies that push us not to use specific parts instead of others. For example, maybe the basic pod is too light, but the 3 crew pod is way too heavy compared to the 1 crew pod. It's much better to stack 3 one man pod than using a 3 crew pod...

I must say I don't use the 2 crew landing can, because it's not worth the overweight.

Why science equipment are 5kg and lights are 15kg ? Why struts are 50kg (and we need them manage over-weak joints), as cubic octagonal struts are 1kg ?. I know "it's not a bug, it's a feature...". Why the material Lab has the same interaction range than the small science parts so you have to stick to the part to activate it (because the range is probably from the center of the part, not from the skin...)

It's not inconsistencies with reality (well it's a game) but inconsistencies within parts.

[Kerbart]

10 hours ago, Verran said:

Now here's the real issue:  Kerbin is about 10.607 times more dense than Earth, which predetermines the aforementioned values.  Yet, gravity remains unchanged.  Circumnavigating this fact certainly requires some finagling. However, even assuming that if 1 cubic centimeter of water on earth is 1 gram, the same cubic centimeter of water on Kerbin should be 10.607 grams, the densities above are still off par.  LOX on Kerbin should be 12.103 g/cm³, Liquid Hydrogen 0.752 g/cm³, and Hydrazine 10.830 g/cm³.  Furthermore, the dry mass of all the parts would then be all knuckered up.  Whichever road you take, we come back to an issue with consistency.

Without challenging the inconsistencies, they are there and they are annoying... Just because Kerbin is on average about 10× as dense as Earth doesn't mean all materials are 10× as dense. Perhaps Kerbin has a neutronium core, or something else ridiculously heavy, and the mantle, crust and surface are made from similar material as Earth. I'm sure the fine folks here will shoot hundreds of scientific holes in that, but the point is that materials don't have to be 10× as dense.

Now, to reiterate; that doesn't explain or fix the inconsistency...

[Alshain]

On 1/15/2016 at 4:42 AM, Warzouz said:

• Atmospheric Fluid Spectro-Variometer size doesn't match weight, should be heavier or smaller in size.

Insights, others ?

It should be a little of both.  Size and mass should roughly be the same as the Mystery Goo.  For one, it simply makes more sense, and second it allows you to use one to balance the other.  Currently there is no science equipment of adequate mass to easily balance a Mystery Goo unit, except another Mystery Goo unit.

[TheFrizz]

Wow I pretty much agree with most of these things.

Especially having the size adapters contain fuel. They are just so heavy. And really, it seems like just skipping them and having ugly rockets has no real downside. I think the only risk is in killing creativity and cleverness working around issues. Basically if the adapters are balanced to the point where they are a no-brainer then every rocket design includes them by default and it might reduce design diversity in the game. Maybe putting the adapters later down the tech tree, so that in the mid-game players have to get creative, but by the end game where larger, more complex missions are already providing enough interest, the player doesn't have to struggle with dumb choices like including adapter weight or not.

Alternatively, maybe the aerodynamics of the adapters are worthwhile. But after playing hundreds of hours of the game, this hasn't been apparent to me. So maybe the game can do something to make drag forces more measurable so that players can see the value of adapters even though they seem an awful lot like dead weight.

I am not so sure about making more things physicless. I think having to balance weight etc and needing gimbaling engines and SAS is kind of a good added challenge.

Edited January 16, 2016 by TheFrizz

[Warzouz]

I made a Module Manager script which contains that

	Weight		Temp		Physic
Part	Stock	New	Stock	New	Stock	New	Other
Mk1-2 Command Pod is way too heavy	4000	2000
Mk2 Lander-can is too heavy	2500	1200
PPD-12 Cupola Module is too heavy	1760	1000
RC-L01 Remote Guidance Unit is too heavy	500	200
Convert-O-Tron 250	4250	6000
Convert-O-Tron 125	1250	2000
EAS-4 Strut Connector is too heavy and too draggy	50	5
Cubic Octagonal Strut is way too light (seriously 1kg ?)	1	10
Octagonal Strut is way too light	1	10
Modular Girder Segment	125	50
Modular Girder Adapter	250	50
Modular Girder Segment XL	375	100
M-Beam 650 I-Beam	80	50
M-Beam 200 I-Beam	375	100
M-Beam 200 I-Beam Pocket Edition	187,5	50
Rockomax HubMax Multi-Point Connector too heavy	1500	500
Structural Fuselage probably to light	100	200
Advanced Nose Cone - Type A	75	50	2000	2400
Advanced Nose Cone - Type B	75	50	2000	2400
Tail Connector A	200	125	2200	2400
Tail Connector B	200	125	2200	2400
Basic Fin could be have a reasonable max heat temp			934	2000			Cost 25→150
A.I.R.B.R.A.K.E.S, It should be MORE resistant, they are designed to create air resistance.	50	100	1200	2000
Pegasus I Mobility Enhancer way too heavy (you need plenty of them).	5	1
Advanced Grabbing Unit	75	150
Communotron 16					0	1
Comms DTS-M1					0	1
Communotron 88-88	25	50			0	1	Energy -25 %
Illuminator Mk1 : could be lighter, they only look nice...	15	5
Illuminator Mk2	15	5
Hydraulic Detachment Manifold should be lighter.	400	100
SC-9001 Science Jr should have it's interaction range increased							Range 1 → 3
Mystery Goo™ Containment Unit should have it's interaction range increased					0	1	Range 1 → 3
Double-C Seismic Accelerometer	5	10
PresMat Barometer	5	10
GRAVMAX Negative Gravioli Detector	5	10
2HOT Thermometer	5	10
Atmospheric Fluid Spectro-Variometer size doesn't match weight, should be heavier or smaller in size.	5	50
M4435 Narrow-Band Scanner could be lighter and physicless	100	50			0	1
Surface Scanning Module could be hevier or smaller and physicless	5	50			0	1
Fuel Cell					0	1
PB-NUK Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator					0	1
Inline Clamp-O-Tron could have some RCS reserves	300	250					RCS +50

What do you thing about it ?

I still have to manage drag on few parts (Strut and ladder)

 

37 minutes ago, Alshain said:

It should be a little of both.  Size and mass should roughly be the same as the Mystery Goo.  For one, it simply makes more sense, and second it allows you to use one to balance the other.  Currently there is no science equipment of adequate mass to easily balance a Mystery Goo unit, except another Mystery Goo unit.

Mystery goo can be balanced with a small fuel cell, but there is not much more...

Edited January 16, 2016 by Warzouz

[Alshain]

2 minutes ago, Warzouz said:

Mystery goo can be balanced with a small fuel cell, but there is not much more...

True I guess, but that seems like trading one useless part for another.  In either case you have to add dead weight to balance it.

[Warzouz]

As you suggest that the atmo analysis, the surface scanner, the mystery goo and the narrow band scanner are grossly the same size. As I set them to 50kg each, I could remove the physicless options, so there would be more option to balance a ship.

With that set, science packages weight has more than doubled.

Here is the Module Manager file

 

 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Warzouz

[Hotaru]

I agree with pretty much all the changes, will definitely give the modified config a try and really hope somebody from Squad notices this thread.

To my mind the problem with the RC-L01 (the size 2 probe core) is that it's always inferior to a QBE probe core and a size 2 reaction wheel. The combination is cheaper, lighter, and has more torque. With a couple batteries added it has more electricity storage too. In fact in my 1.0.2 install I actually edited the size 2 reaction wheel to basically add the cost, mass, and functionality of a QBE, and now use that part as a size 2 probe core in place of the actual size 2 probe core.

Considering the RC-L01 is a more expensive late-game technology, I think it should be balanced to be slightly better than the simpler, cheaper advanced wheel/QBE combination. As it stands now it's considerably worse.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Hotaru

[Snark]

I agree with most of the parts suggestions-- great stuff!  Especially the mass on the Mk1-2 command pod and the Mk2 lander can; those are just crazy stupid out of whack.

If you're tweaking ModuleManager config, it's also worth making the Spectro-Variometer a bit smaller, so it's not only the same mass as a goo unit, but also about the same size.  This is easy to do in MM with a scale factor adjustment.

I kinda like the low temperature tolerance and dirt-cheap price on the Basic Fin (since it's available from the very start of the game), though I think there's room for an intermediate fin that's more heat-resistant, more expensive, and bigger than a Basic Fin, but a lot smaller/cheaper than the AV-T1 Winglet.

Also (and I may be in the minority opinion here), I'd leave the airbrakes' tolerance at the lower 1200 degrees; to me, that's a feature, not a bug.  IMHO, this was an incredibly overpowered part that desperately needed nerfing, and they desperately nerfed it, and it's much better now.  This is supposed to be a part that helps airplanes land, not a tool for orbital re-entry.  If it made sense for that, NASA would be using it.  (Regarding the comment that "it should be more heat-resistant than wings because it makes more drag"-- well, yes, it does, but it's also not a part that IRL is intended for use when you're going Mach 3-- which wings are.)  I like airbrakes for landing planes, I like them for slowing craft down to safe parachute speeds-- they fill a gap in the 500 m/s to 1200 m/s range.  But I don't think they belong at higher speeds than that, and keeping their heat tolerance at 1200 is a great way to achieve that.

But by all means, buff them up if you like 'em that way. 

[Warzouz]

For the bsic fins, I agree that it's a very cheap part, but I needed several times small wings which are heat resistant (especially on a second stage on Eve ascent vehicles. Bigger fins made the first stage very unstable. AV-T1 Winglet are too big for anything else than first stage.

As for airbrakes, I agree that they should be for planes. But most plane parts are 2000m/s resistant (except liner ones). I'm not looking at realism here, but I wouldn't want to make devices that doesn't exists (mostly-)IRL . On the other hand, we all use SSTO (planes or rocket...)

[Snark]

7 minutes ago, Warzouz said:

For the bsic fins, I agree that it's a very cheap part, but I needed several times small wings which are heat resistant (especially on a second stage on Eve ascent vehicles. Bigger fins made the first stage very unstable. AV-T1 Winglet are too big for anything else than first stage.

Yeah, there really needs to be an intermediate part.  I'd like to see a fin that has lift = 0.2, cost = 200, temp tolerance = 2000.

As for Basic Fin, part of the problem is that it has a super low temperature tolerance, which seems odd.  I'd be fine with raising it to, say, 1200 degrees.

7 minutes ago, Warzouz said:

But most plane parts are 2000m/s resistant (except liner ones). I'm not looking at realism here, but I wouldn't want to make devices that doesn't exists (mostly-)IRL .

I'd be fine with upping the airbrakes' tolerance to 2000 degrees, if accompanied by a code change so that they very rapidly overheat and explode if you deploy them while traveling at orbital speeds (i.e. significantly over 1200 m/s or so).  It seems perfectly reasonable to have them not burn up as long as they're safely stowed.  As long as they're designed so that they're not a tool for reentry.

7 minutes ago, Warzouz said:

On the other hand, we all use SSTO (planes or rocket...)

Except that we don't.  Some of us do, sure, but not all.  I don't.  I never have, probably never will.  Why would I want to build an SSTO when a multi-stage rocket is cheap, effective, and more fun?   

Edited January 16, 2016 by Snark

[Yakuzi]

Great list, I also agree with most suggestions.

 

One other thing that should be added is a change in drag value when air intakes switch between open/closed mode. If this won't be changed, remove the "close intake" option (though that would not be my reference).

[Warzouz]

OK, I take you comments into considerations and reorganized the script

I posted the result in the Mod section

[bewing]

IRL, drogue chutes are supposed to fully deploy before your main chutes even think about partially deploying. In KSP, you really want your mains to partially deploy around 8000 meters or so, so that you are above the tallest mountains (at a pressure of .2 to .25 or so). So the full deployment altitude of all the drogues should be like 10000 meters. But the absolute max you can set in the tweakables is 5000 meters. So I'd like to see the altitude tweakable of the drogue chutes changed to slide between 5000 to 15000 meters, I think.