Launcher Specification Mods Idea

[PrathamK]

Hi, I'm playing KSP for 2 months and have Some Experience, But to Some cause, I needed to re-start my Game and Now I'm in Early-Mid Carrer. As in this Phase Many, Build subassemblies for Fast and Effective Missions. Most subassemblies are Launcher.

I want to Request our Modders to Create a Mod that creates a Report for a Launcher about its Specification. I.E.

Weight, Thrust, Delta-V, Thrust Vectoring, Speed and most Important for Choosing a Perfect Launcher, A Launch Capability Report, about, Weight to Low Kerbin Orbit, Kerbin Stationary Transfer, Stationary Orbit and Trans-Munar and Trans-Minmas Injection Orbit.

Plz Recommended An Mod or Create one, Its an Idea for Modders not a Planned Project. Plz

                                                ,Thanks

[Streetwind]

That will not be easy to do, I'm afraid. There are too many variables to take into account to compute this easily.

For example, three launchers might have the exact same payload to a 80x80 km low Kerbin orbit when flown by a competent player. But one of them has a low-TWR upper stage that requires you to fly more steeply while the first stage is burning so that you have enough time to apopasis to let the upper stage build speed. Another one has a large solid first stage with tons of thrust and requires you to pitch over really sharply right off the pad to get the optimal result. How is a computer program supposed to know that? You'd have to build what's essentially a simulator that replicates KSP's physics and parses through twenty predefined different launch profiles, each with dozens of possible standard payload masses, in order to find a (still rough and imprecise) limit to the launcher's capabilities. And even if you did that - launcher performance is strongly correlated with piloting ability. If you give a rocket to a newcomer that can lift 10 tons to orbit if flown perfectly, the newcomer might fail to lift 5. So how is the tool supposed to know to judge your piloting abilities?

At that point, it's actually faster to do yourself, using a mod that shows you basic vessel statistics in the editor, like Kerbal Engineer Redux or MechJeb. Pull up your launcher and start adding a dummy payload to it, while observing your dV and TWR readouts. Attach the highest possible mass that still looks like it will be flyable. Then, actually fly it. Did it work effortlessly? Put on some more. Did it fail? Take some off. Did it barely succeed? That's your limit with this launcher.

Then you can name/describe the subassembly accordingly.

[PrathamK]

Thats a problem, I faced while manually calculating, all the meters, incresing, speed, reducing mass. But i Real life they fixed it at an defined path, I use mechjeb, a Fixed path and most Problems solved. Think so, thanks

17 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

That will not be easy to do, I'm afraid. There are too many variables to take into account to compute this easily.

For example, three launchers might have the exact same payload to a 80x80 km low Kerbin orbit when flown by a competent player. But one of them has a low-TWR upper stage that requires you to fly more steeply while the first stage is burning so that you have enough time to apopasis to let the upper stage build speed. Another one has a large solid first stage with tons of thrust and requires you to pitch over really sharply right off the pad to get the optimal result. How is a computer program supposed to know that? You'd have to build what's essentially a simulator that replicates KSP's physics and parses through twenty predefined different launch profiles, each with dozens of possible standard payload masses, in order to find a (still rough and imprecise) limit to the launcher's capabilities. And even if you did that - launcher performance is strongly correlated with piloting ability. If you give a rocket to a newcomer that can lift 10 tons to orbit if flown perfectly, the newcomer might fail to lift 5. So how is the tool supposed to know to judge your piloting abilities?

At that point, it's actually faster to do yourself, using a mod that shows you basic vessel statistics in the editor, like Kerbal Engineer Redux or MechJeb. Pull up your launcher and start adding a dummy payload to it, while observing your dV and TWR readouts. Attach the highest possible mass that still looks like it will be flyable. Then, actually fly it. Did it work effortlessly? Put on some more. Did it fail? Take some off. Did it barely succeed? That's your limit with this launcher.

Then you can name/describe the subassembly accordingly.

A fixed path may help, with engineer redux plugins and mechjeb support (optional) and anything That will suggest us best path to orbit depending on launcher.

[Jas0n]

I usually just name the launchers by how much mass it can put into a 100x100 km LKO orbit. This way I know how it flies with my flying style.

[Spricigo]

 

I would gratefully settle for a good form factor to presenting this report after inputting the data myself. I end up using a code in the name to know what a particular Launch Vehicle is capable of, but IMO something like "Heracles" sound a lot better than "125F Heracles"

[Alshain]

On 05/17/17 at 0:12 AM, Jas0n said:

I usually just name the launchers by how much mass it can put into a 100x100 km LKO orbit. This way I know how it flies with my flying style.

Same here.  You can fit a lot of info in a subassembly description.

[PrathamK]

How you put this dummy payload to test the crafts, any larger part i can keep is so huge to be launched, and my launcher flips while gravity turn. 

On 5/17/2017 at 10:42 AM, Jas0n said:

I usually just name the launchers by how much mass it can put into a 100x100 km LKO orbit. This way I know how it flies with my flying style.

I simply put a ton or two to launcher, and checks whether it makes up to Low Mün Orbit, and return it to surface for recovery. Some at test landed with a ton lander and even the stage (no payload, delivered) on mün and return to LKO and landed.

20 hours ago, Alshain said:

Same here.  You can fit a lot of info in a subassembly description.

No, we cant, I just type Small, Medium, heavy (size and mass), with orbits, L/MKO, KST, KEO, Polar, System (Kerbin, Mün, Minimus). Space is limited, and Its very tiring to edit from .cfg

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, PrathamK said:

No, we cant, I just type Small, Medium, heavy (size and mass), with orbits, L/MKO, KST, KEO, Polar, System (Kerbin, Mün, Minimus). Space is limited, and Its very tiring to edit from .cfg

You can fit a lot more than that.

[PrathamK]

34 minutes ago, Alshain said:

You can fit a lot more than that.

Other than editing the craft and cfg files.

[ZooNamedGames]

I simply suggest using Kerbal Engineer Redux and simply use a stock payload to determine the rest of the numbers that way.

[Alshain]

1 hour ago, PrathamK said:

Other than editing the craft and cfg files.

Yep.  My lifter sub-assemblies have the tech tree tier (for career games), payload mass, cross section size, maximum circular orbit (assuming full payload), number of stages and number of actual stage groups (because I don't count firing an engine and decoupling it as 2 stages when discussing how many stages a rocket has).  I don't ever edit the config files.  I could fit more in there but don't have a need to right now.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Alshain

[Spricigo]

13 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Yep.  My lifter sub-assemblies have the tech tree tier (for career games), payload mass, cross section size, maximum circular orbit (assuming full payload), number of stages and number of actual stage groups (because I don't count firing an engine and decoupling it as 2 stages when discussing how many stages a rocket has).  I don't ever edit the config files.  I could fit more in there but don't have a need to right now.

Cover everything necessary, I think. 

If the sub-assembly/craft is intended to be shared the description can accommodate flight instructions also,  plenty of room. 

But still not exactly the best way to display that info IMHO 

[PrathamK]

But i have my subassemblies Description limited to 1 and Half lines.

30 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

Cover everything necessary, I think. 

If the sub-assembly/craft is intended to be shared the description can accommodate flight instructions also,  plenty of room. 

But still not exactly the best way to display that info IMHO 

 

44 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Yep.  My lifter sub-assemblies have the tech tree tier (for career games), payload mass, cross section size, maximum circular orbit (assuming full payload), number of stages and number of actual stage groups (because I don't count firing an engine and decoupling it as 2 stages when discussing how many stages a rocket has).  I don't ever edit the config files.  I could fit more in there but don't have a need to right now.

I just check the engines on stack and strap-on , and stage till engines start why to take stress

[Alshain]

7 minutes ago, PrathamK said:

But i have my subassemblies Description limited to 1 and Half lines.

You can fit a lot in 1 and a half lines (it's actually 4 lines though, including the title).

Quote

I just check the engines on stack and strap-on , and stage till engines start why to take stress

Not sure what you are talking about there.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Alshain