Jump to content

[1.8.x, 1.9.x, 1.10.x] KW Rocketry Rebalanced


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Please forgive me my ignorance - I wasn't following the mod changes for quite a long time. Moreover, I couldn't play KSP at all 

I've downloaded the recent KW mod version and I couldn't find old legacy FAR compatible fairings. Those where you attach fairings sides to nodes to form a fairing with fixed shape.

Was it deprecated/removed from the mod completely or I just missed them somehow?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 8:56 AM, Horus said:

Please forgive me my ignorance - I wasn't following the mod changes for quite a long time. Moreover, I couldn't play KSP at all 

I've downloaded the recent KW mod version and I couldn't find old legacy FAR compatible fairings. Those where you attach fairings sides to nodes to form a fairing with fixed shape.

Was it deprecated/removed from the mod completely or I just missed them somehow?

They are a seperate mod now, called Simple Adjustable Fairings:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Testing this on 1.9, I experience some bugs with the fairings (I've been using these for years).

More often than not, the payload will not detach from the ship after decoupling. Not only it's stuck in the fairing base, but it is not disconnected from the rest of the ship. I can even decouple again if it's in a action group, it plays the sound and effect but still no separation. This happens on most fairing bases, regardless of payload size or clearance.

Anyway I hope you'll be able to fix this when you have time (I'll try and find a solution too), thanks for the huge amount of work you put in maintaining these legacy mods.

 

EDIT: I got it ! After further testing, I noticed this bug only happened after reverting to the VAB and relaunching, and only on some faring bases. So I looked in the part configs, and noticed the buggy parts had two top nodes, whereas the good ones had the lowest top node removed or commented:

	node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
	//node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.217, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
	node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.588, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

So I removed the lowest top node on every part and voilà, they all work perfectly. Since we have the offset tool now, the lower node was a bit useless anyway.

I also updated the decouple module, since the anchor argument is deprecated I think, like so:

//OLD//
MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		anchorName = anchor
		ejectionForce = 100
		explosiveNodeID = top
	}

//NEW//
MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 100
		isOmniDecoupler = false
		explosiveNodeID = top	
	}

This last bit is for tidiness, It didn't have any negative impact on part functionality.

Hope this helps!

Edited by Initar
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Initar said:

EDIT: I got it ! After further testing, I noticed this bug only happened after reverting to the VAB and relaunching, and only on some faring bases. So I looked in the part configs, and noticed the buggy parts had two top nodes, whereas the good ones had the lowest top node removed or commented:

So I removed the lowest top node on every part and voilà, they all work perfectly. Since we have the offset tool now, the lower node was a bit useless anyway.

The lower top node was positioned to be on the underside face of the payload adapter so you could mount things between the space of the fuel tank below and the payload... like a probe core or something. It was quite handy to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2020 at 11:12 PM, Poodmund said:

... like a probe core or something. It was quite handy to be honest.

I know man, that's exactly what I used it for. Maybe there's another node definition we can use? I only dabble in modding...

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Initar said:

I know man, that's exactly what I used it for. Maybe there's another node definition we can use? I only dabble in modding...

The 7th value in a node definition line is the node size, parts are more easily snappable to nodes of larger sizes so you could potentially make the lower node size 1 and the upper node size 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi, suddenly I can only build my fairings straight up. I was used to enlarge them as I build them up and close up top, but now when I move the mouse to the side the fairing wont' "open" up.

At the end it has the same size of my fuel tank, so it's no use to build it. Cant change the width of it all.

 

Is this supposed to happen? 

I may be wrong but I recall not having this issue with KW fairings in the past. I only have the problem with KW fairings and my stock fairings are working properly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I've always felt that the KW SRBs (mostly the Globe V, VI, X and X-2) could do with some rebalancing as they tend to have way too much thrust for their size when compared to the other SRBs and especially the stock SRBs (minus the RT-5 and R-10 which sit way outside the other motors stats wise). To this end, I tried to find sensible dry mass/volume, fuel capacity/volume and thrust/wet mass ratios, from the stock SRBs and retroactively apply them back to the KW SRBs to try and balance them against the stock game a lot more.

I fell on values of around 0.195t/m^3 for dry mass, around 130 SolidFuel units/m^3 and around 28kN/t for thrust to weight. Noteably, this brought the mass of all the SRBs up significantly, the thrust output of the V and VI down a lot but the X-range actually went up in thrust a lot to cater for the aditional fuel capacity and therefore wet mass. This also has the result of the SRBs costing more due to the increase in fuel capacity but they were very cheap anyway.

I find using this patch means you no longer have to (almost always) thrust limit these KW SRBs down to like 20% on launch anymore and present a much more usable SRB range. The descriptions may need updating at some point to reflect the new burn times but, to be honest, they're actually not much different than before.

// Pood's Patches for KW Rocketry SRBs adjusting dry mass, fuel capacity and thrust to fall in line, more so, with Stock SRBs.
// I've always felt that the KW SRBs (mostly the Globe V, VI, X and X-2) could do with some re-balancing as they tend to have way too much thrust for their size when compared to the other SRBs and especially the stock SRBs (minus the RT-5 and R-10 which sit way outside the other motors stats wise). To this end, I tried to find sensible dry mass/volume, fuel capacity/volume and thrust/wet mass ratios, from the stock SRBs and retroactively apply them back to the KW SRBs to try and balance them against the stock game a lot more.
// I fell on values of around 0.195t/m^3 for dry mass, around 130 SolidFuel units/m^3 and around 28kN/t for thrust to weight.
// Visit https://bit.ly/KW-SRB-Rebalance to view the Google Sheets document showing how these values were derived.

@PART[KWsrbGlobeI]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 0.235	// Original value: 0.3
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 20	// Original value: 27.5
		@maxThrust = 40	// Original value: 55
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 160		// Original value: 175
		@maxAmount = 160	// Original value: 175
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeV]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 1.05	// Original value: 0.75
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 90		// Original value: 186
		@maxThrust = 180	// Original value: 372
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 700		// Original value: 600
		@maxAmount = 700	// Original value: 600
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeVI]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 1.345	// Original value: 0.75
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 112.5	// Original value: 247.5
		@maxThrust = 225	// Original value: 495
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 900		// Original value: 800
		@maxAmount = 900	// Original value: 800
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 4.045	// Original value: 1.5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 340	// Original value: 307
		@maxThrust = 680	// Original value: 614
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 2700		// Original value: 1080
		@maxAmount = 2700	// Original value: 1080
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX2]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 5.18	// Original value: 1.5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 432.5	// Original value: 409
		@maxThrust = 865	// Original value: 818
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 3450		// Original value: 1440
		@maxAmount = 3450	// Original value: 1440
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX5]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 14.165	// Original value: 3.5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 1187.5	// Original value: 795
		@maxThrust = 2375	// Original value: 1590
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 9400		// Original value: 5600
		@maxAmount = 9400	// Original value: 5600
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX10S]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 18.1	// Original value: 5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 1515	// Original value: 1157.5
		@maxThrust = 3030	// Original value: 2315
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 12000		// Original value: 8160
		@maxAmount = 12000	// Original value: 8160
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX10L]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 23.435	// Original value: 6.5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 1962.5	// Original value: 1507.5
		@maxThrust = 3925	// Original value: 3015
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 15550		// Original value: 10615
		@maxAmount = 15550	// Original value: 10615
	}
}

Config patch can be downloaded here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqbdrnoqc7vrsmi/Pood_KW_SRB_Patch.cfg?dl=0 

Just drop it in your GameData folder. :D 

Edited by Poodmund
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Poodmund said:

I've always felt that the KW SRBs (mostly the Globe V, VI, X and X-2) could do with some rebalancing as they tend to have way too much thrust for their size when compared to the other SRBs and especially the stock SRBs (minus the RT-5 and R-10 which sit way outside the other motors stats wise). To this end, I tried to find sensible dry mass/volume, fuel capacity/volume and thrust/wet mass ratios, from the stock SRBs and retroactively apply them back to the KW SRBs to try and balance them against the stock game a lot more.

I fell on values of around 0.195t/m^3 for dry mass, around 130 SolidFuel units/m^3 and around 28kN/t for thrust to weight. Noteably, this brought the mass of all the SRBs up significantly, the thrust output of the V and VI down a lot but the X-range actually went up in thrust a lot to cater for the aditional fuel capacity and therefore wet mass. This also has the result of the SRBs costing more due to the increase in fuel capacity but they were very cheap anyway.

I find using this patch means you no longer have to (almost always) thrust limit these KW SRBs down to like 20% on launch anymore and present a much more usable SRB range. The descriptions may need updating at some point to reflect the new burn times but, to be honest, they're actually not much different than before.

// Pood's Patches for KW Rocketry SRBs adjusting dry mass, fuel capacity and thrust to fall in line, more so, with Stock SRBs.
// I've always felt that the KW SRBs (mostly the Globe V, VI, X and X-2) could do with some re-balancing as they tend to have way too much thrust for their size when compared to the other SRBs and especially the stock SRBs (minus the RT-5 and R-10 which sit way outside the other motors stats wise). To this end, I tried to find sensible dry mass/volume, fuel capacity/volume and thrust/wet mass ratios, from the stock SRBs and retroactively apply them back to the KW SRBs to try and balance them against the stock game a lot more.
// I fell on values of around 0.195t/m^3 for dry mass, around 130 SolidFuel units/m^3 and around 28kN/t for thrust to weight.

@PART[KWsrbGlobeI]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 0.235	// Original value: 0.3
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 20	// Original value: 27.5
		@maxThrust = 40	// Original value: 55
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 160		// Original value: 175
		@maxAmount = 160	// Original value: 175
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeV]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 1.05	// Original value: 0.75
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 90		// Original value: 186
		@maxThrust = 180	// Original value: 372
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 700		// Original value: 600
		@maxAmount = 700	// Original value: 600
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeVI]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 1.345	// Original value: 0.75
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 112.5	// Original value: 247.5
		@maxThrust = 225	// Original value: 495
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 900		// Original value: 800
		@maxAmount = 900	// Original value: 800
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 4.045	// Original value: 1.5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 340	// Original value: 307
		@maxThrust = 680	// Original value: 614
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 2700		// Original value: 1080
		@maxAmount = 2700	// Original value: 1080
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX2]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 5.18	// Original value: 1.5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 432.5	// Original value: 409
		@maxThrust = 865	// Original value: 818
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 3450		// Original value: 1440
		@maxAmount = 3450	// Original value: 1440
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX5]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 14.165	// Original value: 3.5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 1187.5	// Original value: 795
		@maxThrust = 2375	// Original value: 1590
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 9400		// Original value: 5600
		@maxAmount = 9400	// Original value: 5600
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX10S]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 18.1	// Original value: 5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 1515	// Original value: 1157.5
		@maxThrust = 3030	// Original value: 2315
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 12000		// Original value: 8160
		@maxAmount = 12000	// Original value: 8160
	}
}

@PART[KWsrbGlobeX10L]:AFTER[KWRocketry]
{
	@mass = 23.435	// Original value: 6.5
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		@minThrust = 1962.5	// Original value: 1507.5
		@maxThrust = 3925	// Original value: 3015
	}
	@RESOURCE[SolidFuel]
	{
		@amount = 15550		// Original value: 10615
		@maxAmount = 15550	// Original value: 10615
	}
}

Config patch can be downloaded here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rqbdrnoqc7vrsmi/Pood_KW_SRB_Patch.cfg?dl=0 

Just drop it in your GameData folder. :D 

I usually use BetterSRBs, so I don't see this, but if it's ok with you, I'll include this as an optional patch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I'll tidy it up a bit and add on a little more info in the comments and then ping you when I've updated it.

EDIT: Added a link to a Google Sheets doc. showing the derviation in the config for reference and have confirmed its all working. Please download the new config from the same Dropbox URL above, Linux, and it should be all good to go. :D 

Edited by Poodmund
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for some help with an MM patch for graduated response for all engines. I already have a version with a set accel/decel rate that encompasses all engines in my game that KW doesn't already patch with a flat rate, but I want to vary that rate using some arithmetic (either on engine mass, propellant type (for RF), or maybe a combination of both). The only question I have is how the integer works, i.e. do higher values = faster response or slower response? I've tried looking at the KW engine patches and figuring it out based on (oh yeah, that's the huge engine vs the little engine) but I can't quite pin it down and I couldn't find an answer through the search engine (so I apologize if this has been answered a few times before). Does anyone know how the rate works?

I have a formula in mind if a higher value means a slower accel/decel rate (I just don't like working with a flat rate model, doesn't make as much sense to me), could use some help tweaking it...

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],~useEngineResponseTime[],!PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]]:FIRST
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX]
	{
		useEngineResponseTime = True
		engineAccelerationSpeed = #$/mass$
		@engineAccelerationSpeed *= 0.1
		@engineAccelerationSpeed += 0.8
		engineDecelerationSpeed = #$/mass$
		@engineDecelerationSpeed *= 0.1
		@engineDecelerationSpeed +- 1
	}
}

Will this give the opposite effect that I'm trying to achieve? (Larger mass = slower acceleration being the goal in this case)

Edited by shoe7ess
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
21 hours ago, Cornholio said:

Hello.  I have a number of mods installed.  Something, somewhere is applying Liquid Hydrogen & Liquid Methane to my KW parts.  How can I best figure out which is the culprit?  Thank you so much.

Ummm, how would I know?  Sounds like you have RealFuels installed??  

Make a full copy of the entire game folder, then in the copy , start removing mods, then start the game to see what happens

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 10:59 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

Ummm, how would I know?  Sounds like you have RealFuels installed??  

Make a full copy of the entire game folder, then in the copy , start removing mods, then start the game to see what happens

Figured it out exhaustively removing addons.  Thanks.  Initially wasn't sure if there wasn't a more direct approach to problem solve it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...