SQUAD

KSP Loading... A closer look into Update 1.6

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Foxster said:

However, the drag of the engines is 6.86 for small, 225 for medium and 622 for large. Surely, the lowest drag should be for the engine with the matched size?

My guess is that there is just too much reliance on automatically generated drag cubes. The small and large variants make sense here, but for the medium variant it should just have its YP drag cube value be hand configured to match the YN value of the corresponding fuel tank or other structural parts that are likely to be used. This sort of checking should be a basic step in the design process: Does this variant's drag cube match the intended gameplay usage of the part? If not, then go in and fix it by hand.

This isn't the only place this problem is biting them, as far as I know (maybe this was fixed in 1.5) the structural tubes still don't have corrected drag cubes for their size, instead they rely on automatically generated drag cubes which are well known to fail on hollow parts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SQUAD said:

KSP Enhanced Edition

As we disclosed in the last edition of KSP Loading…, we are currently working on a substantial update for KSP on consoles and it will include various items that the PC version currently has. It is important to note that there always will be differences between the PC and console versions. For instance, if we were to bring Update 1.5 to consoles, we would have to do an entirely new port, something that would take a massive amount of time and resources to achieve and would detract from the overall progress of the game. Instead, we are working on a console-optimized update that will take bits and pieces of all updates we have released after 1.2.1; some of the ones that people like the most. Just to name a couple examples, this next update will include several revamped parts, the variant switcher, and a number of other things that we will be revealing along the way.

 

First of all: many thanks for sharing infos about ee, since a long time now i feel like i've been given some useful infos were ee is going. Thanks

I personally dont care if we stay in the same version of the game as long as it is running smooth. We are getting new variants of parts and features while the gameplay is getting better?

Just awesome

If the console version of the game somewhat deviates from the pc version so be it, they would never be fully comparalbe. As long as the core stays the same in terms of stats on parts and the kerbol system i'm all fine with that.

So from all features after 1.2.1 hmm. How posible would it be to see the dv calculation on consoles in the near future? Maybe thats a bit much to ask for...

Anyways i'm excited to hear more 

Edited by PrvDancer85
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I think it's great that you're keeping the original spirit of the parts! (Well, except the Poodle, whose old model was horrible in my opinion).

Will any deprecated parts from previous releases be removed in 1.6? I was wondering.

They won't be removed mate, not for 1.6

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StylusHead said:

They won't be removed mate, not for 1.6

Good, I can save the Hyperedit Craft Replacing Dance for another update :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, make the Poodle one-nozzled so we can attach more radial tanks to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Gapone said:

Seriously, make the Poodle one-nozzled so we can attach more radial tanks to it.

A single nozzle poodle with a realistic vac nozzle is called a Cheetah or Wolfhound and ends up being way longer than the old form factor.  A single nozzle poodle with a realistic vac nozzle that maintains the height of the old Poodle (which is important for a lot of builds) is called a Terrier - aka a 1.25m engine ;)

 

Edited by RoverDude
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RoverDude said:

A single nozzle poodle with a realistic vac nozzle that maintains the height of the old Poodle (which is important for a lot of builds) is called a Terrier - aka a 1.25m engine

but it has less thrust and isp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gapone said:

but it has less thrust and isp

Which is why the Poodle has two nozzles and two combustion chambers :)

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Poodle had one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gapone said:

Old Poodle had one

Old poodle was an unrealistic engine design with a nozzle that looked nothing like something that was vac rated.  See first reply.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Old poodle was an unrealistic engine design with a nozzle that looked nothing like something that was vac rated.

Again you are railing to unrealism. Just the new design, but with one nozzle.

Edited by Gapone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gapone said:

Again you are railing to nozzles. Just the new design, but with one nozzle.

If it had one nozzle, it would need to be longer, which defeats the purpose of the Poodle (which is to be short and low profile to make it useful for landers).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RealKerbal3x said:

If it had one nozzle, it would need to be longer,

Why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gapone said:

Why

Because, as Roverdude explained, Vacuum nozzles need to be longer to be have an optimized ISP and thrust. This change is because of realism. Yes the Terrier has lower thrust, but that's what is to be expected from a single engine compared to two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Gapone said:
3 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

If it had one nozzle, it would need to be longer,

Why

A vac (vacuum) engine bell (nozzle) has a certain size - an "expansion ratio" - if the nozzle is too small, it can't produce as much thrust as you would expect it to produce. It would look wrong if it was too small.

They have spent many hours making a 2-nozzle poodle, they aren't starting over, at this point!  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gapone said:

Again you are railing to unrealism. Just the new design, but with one nozzle.

If it had a single realistic nozzle, it would not be 2.5m in diameter (or it would be a really odd looking 2.5m engine).  It would be more like a 1.25m profile.  If you want a single nozzle at the old height, that's a Terrier.  If you want a single nozzle at the correct stack size, Wolfhound or Bobcat.  If you want the power of two terriers in a single engine with the same low form factor, grab a (new) poodle.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

Because, as Roverdude explained, Vacuum nozzles need to be longer to be have an optimized ISP and thrust. This change is because of realism. Yes the Terrier has lower thrust, but that's what is to be expected from a single engine compared to two.

I mean, the new two-nozzled model, just with one nozzle.

 

3 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

If you want the power of two terriers in a single engine with the same low form factor,

and with a single nozzle, grab a re-revamped poodle. KSP is not about realism.

Edited by Gapone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gapone said:

I mean, the

 

and with one nozzle, grab a re-revamped poodle.

Does the number of nozzles really matter? SQUAD is going for realism over aesthetics here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

SQUAD is going for realism over aesthetics here.

It's a bad thing. I do not want for KSP to turn into Orbiter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, why not jst make a tiny, short NERVA. Great for radial tanks, terrible for realism. Of course you wouldn't do that, though,  because that's not realistic. Same thing here.

 

I actually like it- it can even constrain designs a little that want to use it, and I like that, actually.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gapone said:

KSP is not about realism

The developers and a vast majority of the players (myself included) seem to disagree with you on this.

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gapone said:

It's a bad thing. I do not want for KSP to turn into Orbiter.

KSP is far, far from orbiter. Engines look more realistic- so what? There's a lot to go until orbiter.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerbal heads are unrealistic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 5thHorseman said:

The developers and a vast majority of the players (myself included) seem to disagree with you on this.

Yeah. While KSP is most definitely not 100% realistic, some bits are, for example the shape and size of nozzles.

2 minutes ago, Gapone said:

I do not want for KSP to turn into Orbiter.

As @ThatGuyWithALongUsername said above, KSP is far from Orbiter. Would you rather have KSP rockets be red-and-white checked with four giant fins?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now