Jump to content

[1.12.3] Restock - Revamping KSP's art (Feb 25)


Nertea

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, cineboxandrew said:

Neither of those parts are added by Restock+, take it up with squad

No, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the Stratus-V tank was too big. In fact, I calculated the volumes of the FL-R10 cylinder and the Stratus-V sphere and they're equal, so it makes perfect sense in stock KSP.

I meant that the spherical tank modeled inside the ReStock's FL-R10 is too small for FL-R10's volume. Based on the remodeled FL-R10 and mathematics, the ReStock volume (assuming the ReStock's inside sphere's diameter being about 89% of the FL-R10's height) would be 21% of the stock FL-R10. ReStock FL-R10's visible volume is 5 times smaller than the vanilla FL-R10's visible volume.

(It's similar with bigger FL-R tanks but it's not obvious due to no bigger Stratus-V tanks.)

Edited by Krzeszny
mathematics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cineboxandrew said:

The colliders are designed to allow offsetting downwards over a junior docking port

ah! I see. Will try that tonight, but from the image I am worried it may clip the top with a ungly docking port ring thingy :P.

 

12 hours ago, cineboxandrew said:

I haven't looked into it, but I'm pretty sure this would hurt save compatibility. any existing vessels when this change is made would have the shrouds on by default even in flight with nothing attached

Im asuming thats because the shroud would be part of the docking port, instead of part of the decoupler/stack separator. I was under the impression that the shroud was a part of the decoupler/stack separator, instead of the docking port itself, since when you attacht one to an engine, the shroud stays on the decoupler once you stage, not in the engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SiCaRiO31 said:

ah! I see. Will try that tonight, but from the image I am worried it may clip the top with a ungly docking port ring thingy :P.

One "small" translation unit (the first snap point with snapping on and shift held) is the perfect clip distance in my experience; makes the gap much, much smaller without clipping the port into anywhere weird :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2021 at 9:26 PM, Starseeker said:

One "small" translation unit (the first snap point with snapping on and shift held) is the perfect clip distance in my experience; makes the gap much, much smaller without clipping the port into anywhere weird :D

you are absolutly right. It just looks so much better :D

Spoiler

20210525164106-1.jpg

(kinda still want that docking port skirt with decouplers/stack separators though, you never know when one would come in handy :P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do the Oscar tank variants from RS+ have different "capacity densities" than the stock Oscar-B? Namely the Oscar-C, which despite being larger has less fuel.

Edited by RedRoyal25
Reworded because I realized it sounded rude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2021 at 2:22 AM, Krzeszny said:

No, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the Stratus-V tank was too big. In fact, I calculated the volumes of the FL-R10 cylinder and the Stratus-V sphere and they're equal, so it makes perfect sense in stock KSP.

I meant that the spherical tank modeled inside the ReStock's FL-R10 is too small for FL-R10's volume. Based on the remodeled FL-R10 and mathematics, the ReStock volume (assuming the ReStock's inside sphere's diameter being about 89% of the FL-R10's height) would be 21% of the stock FL-R10. ReStock FL-R10's visible volume is 5 times smaller than the vanilla FL-R10's visible volume.

(It's similar with bigger FL-R tanks but it's not obvious due to no bigger Stratus-V tanks.)

If you want all capacities to be accurately scaled to pressure vessels, this is not the mod you want. 

8 hours ago, RedRoyal25 said:

Why do the Oscar tank variants from RS+ have different "capacity densities" than the stock Oscar-B? Namely the Oscar-C, which despite being larger has less fuel.

From the readme:

Quote

In addition some glaring bugfixes and improvements are included:
- The volume of the Oscar-B tank has been reduced to make room for the rest of the Oscar series tanks. The tank's mass ratio is unchanged

The original ratio is about 3x that of most other tanks in the game. If you have an existing craft file, the old fuel load will still apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2021 at 2:29 AM, KeaKaka said:

Pop into the Stock Waterfall Effects engine configs, and delete the !ReStock in the line: NEEDS:[Waterfall,!ReStock] for the non-restocked engines you want to have waterfall for.

I tried it out and it works!

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else thinks that the Pug its a bit overpowered compared to the Terrier? Its 40% its weight and can store 3 times more fuel than its volume suggest.

Spoiler

20210603194941-1.jpg

Compare to a ball of 2 Oscar-O tanks, the 6 small tanks in the Pug should be able to carry at most 3/4 what the Oscar-O ball does, so something like 6 LF and 7.5 Ox, instead of the  current 18/22. Because of this, the Pug its the better choise of engine for most spacecrafts up until really massive ones (where the aditional ISP of the Terrier starts to make a difference), which are a few tiers above the tech level of theese engines.

In my career I have the Pug edited a bit, with a dry mass of 0.28 T (instead of 0.2) and 6/7.5 LF/O fuel tanks. What do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, evileye.x said:

I think it does not have gimbal?....

If someone (like me) plays with semi-realistic reaction wheels and persistent rotation, it matters a lot.

True. Been playing with Kiwis tech tree with persistent rotation and mandatory RCs so the first few launches were difficult. But once you unlock linear RCSs then you pretty much dont need gimbaling. the Pug is even better than the Ant in most situations. Without edits, I just dont see the point in using other vacum engine at low/mid tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 2:10 PM, SiCaRiO31 said:

Anyone else thinks that the Pug its a bit overpowered compared to the Terrier? Its 40% its weight and can store 3 times more fuel than its volume suggest.

  Hide contents

20210603194941-1.jpg

Compare to a ball of 2 Oscar-O tanks, the 6 small tanks in the Pug should be able to carry at most 3/4 what the Oscar-O ball does, so something like 6 LF and 7.5 Ox, instead of the  current 18/22. Because of this, the Pug its the better choise of engine for most spacecrafts up until really massive ones (where the aditional ISP of the Terrier starts to make a difference), which are a few tiers above the tech level of theese engines.

In my career I have the Pug edited a bit, with a dry mass of 0.28 T (instead of 0.2) and 6/7.5 LF/O fuel tanks. What do you guys think?

I have noticed that. However i tend to lock the pug's tanks to use as emergency dV for if i fall a bit short, and that extra dV is not included in my calculations. i actually am working on sending a rescue mission to a ship that i didn't do that for

Edited by RedRoyal25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unknown.png?width=246&height=498

 

are the 1.25m intakes canidates for being restocked? everyone I ask says that the mismatch drives them insane.  I understand you have a life and several other mods to maintain, and that you have said before that intakes were "out of scope," but this is among the things that I personally believe desperately need attention.

Edited by RedRoyal25
Reworded to be less demanding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have any intention at the moment of working on other parts for Restock, though I can't speak for other team members. Certainly 1.12 will bring a fairly annoying chunk of rework though. 

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nertea said:

I do not have any intention at the moment of working on other parts for Restock, though I can't speak for other team members. Certainly 1.12 will bring a fairly annoying chunk of rework though. 

At least on the bright side once it gets updated to 1.12 you won’t ever have to update it again for future KSP versions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CDSlice said:

At least on the bright side once it gets updated to 1.12 you won’t ever have to update it again for future KSP versions. 

I am very happy about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CDSlice said:

At least on the bright side once it gets updated to 1.12 you won’t ever have to update it again for future KSP versions. 

You've jinxed it. I don't know how... but somehow, you have jinxed it. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...