Jump to content

Bigger part sizes


SpaceFace545
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

...assuming the part sizes are even the same. Maybe they'll start at 0.5 instead of 0.625 this time.

Possibly, but I see then staying the same.

17 minutes ago, coyotesfrontier said:

With the exception of 0.625m to 1.25m, all sizes are 1.5x larger then the last one, so 7.5m and 10m are more likely.

Not true, all the parts follow the 0.625 rule. It's just coincidence that they are 1.5x bigger.

1 = 0.625

2 = 1.25

3 = 1.875

4 = 2.5

5 = 3.125 skipped

6 = 3.75

7 = 4.375 Skipped

8 = 5

9 = 5.625 Not implemented

10 = 6.25 NI

11 = 6.875 NI

12 = 7.5 NI

So the next logical sizes are 6.25 and 7.5.

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Possibly, but I see then staying the same.

Not true, all the parts follow the 0.625 rule. It's just coincidence that they are 1.5x bigger.

1 = 0.625

2 = 1.25

3 = 1.875

4 = 2.5

5 = 3.125 skipped

6 = 3.75

7 = 4.375 Skipped

8 = 5

9 = 5.625 Not implemented

10 = 6.25 NI

11 = 6.875 NI

12 = 7.5 NI

So the next logical size are 6.25 and 7.5.

If the 0.625 rule was followed, it would be awful game design, as the larger size classes get, the smaller the difference between them would be.

1.5x larger leaves only a single gap (between 0.625 and 1.25), while your 0.625m rule leaves 2.

In addition, going by your logic, shouldn't the next size be 5.625?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2019 at 7:50 PM, coyotesfrontier said:

If the 0.625 rule was followed, it would be awful game design, as the larger size classes get, the smaller the difference between them would be.

1.5x larger leaves only a single gap (between 0.625 and 1.25), while your 0.625m rule leaves 2.

In addition, going by your logic, shouldn't the next size be 5.625?

Not really. With the exception of the 1.875 parts, it pretty much follows .25 .5 and .75 parts. So 5.625 gets skipped, so does 6.875.

And it's not awful game design as all the parts now have a standard set of sizes.

And thinking about it, it's not really a rule, more of a guide.

And what do you mean 2 gaps, there's only one gap between parts, and those are the skipped sizes that dont end in .25 .5 or .75, with exception to 1.875.

Edit: oh, okay. I see what you mean. Honestly I'm fine with the gap as modders can make parts to fill them. And tbh, Squad skipped size 3 parts for a long time, so there was a gap anyway.

Edit 2: I've noticed that with the 0.625 guideline, all the parts I KSP with the exception of .625 and 1.875 follow the even numbers. 

Edit 3: You're math is actually wrong. No parts except for 1.25 to 1.875 use the 1.5 rule. Every part uses the 0.625 rule.

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm curious about, with the new sizes, is what fuel type they'll be. Becuase given we are getting new engine types, that will likely require new fuel types, and that these larger ships appear to be launched from a space dock, I think launching from a normal launch pad will still be very similar to KSP 1, which is a shame. I'd love to haul a massive load into orbit from the KSC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, M_Rat13 said:

What I'm curious about, with the new sizes, is what fuel type they'll be. Becuase given we are getting new engine types, that will likely require new fuel types, and that these larger ships appear to be launched from a space dock, I think launching from a normal launch pad will still be very similar to KSP 1, which is a shame. I'd love to haul a massive load into orbit from the KSC.

The fusion engines will probably need He-3 which can only be mined from gas giants. Hence the space dock.

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

The fusion engines will probably need He-3 which can only be mined from gas giants. Hence the space dock.

If you already have access to fusion-level tech, wouldn't it be possible to fabricate He3 and not need to mine it?  Mining may be cheaper for volume production of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Chilkoot said:

If you already have access to fusion-level tech, wouldn't it be possible to fabricate He3 and not need to mine it?  Mining may be cheaper for volume production of course...

Well, irl I believe we can create He3, but I don't see them allowing us to do that in KSP. 

I'd imagine tanks will be able to be filled in sandbox, but in career mode, we might be forced to use Jool as a He3 mining planet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

The fusion engines will probably need He-3 which can only be mined from gas giants. Hence the space dock.

Since they're already showed what looks to be a Direct Fusion Drive

An extension of that is to have your engine breed He-3 [Breeder Fusion Engine]

No idea whether it'd just be easier to mine though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NoMrBond said:

Since they're already showed what looks to be a Direct Fusion Drive

An extension of that is to have your engine breed He-3 [Breeder Fusion Engine]

No idea whether it'd just be easier to mine though

He-3 exists naturally in most gas giants. Jupiter has a large deposit and so does Saturn. It's definitely easier to scoop the atmosphere and filter out the unwanted gases (Argon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc), or put the unwanted gases to work for something else, using the hydrogen to make liquid fuel for chemical rockets or use the nitrogen for cold gas thrusters (RCS)

hmm, I wonder how we're going to mine it, will the miner how to dive into Jool's atmosphere to collect the gas, or will they do a magic vacuum suction device which just needs to be close enough to Jool. 

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That part sizes foloow an adding series (+0.625 each time) does not mean that the sizes that are picked from that series for use in the game can't be chosen by a multiplying series. Probably that is how it went down. the adding series is useful for realtive sizes from one tio the next: you can always fit this and that exactly in that other thing, while the multiplying series is chosen for a proper upscaling of parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they're going big.  They've shown us a couple of parts that are at least 10m in size, if not larger.  (Check the Daelelus engine - the engine, the rad-shield, and the fuel tanks are *all* larger than 10m in size I think.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they keep 1.875 and integrate is as a fully stock thing rather than a DLC thing, adding a normal line of engines for it rather than the oddballs that came with Making History. It is my favourite size for early game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/26/2019 at 7:32 PM, coyotesfrontier said:

With the exception of 0.625m to 1.25m, all sizes are 1.5x larger then the last one, so 7.5m and 10m are more likely.

After thinking about it and doing some math, this is actually wrong. The only parts that are 1.5x larger than the last one, are 1.25 to 1.875.

All parts follow the:
# (1,2,3,etc) * 0.625
or
Previous # + 0.625

rules

Anyway, I came back to this post to say I would like longer tanks, not just bigger tanks. Double jumbo 64 or even triple jumbo 64 would be super nice. 

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Anyway, I came back to this post to say I would like longer tanks, not just bigger tanks. Double jumbo 64 or even triple jumbo 64 would be super nice. 

I was kind of hoping we'd have 'root' tanks with nodes coming off them like the fairing baseplates have

Then wherever the player snap onto it, the tank automagically becomes that long rather then needing to pick out the correct D/L from a massively overpopulated list (+ being able to manually adjust L segments via PAW)

This way we'd just have a diameters (D) on the list

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, GoldForest said:

The only parts that are 1.5x larger than the last one, are 1.25 to 1.875.

-_-

I don't know what kind of bizarro math is going on in your head, but that's blatently flase. If we were to follow my rules:

1.25*1.5=1.875

1.875*1.5=2.5

2.5*1.5=3.75

3.75*1.5=5.0

While if we were to follow your rules:

0.625+0.625=1.25

1.25+0.625=1.875

1.875+0.625=2.5

Seems like you're right, but then:

2.5+0.625=3.125 (not in the game)

3.125+0.625=3.75

3.75+0.625=4.375 (not in the game)

4.375+0.625=5.0

The only exception to my rule would be 0.625 to 1.25, while yours leaves 2 exceptions. I think it's safe to say that the devs went by *1.5 and not +0.625.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, coyotesfrontier said:

-_-

I don't know what kind of bizarro math is going on in your head, but that's blatently flase. If we were to follow my rules:

1.25*1.5=1.875

1.875*1.5=2.5

2.5*1.5=3.75

3.75*1.5=5.0

While if we were to follow your rules:

0.625+0.625=1.25

1.25+0.625=1.875

1.875+0.625=2.5

Seems like you're right, but then:

2.5+0.625=3.125 (not in the game)

3.125+0.625=3.75

3.75+0.625=4.375 (not in the game)

4.375+0.625=5.0

The only exception to my rule would be 0.625 to 1.25, while yours leaves 2 exceptions. I think it's safe to say that the devs went by *1.5 and not +0.625.

Okay, I will admit I see where I was doing my math wrong. But your math is still wrong too in some places.

.625 * 1.5 = .9375 (I know you said this one was an exception, just adding it for argument sake)

1.25 * 1.5 = 1.875

1.875 * 1.5 = 2.8125

2.5 * 1.5 = 3.75

3.75 * 1.5 = 5.625

By your math the 2.5 m parts and the 5 m parts should be bigger.

So no, it's not right or safe to assume they went with 1.5.

It is safe and right to assume they used the multiply of .625 to a regular non decimal number (1,2,3, etc) or they just simply added .625 to the previous number.

As for the unused numbers, they're skipping to either give more spacing between parts or something. Idk why.

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) Increasing step size by 1.5 means that tanks double (2.25) in volume each size step.  Well allowing for rounding structure, insulation and a bit of game magic.

B)Increasing by 0.625 (or 0.5metres rounded up to fit a kerbal) while very Kerbal isn't very reasonable* in that each step is well complicated.

To me balance of probably would suggest A was the intention but in a round about Kerbal way that finally conceded 1.85 (1.5kerbaled) was good to make things look right.

*meaning of the work being easy to reason about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

A) Increasing step size by 1.5 means that tanks double (2.25) in volume each size step.  Well allowing for rounding structure, insulation and a bit of game magic.

B)Increasing by 0.625 (or 0.5metres rounded up to fit a kerbal) while very Kerbal isn't very reasonable* in that each step is well complicated.

To me balance of probably would suggest A was the intention but in a round about Kerbal way that finally conceded 1.85 (1.5kerbaled) was good to make things look right.

*meaning of the work being easy to reason about.

 

Nothing complicated about going up by 0.625 each step. Just a little math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't take the Daedalus as one of those "2 bigger sizes".

I think that that the whole " 2 bigger sizes" is deliberately misleading.

We have a confirmation that everything in the trailer is made with actual game assets and in the trailer they show plenty of parts that probably won't adere to the standard size system.

The container system, the rover parts, the spherical tanks and the truss system will be probably way more influencing for ship sizes than the "classic" system used for rocket fairing and tanks.

The prevalent thing we will probably see using the size system could be habitats and modules but being inflatables confirmed I'm not that sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd think that this would make sense (the huge diameters are only hypothetical, just to show the pattern):

0.625

1.25

1.875

2.5

3.75

5

7.5

10

15

20

30

From 1.25m onwards, tank diameter doubles every second tank i.e. 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, etc. It's essentially exponential growth, with one size halfway between

Edited by Bartybum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...