Jump to content

[1.12.x] Artemis Construction Kit | Stockalike Orion & SLS | v1.3.0 | (SLS Block 2!)


benjee10
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/15/2022 at 4:44 AM, GoldForest said:

9jmWYfE.png

c9KR3j0.png

bXAovAE.png

Grq9nFW.png

Mq4kIJS.png

9P68u72.png

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (SDHLLV) lifting Orion into KEO.

b e a u t i f u l

Edit: Wait goldforest liked this, WOW nice.

Edited by Seadragon420
wait goldforest liked this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2022 at 4:44 AM, GoldForest said:

9jmWYfE.png

c9KR3j0.png

bXAovAE.png

Grq9nFW.png

Mq4kIJS.png

9P68u72.png

Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (SDHLLV) lifting Orion into KEO.

b e a u t i f u l. This is a repost of the post I accidentally deleted. Edit: this was a false alarm and i cant delete posts soo. mods, delete this post

Edited by Seadragon420
realised there was a false alarm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TruthfulGnome said:

Yes

I see another fellow KSP player who likes to abuse real-world rocket parts mods.

But that does look really cool though.

Edited by Blufor878
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zaphod12 said:

Is it just me or whenever I ignite the SRB's for the SLS, I cannot see any plumes from the boosters?

I saw a solution here for that issue that said delete restock.cfg. I havent checked if it worked yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@benjee10This looks fantastic with great attention to detail.

I wonder if Orion needs a balance pass for career mode playability. My thoughts on this started with your sample craft files and seeing that the Orion capsule subassembly looks extremely expensive and heavy compared to stock parts. (Apologies if this has been discussed before. I already searched the thread for things like "balance", "cost", "funds" and didn't find it.)

Some specific things I've noticed:

  • The 6-part abort tower assembly adds around 3 tons and 8k funds to a launch. That's a huge performance penalty for something that looks great but doesn't do much more in-game than the stock 1 ton 1k funds LES.
  • The KJ-10B "Viking" service module engine underperforms against stock engines. It costs and weighs more, but has worse ISP and thrust, than a stock LV-909 Terrier or a pair of Sparks.
  • A lot of minor parts cost over 1000 funds each, such as OR-F fairing panels, OR-A2 .625 to 1.25 adapter, and OR-T2B auxiliary engines.
  • I wonder why the service modules use a mix of monoprop and LFO. I think the real module just uses a fuel type that most closely corresponds to KSP monoprop. It would be nice if the main engine and aux thrusters shared the same fuel type, and I think truer to actual Orion.

This isn't an attack on your choices. When funds aren't a concern the mod is wonderful. I just find that for career there's a strong incentive to replace many of your parts with worse-looking but more efficient stock parts. "Sorry, I have better things to worry about than career mode" is an ok answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeadJohn said:
  • The 6-part abort tower assembly adds around 3 tons and 8k funds to a launch. That's a huge performance penalty for something that looks great but doesn't do much more in-game than the stock 1 ton 1k funds LES.
  • The KJ-10B "Viking" service module engine underperforms against stock engines. It costs and weighs more, but has worse ISP and thrust, than a stock LV-909 Terrier or a pair of Sparks.
  • A lot of minor parts cost over 1000 funds each, such as OR-F fairing panels, OR-A2 .625 to 1.25 adapter, and OR-T2B auxiliary engines.

I would assume that these 3 are for balancing reasons (benjee correct me if im wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DeadJohn said:

@benjee10This looks fantastic with great attention to detail.

I wonder if Orion needs a balance pass for career mode playability. My thoughts on this started with your sample craft files and seeing that the Orion capsule subassembly looks extremely expensive and heavy compared to stock parts. (Apologies if this has been discussed before. I already searched the thread for things like "balance", "cost", "funds" and didn't find it.)

Some specific things I've noticed:

  • The 6-part abort tower assembly adds around 3 tons and 8k funds to a launch. That's a huge performance penalty for something that looks great but doesn't do much more in-game than the stock 1 ton 1k funds LES.
  • The KJ-10B "Viking" service module engine underperforms against stock engines. It costs and weighs more, but has worse ISP and thrust, than a stock LV-909 Terrier or a pair of Sparks.
  • A lot of minor parts cost over 1000 funds each, such as OR-F fairing panels, OR-A2 .625 to 1.25 adapter, and OR-T2B auxiliary engines.
  • I wonder why the service modules use a mix of monoprop and LFO. I think the real module just uses a fuel type that most closely corresponds to KSP monoprop. It would be nice if the main engine and aux thrusters shared the same fuel type, and I think truer to actual Orion.

This isn't an attack on your choices. When funds aren't a concern the mod is wonderful. I just find that for career there's a strong incentive to replace many of your parts with worse-looking but more efficient stock parts. "Sorry, I have better things to worry about than career mode" is an ok answer.

This kind of feedback is always really appreciated as career gameplay is so time consuming to properly test. While career gameplay isn't the main focus of the mod I still want it to fit in properly with stock parts and parts from other mods.

  • Abort towers are a tricky one in terms of balance because they're inherently useless in KSP unless you have a launch failure mod. With the Orion abort tower you also have a few additional complications over the stock LES part - there are three separate motors for one, each of which require a certain amount of solid fuel to provide the thrust/burn time required. The mass/cost of the solid fuel can't be changed. You also have the boost cover which has no function. There are also CoM requirements to ensure that the capsule/abort tower assembly is stable during abort and separation. 
  • The engine is balanced around the real-world performance of the AJ10 engine, so there's not a lot I can do there, but I can certainly look at cost vs. equivalent stock parts. 
  • I will definitely take a look at the cost values on these more minor parts. 
  • On the SM fuel issue, there is no easy answer here. The real service module uses MMH/MON which is something in between stock LF/Ox and Monoprop. If I were to switch all the engines over to Monoprop only you would end up with parts that are very overpowered compared to all the stock Monoprop engines. LF/Ox makes more sense, but that would mean making the RCS thrusters use LF/Ox too, which isn't in line with other stock parts and also makes mission planning difficult since your total amount of delta V is affected by any RCS usage. The auxiliary thrusters are also meant to be a backup to the main OMS engine in case of an engine failure, which again doesn't have any use in KSP unless you have a parts failure mod. By having the aux thrusters use a different prop type they fulfil the role of a backup system in case the user runs out of LF/Ox I guess, so it gives them some functionality as opposed to just being dead mass you'd never use. So that is my thinking there, but I'm certainly open to any feedback on this issue and not totally against switching to another option. 

 

By way of updates, here is the universal stage adapter for the SLS Block 1B:

Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_19.20.38.png Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_19.41.21.png

USA is a bit of a weird one in that it ejects as a single piece, rather than four panels like the Apollo SLA. Should be fun in game. 

Also a closed off, nose-cone version (proposed for cargo/science payloads to reduce development time of a dedicated fairing):

Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_12.45.32.png

There will also be a separate 5m-diameter Simple Adjustable Fairing, although that may need to wait until the next update. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, benjee10 said:
  • On the SM fuel issue, there is no easy answer here. The real service module uses MMH/MON which is something in between stock LF/Ox and Monoprop. If I were to switch all the engines over to Monoprop only you would end up with parts that are very overpowered compared to all the stock Monoprop engines. LF/Ox makes more sense, but that would mean making the RCS thrusters use LF/Ox too, which isn't in line with other stock parts and also makes mission planning difficult since your total amount of delta V is affected by any RCS usage. The auxiliary thrusters are also meant to be a backup to the main OMS engine in case of an engine failure, which again doesn't have any use in KSP unless you have a parts failure mod. By having the aux thrusters use a different prop type they fulfil the role of a backup system in case the user runs out of LF/Ox I guess, so it gives them some functionality as opposed to just being dead mass you'd never use. So that is my thinking there, but I'm certainly open to any feedback on this issue and not totally against switching to another option. 

BDB recently got an optional update to switch hypergolic engines to use hypergolic. It's a simple one use all hypergolic, but maybe this could be something to look into? @Pappystein Made the hypergolic patch, maybe they could help you?

Perhaps make the AJ10 rely on hypergolic and the RCS rely on mono?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

BDB recently got an optional update to switch hypergolic engines to use hypergolic. It's a simple one use all hypergolic, but maybe this could be something to look into? @Pappystein Made the hypergolic patch, maybe they could help you?

Perhaps make the AJ10 rely on hypergolic and the RCS rely on mono?

That's how it works in Skyhawk Science System, can't speak on balance in career mode because I still haven't gotten around to playing it.

 

3 hours ago, benjee10 said:

This kind of feedback is always really appreciated as career gameplay is so time consuming to properly test. While career gameplay isn't the main focus of the mod I still want it to fit in properly with stock parts and parts from other mods.

  • Abort towers are a tricky one in terms of balance because they're inherently useless in KSP unless you have a launch failure mod. With the Orion abort tower you also have a few additional complications over the stock LES part - there are three separate motors for one, each of which require a certain amount of solid fuel to provide the thrust/burn time required. The mass/cost of the solid fuel can't be changed. You also have the boost cover which has no function. There are also CoM requirements to ensure that the capsule/abort tower assembly is stable during abort and separation. 
  • The engine is balanced around the real-world performance of the AJ10 engine, so there's not a lot I can do there, but I can certainly look at cost vs. equivalent stock parts. 
  • I will definitely take a look at the cost values on these more minor parts. 
  • On the SM fuel issue, there is no easy answer here. The real service module uses MMH/MON which is something in between stock LF/Ox and Monoprop. If I were to switch all the engines over to Monoprop only you would end up with parts that are very overpowered compared to all the stock Monoprop engines. LF/Ox makes more sense, but that would mean making the RCS thrusters use LF/Ox too, which isn't in line with other stock parts and also makes mission planning difficult since your total amount of delta V is affected by any RCS usage. The auxiliary thrusters are also meant to be a backup to the main OMS engine in case of an engine failure, which again doesn't have any use in KSP unless you have a parts failure mod. By having the aux thrusters use a different prop type they fulfil the role of a backup system in case the user runs out of LF/Ox I guess, so it gives them some functionality as opposed to just being dead mass you'd never use. So that is my thinking there, but I'm certainly open to any feedback on this issue and not totally against switching to another option. 

 

By way of updates, here is the universal stage adapter for the SLS Block 1B:

Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_19.20.38.png Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_19.41.21.png

USA is a bit of a weird one in that it ejects as a single piece, rather than four panels like the Apollo SLA. Should be fun in game. 

Also a closed off, nose-cone version (proposed for cargo/science payloads to reduce development time of a dedicated fairing):

Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_12.45.32.png

There will also be a separate 5m-diameter Simple Adjustable Fairing, although that may need to wait until the next update. 

oh-its-beautiful.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, benjee10 said:

This kind of feedback is always really appreciated as career gameplay is so time consuming to properly test. While career gameplay isn't the main focus of the mod I still want it to fit in properly with stock parts and parts from other mods.

  • Abort towers are a tricky one in terms of balance because they're inherently useless in KSP unless you have a launch failure mod. With the Orion abort tower you also have a few additional complications over the stock LES part - there are three separate motors for one, each of which require a certain amount of solid fuel to provide the thrust/burn time required. The mass/cost of the solid fuel can't be changed. You also have the boost cover which has no function. There are also CoM requirements to ensure that the capsule/abort tower assembly is stable during abort and separation. 
  • The engine is balanced around the real-world performance of the AJ10 engine, so there's not a lot I can do there, but I can certainly look at cost vs. equivalent stock parts. 
  • I will definitely take a look at the cost values on these more minor parts. 
  • On the SM fuel issue, there is no easy answer here. The real service module uses MMH/MON which is something in between stock LF/Ox and Monoprop. If I were to switch all the engines over to Monoprop only you would end up with parts that are very overpowered compared to all the stock Monoprop engines. LF/Ox makes more sense, but that would mean making the RCS thrusters use LF/Ox too, which isn't in line with other stock parts and also makes mission planning difficult since your total amount of delta V is affected by any RCS usage. The auxiliary thrusters are also meant to be a backup to the main OMS engine in case of an engine failure, which again doesn't have any use in KSP unless you have a parts failure mod. By having the aux thrusters use a different prop type they fulfil the role of a backup system in case the user runs out of LF/Ox I guess, so it gives them some functionality as opposed to just being dead mass you'd never use. So that is my thinking there, but I'm certainly open to any feedback on this issue and not totally against switching to another option. 

I completely understand how hard balancing can be, especially when so many players play with different settings and different mods, and even pure stock has some weird game balance.

The Orion abort tower, the real one not your model of it, is messy to replicate in KSP because all of the possible staging steps. What I've done for my use of your tower is to ignore the jettison motor. The other abort motor can handle jettison during a good flight, and after an emergency abort drains the abort motor the boost cover decoupler separates the tower without needing the jettison motor. I halved the solid fuel in the abort motor and it was still good for abort at 2.5x scale. Longer term I might patch the jettison motor to be lightweight and cheap so there's less penalty for keeping it as a cosmetic part.

The service module fuel is a philosophical decision with no single perfect answer. Whatever you want is correct ;) I prefer a single fuel type: that's what real Orion does, and in KSP terms it's nice not to overanalyze how much RCS vs engine fuel I need. Monoprop feels the most stockalike to me. I understand your LFO argument but IMO that limits interoperability with stock capsules and station parts mods like SSPXr. The case others made for BDB/Skyhawk fuel types is interesting; I love those fuel types but it adds complexity and limits non-BDB users.

These next 2 comments are based on the current mixed-fuel SM:

  • If you keep the KJ10 (AJ10) engine current thrust and ISP based on real world values, perhaps reduce the weight (from 0.8 which I think is too high to 0.2 for balance based on its performance?) and cost (from 1000 to 200?). That will give career players more flexibility to mix your parts and stock, and give less incentive to always use the Terrier, Spark clusters, or the RestockPlus Pug.
  • The aux thrusters seem way too expensive and heavy for their performance, especially 4x Aux Thruster 2 on the sample craft file which adds 10k to the cost. Both Aux Thrusters, 1 (OR-T2A) and 2 (OR-T2B) have identical thrust and ISP but the latter costs 2x and weighs 4x. I think rebalance both against a stock RCS thruster: Aux Thruster 1 has only 1 nozzle instead of 4 so maybe make its cost and mass 25% the stock RCS part. Then set Aux Thruster 2 to double 1's cost and mass, with 2kn RCS thrust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GoldForest said:

BDB recently got an optional update to switch hypergolic engines to use hypergolic. It's a simple one use all hypergolic, but maybe this could be something to look into? @Pappystein Made the hypergolic patch, maybe they could help you?

Perhaps make the AJ10 rely on hypergolic and the RCS rely on mono?

I haven't used that standalone BDB patch but I did use Skyhawk Science System's hypergolic plus other fuels for BDB. Skyhawk's fuel changes are wonderful, but I think ACK should try balancing for stock fuels and optionally patch later. Balancing for stock fuels is a big enough task.

"AJ10 rely on hypergolic and the RCS rely on mono" doesn't address how the real Orion uses the same fuel type for everything: AJ10, aux thrusters, and maneuver thrusters. Changing the ACK AJ10 to use monoprop seems better than using 2 fuel types or changing RCS to use a different fuel.

Later on, after ACK is balanced with stock fuels, and if Benjee or Skyhawk's owner or someone else wants to take it on, there can be an optional fuel patch for ACK. Or maybe completely integrate ACK into the Skyhawk tech tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, benjee10 said:

This kind of feedback is always really appreciated as career gameplay is so time consuming to properly test. While career gameplay isn't the main focus of the mod I still want it to fit in properly with stock parts and parts from other mods.

  • Abort towers are a tricky one in terms of balance because they're inherently useless in KSP unless you have a launch failure mod. With the Orion abort tower you also have a few additional complications over the stock LES part - there are three separate motors for one, each of which require a certain amount of solid fuel to provide the thrust/burn time required. The mass/cost of the solid fuel can't be changed. You also have the boost cover which has no function. There are also CoM requirements to ensure that the capsule/abort tower assembly is stable during abort and separation. 
  • The engine is balanced around the real-world performance of the AJ10 engine, so there's not a lot I can do there, but I can certainly look at cost vs. equivalent stock parts. 
  • I will definitely take a look at the cost values on these more minor parts. 
  • On the SM fuel issue, there is no easy answer here. The real service module uses MMH/MON which is something in between stock LF/Ox and Monoprop. If I were to switch all the engines over to Monoprop only you would end up with parts that are very overpowered compared to all the stock Monoprop engines. LF/Ox makes more sense, but that would mean making the RCS thrusters use LF/Ox too, which isn't in line with other stock parts and also makes mission planning difficult since your total amount of delta V is affected by any RCS usage. The auxiliary thrusters are also meant to be a backup to the main OMS engine in case of an engine failure, which again doesn't have any use in KSP unless you have a parts failure mod. By having the aux thrusters use a different prop type they fulfil the role of a backup system in case the user runs out of LF/Ox I guess, so it gives them some functionality as opposed to just being dead mass you'd never use. So that is my thinking there, but I'm certainly open to any feedback on this issue and not totally against switching to another option. 

 

By way of updates, here is the universal stage adapter for the SLS Block 1B:

Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_19.20.38.png Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_19.41.21.png

USA is a bit of a weird one in that it ejects as a single piece, rather than four panels like the Apollo SLA. Should be fun in game. 

Also a closed off, nose-cone version (proposed for cargo/science payloads to reduce development time of a dedicated fairing):

Screenshot_2022-09-18_at_12.45.32.png

There will also be a separate 5m-diameter Simple Adjustable Fairing, although that may need to wait until the next update. 

What size is the upper part of the USA?

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...