[1.02] KW Rocketry v2.7 Available - 1.02 Compatibility! - 16/05/2015

[Creat]

I have a bit of feedback for the placement of the parts in the tech-tree. The stock tanks were moved around quite a bit, so the KW-tanks now provide much more fuel than the stock tanks from the same nodes, especially for 1.25m parts. Generally, part placement seems to be as it was in the old tech tree (pre-1.0), not adjusted for the overhauled version.

The first node that unlocks any LF/O tank (Basic rocketry) only gives the stock FL-T100 (45/55 units), but includes SA-05 and both SA-1 tanks (up to 108/132 units). The stock 1.25m decoupler is unlocked with Engineering 101, but the KW-equivalent is still in basic rocketry. (all are just some very early examples, there are more like this obviously).

Can we expect a the tree to be reshuffled soon(ish) or should we just write a MM-config to fix it in the meantime?

[AlonzoTG]

Yeah, I'm detecting some testing defficiency disorder here. =\ The 3M heavy launcher, for example, has absolutely atrocious TWR, even when the payload is comparatively negligable, the thing will only climb about three klicks until the engines overheat, this overheating is inevitable because it is impossible to maintain TWR over unity and not overheat. I had some russian tr-170 engines from another mod that I set to wikipedia numbers and the rocket performs as well as it looks like it should... =|

[smjjames]

Yeah, I'm detecting some testing defficiency disorder here. =\ The 3M heavy launcher, for example, has absolutely atrocious TWR, even when the payload is comparatively negligable, the thing will only climb about three klicks until the engines overheat, this overheating is inevitable because it is impossible to maintain TWR over unity and not overheat. I had some russian tr-170 engines from another mod that I set to wikipedia numbers and the rocket performs as well as it looks like it should... =|

I can also confirm that there are heating problems. While I haven't hit the overheat issue yet, I'm noticing that they (well, the Griffon Century and the Titan4 engines that I looked at) heat up really fast, on par with the nuke engines almost.

[JoseEduardo]

does anyone have a config or a MM patch for adding procedural fairings mod support instead of the stock one to the fairing bases? i've tried doing it on my own, but i either get a resized fairing base or the fairing coming from inside the base ring

[Bobe]

Is it just me or are the thrust limiters on SRBs quite different post 1.0? Before, depending on the weight of the vehicle, I would decrease the thrust on the solid boosters significantly so that they weren't pushing the craft needlessly past terminal velocity. Normally I might reduce them to 20% or in some cases even 0%. In the latter configuration, the boosters still produced a fair amount of thrust and the exhaust effects were still substantial. Now however, when using 0% thrust, there are no exhaust effects and the thrust seems much higher, which means I often have to reduce my main engines to idle while the 0% boosters carry the vehicle, all the while there are absolutely no effects coming out of the engines.

You might argue that I am simply just using solid boosters unnecessarily (imagine two Globe V SRBs on a 1.25m rocket 150% their height) but pre-1.0 I was flying rockets like this without issue. Is it just now with the changes in 1.0 that a rocket like this is not strictly feasible, or are there still some issues with KW?

[Sochin]

I found a little problem, 3.75m SAS unit in the cfg is set to large construction which doesnt exist I changed mine to veryHeavyRocketry.

[Shad0wCatcher]

@Bobe - KW solid boosters have a minimum throttle setting of 50%. 0% on the tweakable menu coincides with that. Reduced pea-soup atmosphere means more thrust-to-weight on everything.

[Darkway]

Okey everyone. Ive created a beautiful little patch to integrate the KWRocketry parts into the stock R&D tree (with an extra node for huge engines). My next job is to balance heat generation on engines. In the meantime, here is the patch, just put it into the KW rocketry folder in GameData. You need ModuleManager for the patch to work! Any feedback is welcome.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqxy05hp3uhfgr0/KWPatch.cfg?dl=0

Javascript is disabled. View full album

EDIT : added fix for the bug reported by Sochin about the 3m SAS unit.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Darkway

[Temeter]

@Bobe - KW solid boosters have a minimum throttle setting of 50%. 0% on the tweakable menu coincides with that. Reduced pea-soup atmosphere means more thrust-to-weight on everything.

Yep, I assume the missing exhaust effects are a bug of the game not recognizing the minimum throttle and treating the SRB as deactivated.

[Bobe]

@Bobe - KW solid boosters have a minimum throttle setting of 50%. 0% on the tweakable menu coincides with that. Reduced pea-soup atmosphere means more thrust-to-weight on everything.

Fair enough, I suppose I'll just adapt my designs accordingly and try to avoid going to 0%.

[Kitworks]

Yay 1.0.2 update! You are brilliant. KSp just doesn't feel like KSP with KW Rocketry.

[Honeybadga]

ksp just doesn't feel like ksp without kw rocketry.

ftfy.

[Antman68]

Okey everyone. Ive created a beautiful little patch to integrate the KWRocketry parts into the stock R&D tree (with an extra node for huge engines). My next job is to balance heat generation on engines. In the meantime, here is the patch, just put it into the KW rocketry folder in GameData. You need ModuleManager for the patch to work! Any feedback is welcome.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqxy05hp3uhfgr0/KWPatch.cfg?dl=0

http://imgur.com/a/pQuHm

EDIT : added fix for the bug reported by Sochin about the 3m SAS unit.

Thanks for the config patch Darkway!

[somnambulist]

My next job is to balance heat generation on engines

I did this last night with the LF engines and the SPS. SRBs still need to be looked at. I'll send you my mm cfg later this evening (6 hrs from this post.)

[Winston]

I'm sorry for not fixing these things myself and releasing an update, I'm just not really in the swing of things with KSP right now and trying to fix a few things is just driving me mad.

1.0 broke a lot of things, for example none of the adapter shrouds will connect properly any more because of the changes made to nodes, and I can't seem to find a satisfactory fix for them.

I didn't even realise this until after we released this update because we kind of rushed it out a few hours before Kyle left to go on holiday, if I had only had a chance to do some more testing I probably would have insisted on postponing it because so much is broken or untested.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Winston

[somnambulist]

Winston / Kyke -- don't worry about it. KSP 1.0 made a lot of changes, many of them poorly documented if not entirely undocumented. There were bound to be some issues. Everyone is glad KW is still around for 1.x even if there are still s few bugs to sort out.

[BudgetHedgehog]

1.0 broke a lot of things, for example none of the adapter shrouds will connect properly any more because of the changes made to nodes, and I can't seem to find a satisfactory fix for them.

I'm sorry to hear that, Winston. About the engine shrouds though, I made this extremely realistic picture - is this not possible?

[Winston]

I'm sorry to hear that, Winston. About the engine shrouds though, I made this extremely realistic picture - is this not possible?

http://s8.postimg.org/sv8mtk60l/kwr.png

If I understand your diagram correctly, this is indeed the system we currently use - engines have two nodes at the top, one serves to connect the engine to a fuel tank and the other allows a shroud to be attached.

However, now that nodes have to be the same orientation as their reciprocal node in order to work, it becomes more difficult to have nodes that serve multiple purposes.

You end up having to stack nodes inside each other and then they have a tendency not to work at all.

[Darkway]

I did this last night with the LF engines and the SPS. SRBs still need to be looked at. I'll send you my mm cfg later this evening (6 hrs from this post.)

Nice. I tried to find a formula to work with, but could not come up with anything universally nice. So I started to run tests with engines and different configs to see heat generation in action. I have a roughly usable config, but some tested, nicely working config wold be nice, ill put it in my patch, so in the end, Winston or Kickasskyle can just use it/integrate it easily, while we can play with it until they fix other problems

Edited May 18, 2015 by Darkway

[BudgetHedgehog]

You end up having to stack nodes inside each other and then they have a tendency not to work at all.

Well that's majorly annoying. I don't know what to suggest then

[smjjames]

I'm sorry to hear that, Winston. About the engine shrouds though, I made this extremely realistic picture - is this not possible?

http://s8.postimg.org/sv8mtk60l/kwr.png

You know, Necrobones SpaceY heavy lifters pack actually does this, just in a different way and with autoshrouds by using a second large node further down. It's the interstage adaptors and thrust plates from that mod.

[somnambulist]

If I understand your diagram correctly, this is indeed the system we currently use - engines have two nodes at the top, one serves to connect the engine to a fuel tank and the other allows a shroud to be attached.

I think Kyle once considered changing the shrouds over to omni decouplers and getting rid of the extra nodes entirely. I patch my own KW install to work this way and much prefer it over the standard system.

[Razhan]

Hey great work with the update but could it be that the cost for the fuel tanks are kinda high ? looks like the normal cost switched with the entry cost.

I do not know if switched, but for engines the cost does not make a lot of sense. Checking the engines costs, for example the Maverick vs the Mainsail (both are quite similar):

Maverick: Entry: 15900 Unit: 2650

Mainsail: Entry: 38000 Unit: 13000

Those prices are way to low on my opinion, it's ~20% the price of the mainsail for an equivalent engine

Anyway, it's great to have this mod back

[Darkway]

I do not know if switched, but for engines the cost does not make a lot of sense. Checking the engines costs, for example the Maverick vs the Mainsail (both are quite similar):

Maverick: Entry: 15900 Unit: 2650

Mainsail: Entry: 38000 Unit: 13000

Those prices are way to low on my opinion, it's ~20% the price of the mainsail for an equivalent engine

Anyway, it's great to have this mod back

Ill take a look at that too tomorrow, and include balances in my patch. It's almost 1 am here so its time to sleep for me

Edited May 18, 2015 by Darkway

[taniel0401]

I'm sorry for not fixing these things myself and releasing an update, I'm just not really in the swing of things with KSP right now and trying to fix a few things is just driving me mad.

1.0 broke a lot of things, for example none of the adapter shrouds will connect properly any more because of the changes made to nodes, and I can't seem to find a satisfactory fix for them.

I didn't even realise this until after we released this update because we kind of rushed it out a few hours before Kyle left to go on holiday, if I had only had a chance to do some more testing I probably would have insisted on postponing it because so much is broken or untested.

I got some of those "fixed"... I changed the second top node location on the Wildcat-XR to a bit lower and now it works properly with the 5m to 3.75m Apollo style interstage adapter