Sign in to follow this  
NASAFanboy

I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

Recommended Posts

The issue behind it (from what I can tell) is that people are only looking at the numbers and not actually playing with the parts. They look at the numbers, plot it on a graph and go "WOW, this is way imbalanced" without actually building a rocket with it.

In Eve Online we call them "EFT warriors". EFT is a program allowing you to create ship fittings and get output stats (armor, shields, dps, etc.). Often those figures look great in theory but fail horribly once you try it in practice.

I agree that price will obviously have an impact on how viable those engines are...unless you're playing sandbox. But sandbox by definition is the place where you test stuff, so that doesn't really bother me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can build an 2 part SSTO with the liquid fuel boosters... (booster+probe core)

How big of a payload does that bring to orbit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm glad when I see others trying new ways to play the game. I don't feel that my style should be the "only" one; quite the contrary. Seeing new parts that actually improve upon performance is quite encouraging to me as well, since it shows that the developers aren't sacrificing the potential of Career mode for some misguided attempt to keep Sandbox mode "balanced" (a task that made sense back when it was the only mode, but now we have a mode for that sort of thing, and thus it's not necessary any longer).

I stand by my declaration of "if you don't like it, don't use it". Should you desire to keep the lower efficiency of the earlier lifter engines while still using the higher-capacity fuel tanks, just make clusters of them in place of the larger, more efficient engines that ARM brings. Such a simple, elegant, and even creative solution. Or get a mod that weakens the newer engines down, if appearances matter to you. Asking everyone to suffer for your specific desires, however, is unreasonable. What is there is there, take it, leave it, or modify it for your own personal use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue behind it (from what I can tell) is that people are only looking at the numbers and not actually playing with the parts. They look at the numbers, plot it on a graph and go "WOW, this is way imbalanced" without actually building a rocket with it.

This is a completely baseless assertion, and just plain wrong in my case. I guess you have played with the parts and found some downside to the new parts that the numbers don't show?

You can build an 2 part SSTO with the liquid fuel boosters... (booster+probe core)

You could always build 3 part SSTOs in a few different configurations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those SSTO's couldn't carry much payload, unlike the liquid fuel boosters.

(Why do boosters even have that good vacuum ISP? I thought the point of boosters was to get heavy rockets off the lauch pad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a completely baseless assertion, and just plain wrong in my case. I guess you have played with the parts and found some downside to the new parts that the numbers don't show?

No, it's based on the fact that everybody points to numbers on graphs and not numbers in game. Secondly, I never asserted a downside, so you strawmanned me there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Why do boosters even have that good vacuum ISP? I thought the point of boosters was to get heavy rockets off the lauch pad)

They're more in line with the actual SLS vehicle which uses all the latest hardware. According to Wikipedia the first stage has "363 seconds (3.56 km/s) (sea level), 452 seconds (4.43 km/s) (vacuum)", which is incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the kerbin is much smaller than earth. Real engines would make everything very easy.

I don't know what the devs are thinking, or why, but they must have a reason for adding those sorts of engines in that way. My hope is that they're planning to revise the aerodynamic "model" to something like FAR and then scale the solar system up to a more reasonable level. I'm likely very wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're more in line with the actual SLS vehicle which uses all the latest hardware. According to Wikipedia the first stage has "363 seconds (3.56 km/s) (sea level), 452 seconds (4.43 km/s) (vacuum)", which is incredible.

Actually, if you follow recent history in rocketry advances, you'll realize that the long-held belief of "we can't improve the design any further" is proving itself to be just as inaccurate as the old mantra of "3GHz is the fastest we can make a processor" for computer hardware. The performance improvements on more modern engines over their earlier-era counterparts is impressive indeed, especially with SpaceX's Merlin 1D over the original 1C. They managed to get about 50% more thrust while reducing its weight, something that would have been deemed impossible not so long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's based on the fact that everybody points to numbers on graphs and not numbers in game. Secondly, I never asserted a downside, so you strawmanned me there.

What kind of in game numbers are you looking for? Saying that the issue is people looking at the numbers and not trying it in game implies there will be a difference if they tried it in game. And since you're referring specifically to the people saying it's overpowered (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I got from it) you're implying a downside if they tried it in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just FYI guys, according to the mods, using the term "Strawman" can be considered trolling and will earn reprimands.

Just a heads up because it's getting tossed around a lot here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of in game numbers are you looking for? Saying that the issue is people looking at the numbers and not trying it in game implies there will be a difference if they tried it in game. And since you're referring specifically to the people saying it's overpowered (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I got from it) you're implying a downside if they tried it in game.

That's not implying that there will be a downside to the parts, but rather implying that the parts may not appear to be as overpowered (if overpowered at all) when one actually plays with the parts in-game.

- - - Updated - - -

just FYI guys, according to the mods, using the term "Strawman" can be considered trolling and will earn reprimands.

Just a heads up because it's getting tossed around a lot here.

You're joking right?

We aren't allowed to use rhetorical statements in a lively debate for the betterment of a game?

Like... really?

Wow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if you follow recent history in rocketry advances, you'll realize that the long-held belief of "we can't improve the design any further" is proving itself to be just as inaccurate as the old mantra of "3GHz is the fastest we can make a processor" for computer hardware.

Not sure why you think I'm making those claims, I just said the engines on the SLS were "incredible" (they are).

The fact remains, though, that the new engines introduced into KSP make it quite easy to build a lifter for Kerbin and that they are out-of-sync with the current parts. Whether that's a good or bad thing isn't really my concern and we have no idea why the devs introduced such powerful parts. If they are intended to follow a progression towards bigger and badder engines through career I would argue that they should be balanced for career mode, and that is impossible right now due to all the missing pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure why you think I'm making those claims, I just said the engines on the SLS were "incredible" (they are).

I wasn't really challenging anything, just making an observation that we've managed to overcome some major engineering hurdles in rocket design in recent years. I find it to be impressive, to say the least! No real implications beyond the fact that technology marches on and it's amazing to watch it in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not implying that there will be a downside to the parts, but rather implying that the parts may not appear to be as overpowered (if overpowered at all) when one actually plays with the parts in-game.

It is implying there's some factor that makes it worse. If there isn't, they will function exactly as the numbers predict. If they don't, there's some factor causing it (downside). It could be that maybe the larger tanks aren't as weight efficient, or you require more adapters, or whatever. But there has to be something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is implying there's some factor that makes it worse. If there isn't, they will function exactly as the numbers predict. If they don't, there's some factor causing it (downside). It could be that maybe the larger tanks aren't as weight efficient, or you require more adapters, or whatever. But there has to be something.

Maybe I was misinterpreting what you meant by 'downside'. I was thinking by 'downside' you meant that there would be a downside to using the parts altogether.

Either way, as you mentioned, it was to imply that there would be some unknown factor that would affect the results, and as it turns out, I have noticed one factor.

While I didn't state it in my post, when I did my experiment with the new parts, I found that the increased TWR of the new engines means that they reach a given velocity faster, which means that they reach sub-orbital speeds at a lower altitude. This in-turn means that the player has to burn more fuel (or at least, burn longer) to keep their apoapsis at where they want it.

Granted, you still get a noticeable difference in remaining dV by the way I did the experiment, but it does show that untested numbers aren't always the most accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that the devs have previously altered engine stats to keep the game balanced and the game has been improved by it. Take the Aerospike for example, that engine used to be ridiculously overpowered and so Squad changed it. How many do you think jumped ship yelling "KSP is RUINED!"? Not many I'll bet.

I fully support an engine rebalanceing of the ARM engines, because to be frank, this kind of thing should not be possible:

ToMa1Bs.png

And yes, that is an SSTO

Edited by SofusRud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to point out that the devs have previously altered engine stats to keep the game balanced and the game has been improved by it. Take the Aerospike for example, that engine used to be ridiculously overpowered and so Squad changed. How many do you think jumped ship yelling "KSP is RUINED!"? Not many I'll bet.

I fully support an engine rebalanceing of the ARM engines, because to be frank, this kind of thing should not be possible:

http://i.imgur.com/ToMa1Bs.png

And yes, that is an SSTO

I was originally thinking: "Oh yes, big deal, you got that into Kerbin orbit" Then I realized Jool in the background. I agree with you, the devs will most likely rebalance the parts according to community feedback, just like they did the aerospike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this kind of thing should not be possible

Why one thing should or shouldn't be possible in Kerbal's universe ?

Is it really possible that such elongated brainy humanoids with tiny body and legs/arms can go to space either ?

KSP IS NOT a strict simulation after all, fortunately for us (I don't think having to plan carefully every tiny piece of detail of a mission, staying weeks behind the computer, in real time, without any saving features would be so fun !)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to make complicated plans don't make an ssto to laythe.

ssto's to other planets should be hard, non-ssto should be the easy way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why one thing should or shouldn't be possible in Kerbal's universe ?

The game loses the value of the feeling of accomplishment when things are made too easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The game loses the value of the feeling of accomplishment when things are made too easy.

I hope that no matter the side of the discussion anyone is on, we can all at least agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can make the game harder for ourselves, we can refrain from using quicksave, we can see what we are capable of with the weaker engines, we can defy convention and build non-vegetable rockets :)

KSP is our space program, we can shape the flights to the planets and moons however we like, our precious green screaming cargo is just along for the ride of our imaginations.

Sandbox isn't meant to be any harder than we make it for ourselves, career isn't even half finished yet and already there are enterprising modders fine tuning it for different tastes.

Play KSP your way, have fun, and don't worry about what's best or right, there is no one best way to play KSP :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this