Sign in to follow this  
NASAFanboy

I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

Recommended Posts

Except for that undefinable amount of players, who like the parts just as they are.

I really still don't get the problem in just making the decision to not use X, if it's not to ones liking. In either career, challenge or sandbox.

Physically we're talking what ever electrical energy the brain uses to make a decision and moving the mouse a few centimeters to pick a part you like instead. Heck if it were any easier it would be a reflex.

But then Red Crown (who doesnt use mods) cant make rockets like the one I just posted. (which uses balanced engines instead of the default unbalanced ones)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm currently playing using Stupchris's rebalance mod (which is exactly what people are arguing should be stock) and I just returned from an Apollo style mission using the new parts... to Dres. Without a single fuel line, entirely serial staged.
If you were using FAR, it's not really valid with the stock aero. FAR makes it possible to reach LKO with less delta-V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to use the parts whether they're balanced or not, I'm glad for any addition to the stock part list. I would prefer for them to be better balanced (as I would for SRBs, I never use them because they're so bad), but I'll use them like I use the 48-7S. Just providing feedback, one player to the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's turn this on its head, would it seriously cripple peoples play if the parts were balanced? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's turn this on its head, would it seriously cripple peoples play if the parts were balanced? I don't think so.

It would mean people would have to scroll UP the VAB for a change, not just stack outward! Gasp!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's turn this on its head, would it seriously cripple peoples play if the parts were balanced? I don't think so.

It's already one of the most challenging games around and that was never the goal. So let's turn that around again. If they buff all of the other engines but they are balanced could you live with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

I still don't get that people find it hard, but meh. The reinforced joints help a lot.

I can lift 320t to LKO with balanced engines, yes some of them are mod addons, but they are still balanced.

The power of the new engines is fine, so you could still build tall rockets.

But SSTO to orbit is too easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's turn this on its head, would it seriously cripple peoples play if the parts were balanced? I don't think so.

If we can't have better versions of old engines, it will cripple the career mode. And if we can't have those better engines in the sandbox, we can't use it to test what can be done in different phases of the career mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we can't have better versions of old engines, it will cripple the career mode. And if we can't have those better engines in the sandbox, we can't use it to test what can be done in different phases of the career mode.

Sigh, you can have "better" engines that are still balanced, look at KW Rocketry.

(Some of the smaller KW engines maybe have too much ISP, but the large ones scale well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

I still don't get that people find it hard, but meh. The reinforced joints help a lot.

I can lift 320t to LKO with balanced engines, yes some of them are mod addons, but they are still balanced.

The power of the new engines is fine, so you could still build tall rockets.

But SSTO to orbit is too easy.

Well it isn't a hard thing to do if your budget is unlimited and it never will be.

Honestly Im guessing when it comes to balance that's how it'll go. If they wanted you to min max rockets and make difficult choices they would tell you what the dv is no? They would probably also make all physical objects have mass, and as you stretch a strut it would weigh more, and you wouldn't be able to refire a mainsail, and you wouldn't be able to refuel. That's clearly not going to happen though, that isn't the gameplay they seem to be after. I'm not sure very many people want it either. I mean I played orbiter for years, when this came out, I never touched it again. And I'm a hardcore SIM fan. Turns out space simulation is boring. Kerbal is fun, it's a huge success, orbiter well.. you can't compare the two easily but if you do.. I get the impression a being that uses an above ground swimming pool as a rocket fuel tank couldn't care less what dv or isp even stands for. That to me is why kerbal is fun. It's pretty cool that before it's all said and done I can mod it into a SIM as complete and detailed as orbiter if I get the itch. And let's be honest here even if they needed everything and balanced, this game still wouldn't challenge you, you already know what you are doing. The fun at this point for me is actually in the doing. At this stage when I want a challenge, I stop doing caring about math, but to each his own, I'm glad this game is moddable though because it sounds like a lot of the vets are going to be disappointed in the final product. Thats kinda disappointing, even though I can see your points of view.

Edit: I'm on my phone and that's a bit rambling, I apologize.

Edited by Dogoncrook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall it being said some time ago that the pre-0.23.5 stock engines had terrible performance characteristics when compared to their real-life counterparts. So, when you consider that the ARM parts may have been created as a reflection of their NASA counterparts, it should be no surprise to find that they severely out-class the previous stock engines. And if you consider the purpose for which they were created, you have to ask "If we balance the new parts down to the performance levels of the old ones, can the purpose still be fulfilled?" If that answer is "yes" then what was the point of creating them in the first place?

I know it's been stated before that a money system may (when it's implemented) provide the balancing mechanic, but I think the concept of "technology levels" is something larger than a mere monetary issue. As new technology is developed, it leaves behind the old. And so, I believe that it's perfectly reasonable to have a level of technology in this game that makes "lower" parts completely obsolete. After all, if my memory serves (and if the team's vision for the scope of the game hasn't changed much), KSP's career was going to take the player from tech based on jury-rigging piles of scrap metal, all the way to tech beyond our modern equivalents. You can't do that if all the parts available are balanced to every other.

Unfortunately, that means that in Sandbox Mode there will be parts the player simply won't use. Interestingly enough, this same "issue" is faced by almost every first-person shooter out there. During the Campaign, the player gradually gains access to better weapons, expanding his or her combat capabilities, but in Multiplayer, only the later unlocks are ever used. This is just the nature of having a limited number of attributes (Thrust/Damage, ISP/Rate of Fire, Mass/Recoil for example) and having more parts than there are combinations of those attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sigh, you can have "better" engines that are still balanced, look at KW Rocketry.

Squad is currently saying that it wants the career mode to become a tycoon game. One common feature in those games is that you get new stuff that makes old stuff obsolete. If we can't have that in KSP, it certainly cripples the career mode as a tycoon game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to recall it being said some time ago that the pre-0.23.5 stock engines had terrible performance characteristics when compared to their real-life counterparts. So, when you consider that the ARM parts may have been created as a reflection of their NASA counterparts, it should be no surprise to find that they severely out-class the previous stock engines. And if you consider the purpose for which they were created, you have to ask "If we balance the new parts down to the performance levels of the old ones, can the purpose still be fulfilled?" If that answer is "yes" then what was the point of creating them in the first place?

As the stock rebalance project shows, the answers to your questions are "Yes" and "Because they're bigger."

Being balanced to the same curve doesn't mean they're on the same place on the curve. In the Rework, the SLS cluster engines go past the mainsail as "high thrust low efficiency" engines, suitable for lifting a ginormous rocket to 10-20km before staging, where vacuum ISP starts being a significant factor for the second stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocket SSTO to orbit has been simple enough for ages. I did it in the demo, and with a lousy ascent profile to boot. The ARM parts do increase the payload fractions and practical total payloads, but they don't make the basic concept any easier than it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I basically want an Orbiter that is more fun to play.

Wish the devs would make a statement on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be disappointed if sandbox mode is left to wither on the vine in favor of career mode. Sandbox play is what made KSP what it is today. Maybe career mode is what will attract new players who need more direction in what to be doing, but it would be better if both camps could be satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, someone, tell me what I am missing. All of the 3M engines I try to use overheat horribly. I just tried to launch a 103T vehicle with the LFB KR-1X2 and I had to run it at 58% thrust in order to avoid overheat. Same with the other ARM engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I basically want an Orbiter that is more fun to play.

Wish the devs would make a statement on this subject.

Rpm, interstellar, deadly reentry, far, mechjeb, scan sat, real whatever your flavor and an n body physics mod ( its coming) there you go. And you can do it all steampunk style with moonshine rockets should you choose. Honestly, we are spoiled for choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rpm, interstellar, deadly reentry, far, mechjeb, scan sat, real whatever your flavor and an n body physics mod ( its coming) there you go. And you can do it all steampunk style with moonshine rockets should you choose. Honestly, we are spoiled for choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you've spotted a steampunk style, or moonshine fueled rocket mod, could you please point me toward it? I build for aesthetics, and one of 'em is the good ol' fashioned "That should NOT be flying, let alone actually doing that well!" kind of rocket planes.

My phone will not allow this. It's the professor phineas kerbinstein

Wonderous vertical propulsion emporium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rocket SSTO to orbit has been simple enough for ages. I did it in the demo, and with a lousy ascent profile to boot. The ARM parts do increase the payload fractions and practical total payloads, but they don't make the basic concept any easier than it was.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

Does it not worry you that the new engines have made Rocket Singe Stage To Laythe craft not just possible, but really easy to throw together, using only one engine (x7)? Could you do that in the demo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then Red Crown (who doesnt use mods) cant make rockets like the one I just posted. (which uses balanced engines instead of the default unbalanced ones)

True, but one guys wishes aren't necessarily worth more than another guys.

Except for needs, which allways beat wishes. I NEED a new liver, beats I want an icecream anyday. *lol* But with us humans the way we are, it wouldn't surprise me if there were examples of: "I want a new liver, the old one looks fat on cat scans and I need icecream!."

In the absense of any realistic numbers on who wants what, motivations for it and so on, I'm inclined to go with who came first, or in this case, what came first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

Does it not worry you that the new engines have made Rocket Singe Stage To Laythe craft not just possible, but really easy to throw together, using only one engine (x7)? Could you do that in the demo?

Can I still choose not to do that, if I don't want to? Yes...

Then the answer is no...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope the "balanced" people do not end up getting the wonderful new parts nerfed.

"Balance" is one of those things I think people expect that they should want from a game, that actually detracts from most games.

At least in this type of context.

People clamoring for "balance" because of "realism",: in the real world we no longer use the same technological items we did even just a decade ago, realism actually requires what many of you perceive as an "imbalance".

Otherwise, in a game where you pretty much regulate your own behavior, if you are afraid you'll stop using the older parts, well then, that's more an issue of having some self control rather than having things watered down to a lukewarm, middling experience for everyone else because you'd rather not exert said self control.

Edited by _Aramchek_

Share this post


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