The Price of the Batteries seems off...

[BrokenPhysics]

Currently in the game, Batteries get significantly more expensive (looking at funds per Charge) the bigger they become:

Z100: 0.8 Funds/Charge

Z200: 1.8 Funds/Charge

Z400: 1.375 Funds/Charge

Z1k: 0.88 Funds/Charge

I find it quite plausible, that the Z200 and the Z1k are more expensive than the Z100 or Z400, since they're inline-Batteries and must provide some structural Stability. But the fact that the Z400 is much more expensive than the Z100 bugs me, especially since they are the same in every other aspect (except size and capacity of course).

I therefore advocate a price change of the Z400 from 550 to 320, to bring it in line with the price of the Z100, and a price change of the Z200 from 360 to 200, which would be 25% more than the Z100. The Z1k can be left as it is; it currently sits at 10% more than the Z100, which is reasonable since it is an inline Battery.

Am I missing something?

Edit: Alternatively, the price of the Z100 could be raised from 80 to 137.5 to bring it in Line with the Z400. This would also mean, that the price of the Z200 isn't that far off (31% more expensive). The Z1k should then also be adjusted from 880 to 1512.5 to match the price increase of the Z100.

Edited August 26, 2014 by BrokenPhysics
added the statistics of the Z1k

[Kasuha]

I don't see much of a problem here, batteries are usually needed in small quantities. But it's true their prices go all around the place.

[johnqevil]

Batteries in real life get more expensive the more dense they are. High density lithium batteries that hold about 40% more charge than their alkaline counterparts run about twice as much.

[Sky_walker]

Good post.

+1 to fixing that

Though I'm not sure if it shouldn't be in a bug reports?

[Red Iron Crown]

+1 please add to the TODO list for the next pricing balance pass.

Should the radial batteries be more expensive where they're made of magical massless material?

[Kasuha]

Should the radial batteries be more expensive where they're made of magical massless material?

Realistically, inline batteries should be more expensive (per unit of charge) as they consist of structural element and a battery.

From practical point of view it should be the other way around otherwise people won't use them.

[Hyakkidouran]

+1

It's an easy change for the devs, so I see no reason not to do adjust the price so 1 unit of charge is the same price.

The difference between being structural or not could be negligible. The upsides of each type balancing out (being structural vs behaving as massless).

[BrokenPhysics]

Thank you for your support, guys

I don't see much of a problem here, batteries are usually needed in small quantities. But it's true their prices go all around the place.

Yeah, it's definitely no gamebreaking problem, but since it's an easy fix and contributes to the consistency of prices, I don't see a reason not to do it.

Batteries in real life get more expensive the more dense they are. High density lithium batteries that hold about 40% more charge than their alkaline counterparts run about twice as much.

If the batteries were, in fact, more dense, I'd agree with you, but since they're not (except maybe for the Z1k)...

Though I'm not sure if it shouldn't be in a bug reports?

I thought about that, too, I'll post it there with a link to this thread later.

Should the radial batteries be more expensive where they're made of magical massless material?

I always thought about that as a bug, that will some day be squashed, so I didn't include it in my reasoning.

[Kasuha]

I always thought about that as a bug, that will some day be squashed, so I didn't include it in my reasoning.

Not a bug, it's a feature. They used to have mass and later they got a setting configured to lose their physics-ness to decrease load on the physics engine. Many other small radial parts got the same treatment for the same reason.

Unity 5 is said to employ multiple cores in its physics simulation so it is possible it will be considered powerful enough to return mass to these little parts that are massless at present.

[Sky_walker]

Not a bug, it's a feature. They used to have mass and later they got a setting configured to lose their physics-ness to decrease load on the physics engine. Many other small radial parts got the same treatment for the same reason.

Unity 5 is said to employ multiple cores in its physics simulation so it is possible it will be considered powerful enough to return mass to these little parts that are massless at present.

TBH: I can't be bothered by small massless radial parts as much as I am bothered by massless engines (mostly due to the infinite TWR problem).

[Kasuha]

TBH: I can't be bothered by small massless radial parts as much as I am bothered by massless engines (mostly due to the infinite TWR problem).

You can't ever have infinite TWR as the ship always has mass. Even if you make it off massless parts only, at least the root part always keeps its mass. I completely support the idea of retaining mass of these parts in some form, though.

I'm bothered the most by the massless 3.75 m decoupler because it's BIG and I don't see a single reason why it should be massless.

[Renegrade]

I'd definitely like the prices put inline to be sensible (a sensibility pass would be nice for oh, 90% of the game in fact).

One other thing I'd like to see is solar panel costs increased significantly. From a game design perspective, the solar panels provide you with unlimited free energy as long as they're exposed to sunlight, and yet they cost roughly the same as an equivalent level battery.. an increased solar cost would add a design consideration of 'spam Funds and solar for fast charge' vs 'spam patience and batteries for less Funds'.

I'm bothered the most by the massless 3.75 m decoupler because it's BIG and I don't see a single reason why it should be massless.

I've read that they made that massless because of a physics issue when a small-mass/physicsful objects are sandwiched in between very heavy objects. I have no idea if it's true or not, however. If that's not true, then it really should have a mass as the other inline decouplers do.

[johnqevil]

If the batteries were, in fact, more dense, I'd agree with you, but since they're not (except maybe for the Z1k)...

They take up the same physical size, how is that not more dense?

[UberFuber]

You can't ever have infinite TWR as the ship always has mass. Even if you make it off massless parts only, at least the root part always keeps its mass. I completely support the idea of retaining mass of these parts in some form, though.

I'm bothered the most by the massless 3.75 m decoupler because it's BIG and I don't see a single reason why it should be massless.

I always like the suggestion that "massless parts" don't contain the mass themselves, but contribute them to the parent body they attach to.

So if you have a 1 ton fuel-tank and adds an 1 kg "physic-less" battery to it, the fuel tank now weighs 1.001 ton (still retain the same center of gravity).

The retaining same center of gravity can be explained away as the main body tank having its content adjusted to balance out the attached mass.

[EdFred]

You guys do realize you can make these changes yourself in the cfg file right?

[Sky_walker]

You can't ever have infinite TWR as the ship always has mass.

Yes. But the engine doesn't. So engine itself does have an infinite TWR.

I'm bothered the most by the massless 3.75 m decoupler because it's BIG and I don't see a single reason why it should be massless.

That's a very good point. It weights almost a tonne and yet - remains massless. I have no idea what's the logic behind it. There is plenty of components lighter than that which do have mass.

You guys do realize you can make these changes yourself in the cfg file right?

Yes we do, and if anyone would like to discuss modding - they'd post in an appropriate forum.

[Jouni]

That's a very good point. It weights almost a tonne and yet - remains massless. I have no idea what's the logic behind it. There is plenty of components lighter than that which do have mass.

They probably wanted to build the SLS without using struts to reinforce the interstage section. If you remove the PhysicsSignificance bit, big rockets start to wobble, because the joints aren't rigid enough for 200 tonnes of upper stage and payload above the decoupler.

[BrokenPhysics]

One other thing I'd like to see is solar panel costs increased significantly.

Yeah, that's a good point. Solar panels are quite expensive in real life (except maybe for the small low-grade ones for kids and garden-lamps).

I'll look at them, when I get the time, and maybe I'll work out some numbers for reasonable prices, but don't expect it to be anytime soon, since I'm currently moving to a new city.

Not a bug, it's a feature.

So it's a workaround for a bug/limitation. Amounts to almost the same for me :-P

I always like the suggestion that "massless parts" don't contain the mass themselves, but contribute them to the parent body they attach to.

I like that, too. Is there a mod out there to provide this functionality?

They take up the same physical size, how is that not more dense?

They do not take up the same physical size. They have the same weight per charge, but I can comfortably fit 2 Z100 into a Z200, and I can fit at least three, maybe even four Z100 into a Z400.

[rkman]

I'm bothered the most by the massless 3.75 m decoupler because it's BIG and I don't see a single reason why it should be massless.

I think that is because the 'springyness' of attach nodes depends (amongst other factors) on the mass of the part, which becomes more of a problem ('pogo-sticking') when that part carries a lot of mass, such as the 3.75 m decoupler carrying the upper stage and payload of an 'SLS size' rocket.

That is a problem with all smallish (and therefor relatively low mass) stackable parts.

Making those parts physicless sort of works around the problem, but also introduces other problems.