18t <> 18t

[Renegrade]

You CAN just not abuse the parts. Instead of putting them on cubic octagonals you could instead put them on I-beams or the trusses that are larger than the cubic octagonals. That'll also make the other solar panels not look so bad in comparison.

I generally don't, and when I'm using my Horrible Nerf, it's not a problem at all as I gave the ox-stat a massive nerf AND de-tagged it as massless (and nothing bad happened either). I gave it an overall charge rate of 0.3 (vs 0.75), and it's still more than enough (even in singletons) to handle most loads you'd throw at it (including TAC_LS, probe cores, reaction wheels (even after THOSE nerfs), regular transmissions).

I have self control, but that doesn't stop me from being irritated whenever I'm hovering over the ox-stat panel and it's telling me it's "0.005", and that "upgrading" to the tracking panels will actually make my craft worse. Except in part count, of course.

I agree though that the Gigantor needs to be balanced. Luckily for both of us, they're starting that process now. I hope in the future a Gigantor will be slightly cheaper and mass slightly less than a comparable concoction of I-beams and 1x6's would mass and cost. Likewise, the 1x6s and 2x3s should mass and cost a little less than the number of OX-Stats they're replacing mass and cost. Or at least cost, if they simply cannot get away with giving them mass.

I'm hoping they're looking at the uses of electric charge too. There's actually a surplus of power (and that fake curve they're using is awful) outside of ion-based craft, which also contributes to the uselessness of the higher panels.

Anyhow, this is what the current "balance" looks like:

OX-STAT: 133.333 space bucks per EC/s (at Kerbin), 150 EC/s per "ton" of ox-stats (there's a scary thought)

1x6: 190 SB/ec, 114.286 ec/ton

1x6 Shrouded: 200 SB/ec 80 ec/ton

GigantorXL: 166 SB/ec, 51.429 ec/ton (this model is very approximately 14x the size of a 6-panel in terms of surface area)

(I'm assuming the 2x3s are still the same as the equivalent 1x6, they were historically. Also I hereby grant express permission for anybody, including but not limited to Squad, to utilize the above data for whatever purpose they wish)

Based on these numbers, I'd have to guess that someone just eyeballed it, made up some numbers that "seemed right" and called it a day. Ideally they'd go the other way with ox-stats having the lowest output per ton, and Gigantors the highest, with the 6-panel ones in the middle. And also slap 'em with the inverse square law (it's not just a suggestion, it's the law!) so that RTGs have a purpose/niche (they are 9.375 ec/ton) aside from "I'm too lazy to put batteries on".

[cantab]

Keep in mind the OX-STATs, being fixed, generally will not reach their theoretical maximum. With that in mind the figures for the 1x6 panels seem reasonable. The Gigantor is too heavy though. IMHO considering how much part count is a performance issue, it should be a rule in the balance process that larger parts are a bit better than clusters of smaller ones. If the reverse is the case the player is forced to trade performance of the game for performance in the game.

[Renegrade]

Keep in mind the OX-STATs, being fixed, generally will not reach their theoretical maximum. With that in mind the figures for the 1x6 panels seem reasonable.

That's true, but you can slap ox-stats on both sides of a thing, and #lolreactionwheel it into an optimum angle fairly easily, especially if it's not a large base or station. The tracking panels also need to be oriented as well for proper power output (although it's got an extra degree of freedom)

The Gigantor is too heavy though.

Agreed. It's also too big for stock use (some mods make good use of that output). In my Horrible Nerf, I rescaled them to have output roughly related to their surface area, which resulted in the Gigantor having 27 output and 0.3 mass (scaled the mass to match the output instead of vice versa) .. was really out of control. Given how little power is used in stock, I might very well make the Gigantor like .. 6.75, and the tracking ones 0.5, and beat the ec/ton ratio with the spikey nerf bat of doom.

IMHO considering how much part count is a performance issue, it should be a rule in the balance process that larger parts are a bit better than clusters of smaller ones. If the reverse is the case the player is forced to trade performance of the game for performance in the game.

Yeah, that's one of my (many) concerns about that. Also, the later ones are supposed to be upgrades in career mode - I wouldn't mind if they had better power per mass ratios as a result. Economy of scale is usually a good gameplay mechanism..

[Starhawk]

You know that's an interesting point I hadn't considered. But that's true, the 48-7S is a bit ridiculous, which I have exploited to great success in many missions.

All hail the 48-7S! It's not truly magical, like the O-10, but it's definitely a super-powered part.

[Crimson Sunrise]

Rounding errors. This is what happens when you make a game in JavaScript.