Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spikeyhat09

  1. Glad you are enjoying yourself! Cars are overrated anyway, especially compared to rockets.
  2. I hope it lifts the performance hit of the recent updates. In ye olde days I could build into the 800 part range before my fps went under 20, now if i go much past 200 the fps goes under 10
  3. [IMG]https://doc-14-0k-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/3smbt8jofk0vld5h0qjg71tl244qgvjt/3e3vd4ap1f6rp8c4adr5003i7jelcu8u/1448316000000/07243547627763895324/07243547627763895324/0B3DgbASIpATzME1TNlJvbFFlT1U?e=view[/IMG]
  4. [quote name='Norpo']Alright, I made a ModuleManager config for setting (most) of the engines to their auto-balanced counterparts. I have no idea if it's compatible with mods (or technically, even stock, but it [I]should[/I] work okay...) [B]Link to download [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7gudaxmdi0dl3w5/AABSKxA9HNOkW6dJiU6ul550a?dl=1"]here.[/URL] [/B]A dependency is ModuleManager, of course, not bundled, but if you use mods you probably already have it in your GameData. [SIZE=2]It also comes with a Python script that I used to make sure all the numbers were the same. Enjoy! Also, if you want to try out different constants and such you can edit the config, but be warned: it's big because I didn't optimize it at all, so you'll have to change the numbers in 4 places. Still, at least it's easier than manually going through every single part .cfg in the Squad folder. Good part about this is that it should stay current between versions, so it should still work once 1.1/1.2/1.pancake rolls around. :)[/SIZE][/QUOTE] Fantastic! I've updated the OP to include your work.
  5. yeah... kind of hoping they add some sort of procedural heat shields that you can easily add to the underside of spacecraft (especially spaceplanes), for a weight penalty of course. I would imagine it could be made costly as well in career mode, if you swing that way. It would even eliminate the need for having multiple types of heat shields if there were just a "one size fits all" option. Might be kind of hard to integrate into a part, but maybe it could be a tab up at the top with action groups and kerbals. Call it "Surfacing", and they could even add other types of surfaces for enhanced effects. Anyway, that's my little ramble. Landing anything of interest on eve now requires an annoyingly elaborate array of circular heat shields, which is disappointing.
  6. [quote name='Norpo']Alright, I'm working on a ModuleManager patch right now; it shouldn't take [I]too[/I] long. ~2 days maybe, if I get the time, but let it be known; It's being worked on! I'll have to manually set a few engines to disobey the equation just to get around some limitations (The Twin-Boar, for instance would also take into account it's fuel-tank weight, making an absurdly powerful engine...), but that shouldn't be too hard. :)[/QUOTE] sweet! [quote name='More Boosters']You do realize that your formula greatly favors vacuum engines right? For calculating thrust? Something that means the most to lifter engines? It's counterintuitive and unnecessarily homogenizing. It should be obvious that things with low TWR got better TWR and those with high TWR got worse TWR. Things with low TWR have low TWR for a reason and the opposite is also true. Terrier and Poodle are just fine. The same can be said for the 3.75m engines as their TWRs are similar to 2.5m engines and only Rhino is considerably more efficient AND with better TWR than Skipper while having a similar role. The Mammoth is just fine really, it has slightly better TWR and Isp and that's it. The LFB still beats it which in turn comes with its own downsides. I think a good indicator that this formula needs more work is that you're proposing a bigger buff to Swivel than you are to Reliant. The former is already a much superior engine in early game scenarios where you either don't have controllable canards or adding them would skyrocket the price of the booster to begin with. I think you're putting too much stock in gimbal degrees. Not having gimbal at all is a major downside and it should count for something, but having any gimbal at all is generally good enough for control. You're also ignoring the cost aspect here, as relatively minor perks like high gimbal range and surface-attachability can be justified by the high price of Vector; as long as its not stuff like substantially increased TWR or Isp. And well, the bit about NERVA... You really need to think this over man. Tweak the formula to make gimbal range matter less and having a gimbal at all matter more (log it up!), and try to make Swivel/Reliant better. They're really the only ones that need the help.[/QUOTE] Valid points. I agree that there probably need to be multiple formulas for different groups of engines, depending on their purpose. The Swivel vs Reliant issue came as a surprise to me as well, and it comes down to the fact that the Swivel has 20% more mass than the reliant, so in order for the reliant to come out ahead, that difference needs to be made up in the difference of ISP and gimbal. As for the gimbal discrepancy, you are probably right. I'm experimenting with logs and integrals of logs right now, but nothing I'm coming up with wouldn't be made easier on the mind and hardware with linear approximation. p=(-1/2)g°-5 seems reasonable enough, where p is the percent adjustment to the final thrust. The Nerva and aerospike (as well as other unique engines not tested) do seem like they need a model of their own or individual examination, as I pointed out in the OP. Remember, that was just an example formula I came up with rather hastily for the OP. It's not meant to be the end all balance formula, and I encourage anyone who wants to make alterations to it or better yet derive a completely new and more comprehensive one. I've also included a config file in the OP for anyone who wants to try the altered engines out (feedback section). It definitely feels more difficult to achieve what one could easily do with the default values, since the heavily relied upon engines are no longer such amazing workhorses.
  7. You are both correct. The engines need balancing for mielgato because he wants there to be, and they dont need balancing for someone who thinks they are balanced. Squad knows that they cant please everyone, which is why we have such fantastic modding support. [quote name='theend3r']LV-T45 having more thrust than LV-T30 doesn't make any sense when the only difference is the added gimbal.[/QUOTE] They are actually more different than that. The LV-T45 has more mass. If you reduce the LV-T45 mass to that of the LV-T30, you end up with a thrust of 220.313 KN. Conversely, an LV-T30 scaled up to the mass of the LV-T45 would have a thrust of 300 KN.
  8. [quote name='Wallygator']My opinion is that unless we (which only includes me as a consumer) start using the calculus, a proper solution shall not arise. [/QUOTE] I am taking a college level calculus course atm, so if we were to come up with something, I could probably keep up as long as it doesn't get too dicey [quote name='Norpo']I could make an ModuleManager config that does the changes here in the "applicable engines" table if anyone's interested... ...One thing I noticed about these changes, though, is that the Swivel now has a higher thrust than the Reliant, and had a much higher total change in thrust compared to the Reliant, whereas the old values had the Swivel have a [I]lower[/I] thrust than the Reliant...[/QUOTE] If you're willing to dedicate the time and effort to create such a program, it would not go unappreciated. I noticed this as well when trying out different solutions, and couldn't come up with one that keeps the Reliant above the Swivel without the rest of the engines becoming ridiculous. The main problem is that the Swivel weighs quite a bit more despite having inferior thrust in the base game. The result is that the Swivel actually has pretty terrible TWR in the base game, even in comparison to the Reliant. A Swivel with the same mass as the Reliant would have a max thrust of 220.313 KN according to the example model. @others I do understand the argument that engines further up the tech tree should be superior to those below. However, It seems to me like the best situation would be where the main incentive to advance the tech tree is to get parts that may be the best part to use for a [I]particular[/I] situation, but are not [I]objectively[/I] better. i.e., even once the player has unlocked every part, there should still be some reason to use parts unlocked earlier if the situation calls for it. Those familiar with certain shooters such as Battlefield (probably not the right analogy for this crowd, I know) will know what I mean. Weapons unlocked later in your progression are not necessarily better, but just allow you to have more variety. As I am primarily a sandbox player, however, one should take this view with more than a few grains of salt.
  9. [B][U]Preface[/U][/B] By no means is this thread meant to be interpreted as a complaint about the game's core mechanics. I have no expectation that Squad will change the game based on this thread or those relating to it, or even read this thread at all. The goal of this thread is to provide a means of discussion for people to help each other tailor their own KSP installs to meet their personal tastes. My goal is to help everyone have more fun with KSP, regardless of their opinion on current engine balance. I am not calling upon the community to mod their own versions of KSP unless they want to. [B][U]Purpose[/U][/B] This is about the subject of TWR (Thrust to Weight Ratio) balance between multiple engines in the game. As it stands currently, many players (or at least, I) consider some engines' performances to vastly outweigh others in terms of TWR, efficiency, and thrust vectoring ("Gimbal"). My perception is that a common gaming phenomenon known as "Power Creep" ([URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_creep"]the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content[/URL]) is present within KSP. The most notable examples of this were the 0.16 and 0.23.5 updates, which added to the game 2.5m and 3.5m parts respectively. Prior to these updates, when the primary rocket motors were the predecessors to the 1.25m "Swivel" and "Reliant" engines, all was well. However, with the two updates mentioned and others that added new motors to the game, I allegate that the "quality" of each new part has naturally increased. As it stands now, the 1.25m engines, once considered the bread and butter of Kerbal Space Program, are now considered to be significantly worse than the rest by much of the community. Meanwhile, if you'll recall, upon the release of 0.23.5, many threads appeared on the forums claiming that the new 3.5m engines were overpowered, and I do not think they were on the wrong train of thought. [B][U]So, What do we do about it?[/U][/B] The easiest thing to do would be buff the old engines to the newer standard. However, upon attempting this, one will quickly discover that the resulting specifications of these upgraded parts will appear rather absurd. Additionally, this is not a permanent or elegant solution, as it does not solve the issue of power creep with further updates. The best thing to do, in my humble opinion, is to find a middle ground of engine performance between the new and old engines that balances and combines the specifications of ISP (Specific Impulse, or basically efficiency), thrust vectoring, and engine mass into a thrust output. I have spent an hour or two experimenting with various equations to come up with a good thrust function, and the one I've found to work relatively well is shown below: [IMG]http://imgur.com/t8c1QS3.png[/IMG] Where: m = mass of the engine, in tons 60,000 = an arbitrary constant chosen to appropriately scale the thrust according to engine mass ISP[SUB]vac[/SUB] = specific impulse in vacuum, in seconds g° = thrust vectoring range, in degrees F = force (thrust) in vacuum, in kilonewtons [B][U]Applicable Engines[/U][/B] [table="width: 1000, class: grid"] [tr] [td]Engine[/td] [td]Old Thrust (KN)[/td] [td]New Thrust (KN)[/td] [td]ΔThrust (KN)[/td] [td]Δ%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/9/9b/LV-T909_LFE.png/60px-LV-T909_LFE.png[/IMG] LV-909 "Terrier" Liquid Fuel Engine[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]80[/td] [td]+20[/td] [td]+33.3%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/9/98/LV-T30_Liquid_Fuel_Engine_recent.png/60px-LV-T30_Liquid_Fuel_Engine_recent.png[/IMG] LV-T30 "Reliant" Liquid Fuel Engine[/td] [td]215[/td] [td]250[/td] [td]+35[/td] [td]+16.3%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/6/67/LV-T45_LFE.png/60px-LV-T45_LFE.png[/IMG] LV-T45 "Swivel" Liquid Fuel Engine[/td] [td]200[/td] [td]264.375[/td] [td]+64.375[/td] [td]+32.2%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/6/6e/ToroidalAerospikeRocket.png/60px-ToroidalAerospikeRocket.png[/IMG] T-1 Toroidal "Aerospike" Liquid Fuel Engine[/td] [td]180[/td] [td]176.471[/td] [td]-3.529[/td] [td]-2.0%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/7/7f/LV-N_Atomic.png/25px-LV-N_Atomic.png[/IMG] LV-N "Nerv" Atomic Rocket Motor[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]225[/td] [td]+165[/td] [td]+275%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/4/4d/KS-25_LFE.png/37px-KS-25_LFE.png[/IMG] S3 KS-25 "Vector" Liquid Fuel Engine[/td] [td]1000[/td] [td]609.524[/td] [td]-390.476[/td] [td]-39.0%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/8/86/RockomaxPoodle.png/60px-RockomaxPoodle.png[/IMG] Rockomax "Poodle" Liquid Engine[/td] [td]250[/td] [td]273[/td] [td]+23[/td] [td]+9.2%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/9/9c/Skipper.png/55px-Skipper.png[/IMG] Rockomax "Skipper" Liquid Engine[/td] [td]650[/td] [td]540[/td] [td]-110[/td] [td]-16.9%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/1/17/Rockomax_Mainsail_transparent.png/44px-Rockomax_Mainsail_transparent.png[/IMG] Rockomax "Mainsail" Liquid Engine[/td] [td]1500[/td] [td]1114.84[/td] [td]-385.161[/td] [td]-25.7%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/1/1f/Big1.png/53px-Big1.png[/IMG] Kerbodyne KR-2L+ "Rhino" Liquid Fuel Engine[/td] [td]2000[/td] [td]1461.18[/td] [td]-538.824[/td] [td]-26.9%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][IMG]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/6/69/Quad.png/53px-Quad.png[/IMG] S3 KS-25x4 "Mammoth" Liquid Fuel Engine[/td] [td]4000[/td] [td]2742.86[/td] [td]-1257.14[/td] [td]-31.4%[/td] [/tr] [/table] [B][U]Some Takeaways[/U][/B] [LIST] [*]The general trend seems to be that the older engines receive mild to markedly favorable changes, while the newer more powerful engines frequently see significant slashes to their maximum thrust [*]The TWR of gimballed and high ISP motors are somewhat lowered due to their increased versatility and functions [*]The toroidal aerospike engine, despite generally being considered inferior by most of the community, actually received a nerf to its maximum thrust in this new scheme. I believe this is due to the fact that the aerospike is actually a very good engine for its weight, but is simply too light and weak to be viable for normal sized spacecraft. I would very much like to see a larger ([URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine"]perhaps linear[/URL]) aerospike added to the game to serve as an efficient atmospheric engine for medium sized spacecraft. [*]The nuclear engine appears to be an outlier in this new balancing scheme, receiving a huge boost to its maximum thrust. This is indicative that the model does not accurately balance this particular engine well due to its very large ISP and weight, as well as its very unique function within the game. However, it is probably indicative that this part does deserve a boost to its effectiveness in our edits. [/LIST] [B][U]Limitations of the Model[/U][/B] [LIST] [*]The model only uses default ISP, mass, and vectoring specifications to generate a maximum thrust specification, instead of deriving balanced versions of these values on its own. I do not personally feel competent enough to determine an equation for these values, but perhaps one of you will. [*]The model is only applicable to liquid fueled main and interstage motors, and is not extendable to SRBs, radial motors, monopropellant engines, or the "Twin Boar". [*]The model describes force as a linear function of mass when a function of a different power may be more appropriate. [*]The model may be more effective with a coefficient higher or lower than 60,000, and may punish thrust vectoring too much or not enough. [*]The model only describes the thrust of a given motor using its ISP in vacuum, not taking into account the ISP at sea level or saying anything about what the thrust should be at sea level. My initial thought is to use the same ratio of thrusts at sea level vs vacuum that the engines had before. (edit - typo. also, upon implementing these new part values it appears that the game automatically adjusts sea level thrust based on max thrust) [/LIST] [B][U]Feedback[/U][/B] I would very much like to hear what others have to say about this model, and would love to hear ideas for improvement. The end goal is for everyone who also feels the need to change the specifications of certain parts to be able to do so either with their own model or the one provided here. Thank you for reading. An awesome user by the name of Norpo has made a ModuleManager [URL="https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7gudaxmdi0dl3w5/AABSKxA9HNOkW6dJiU6ul550a?dl=1"]config[/URL] that applies the changes to the applicable engines shown above, with an exception being the nuclear engine (thanks Norpo!) Feedback findings/critiques: - The changes seem to be oriented towards sandbox mode, where every part is competing with every other part. In career mode, where many/most players spend their time, the consensus is that new motors may ought to have clear benefits over more primitive ones in the tech tree to create a sense of progression - The example model presented grossly maladjusts "unique" engines such as the nerve and aerospike, as previously mentioned - Engines could be further classified into groups such as low air pressure/vacuum and high air pressure/sea level parts to be evaluated separately
  10. i am aware of this tactic, and ive used it myself quite a bit in the past. in this case however, the payload is far too long for base connections to be sufficient. the only fairing solution would be to somehow attach struts from the payload directly to the fairing walls, which is impossible. that and i also found it much easier to simply attach a 2.5m nosecone to the top of the payload On a side note, I find it rather odd that a very large majority of the community seems to have shifted towards pure career mode play, especially since the game had a large and adoring community even before career mode was a thing. I myself could never jump on board (primarily because career mode's implementation is too grindy for my personal tastes, and i prefer to relive the glory days of space exploration in the space race when NASA had virtually unlimited funding). when did the sandbox population become so sparse?
  11. you know, like each part having strengths and weaknesses. the classic example of balancing harmony are the LV T45 and the LV T30. one gives you high TWR and thrust, one gives you control. its this virtual yin and yang that make or break balance in not just ksp but any game really. the new engine gives you all strength and no weakness, but who am i to complain if people are having fun? hell, i had a blast building that station and will certainly build more like it.
  12. i had a fairing initially but it ended up being 2/3 the length of the rocket. it would actually bend inside the fairing and blow itself up. pretty quickly i realized that it had way more than enough muscle to do what i wanted. a pretty stupidly large amount of muscle in fact. plus that guy said aerodynamics dont matter anymore for whatever reason (why did they do that exactly?) also the thing that makes the shuttle engine better than the mammoth is the incredible gimbal range and the fact that you can make clusters of much more than 4 in the same amount of space.
  13. made one of the biggest rockets ive used constructively using the new engines http://imgur.com/flqpY1k
  14. it is not my (or hopefully anyone else's) intention to hate on squad. i realized i may have come off in a bad way, which was the reason for the edit on my OP. I simply love this game and want it to become the best it can be.
  15. I apologize, I mean't 1.25m parts. I have edited my comment.
  16. valid points. as a sandbox player, i often overlook factors that influence that mode of gameplay. with this in mind, and acknowledging a certain level of reductio ad absurdum in my OP, i still maintain that this particular part might be a little too good. you are correct about the TWR - it is the same as the mainsail. however, especially for 1.25m parts, gimballed rockets come with a hit to TWR. this particular part not only has vastly more gimbal range than any other main rocket engine, but also has very good TWR, like the mainsail. This, combined with markedly above average efficiency at both sea level and in vacuum, and the increased versatility that comes with smaller sized parts, all contribute to this engine being, in my opinion, at least a tier above any other primary rocket engine. not to mention that clustering mainsails in the same manner kills your aerodynamics
  17. all other rocket motors are obsolete edit: it makes many other main rocket engines obsolete
  18. while this may be true, realistic engines are in fact overpowered because of the scale difference. they wouldnt feel overpowered at all if kerbin were 6x bigger (ie the size of earth) with vastly higher escape velocity
  19. nasa runs into the same problem... always trying to launch rockets while forgetting to put people in them
  • Create New...