feanor

Interesting discussion, thanks for the ideas - i\'ll play around with it. it should be somewhere around 100 meters, for maximum kerbal. Normal MIRVS mostly do an airburst, ie explode a few hundreds of meters above the ground for maximum destruction. I wonder if it is possible to make a parachute deployment somehow destroy everything? Lots of drag or something? Also, general progress; currently working on the next project, PAM modules. One able to fit in a 1 meter fairing ( 0.8 ) and one able to fit in a 2 meter fairing - 1.75. Both quite simple solids, but I\'m gonna make them more detailed with nice framework lattices ( any tips on how to actually do these in blender? ) and some wiring and stuff. Also, balancing is going to take some time; I want them to be able to do a nice mission profile.

We\'re only talking about the one single part ( stock SRB) not scaled compared to all other stock parts. That stuff can be as solid as concrete. It\'s just that the solids next to it are on sand. All the 'realistic' - ie no doctor who, flying ufos - packs are modelled on the stock liquid parts. They are on solid ground, pun not intended. I\'d say, all is fine. Theres a reason i\'m not screaming this from the rooftops for the last 3 months. It\'s not a big deal, modders look at what works, make their own solids and they fly well. Harvester hasn\'t changed a single cfg value in a long time -hasn\'t even made 2 parts that do the same thing, just one 'archetype' of each function ( except perhaps 2 liquid engines, one with gimbal ) . It clearly is not high on the list of things to do that require urgent fixing. Just have patience, it\'s not such a big deal right now.

Before the end of this week i\'ll release some WIP on PAMs. Before that, i\'d like to balance this pack a bit further. Perhaps reduce burn time on all stages by 5 seconds or so, reducing the shaking when command pod MIRV SAS is engaged. Any other requests for changes in values that you think are needed? Please, i\'d really like some ( they can be harsh! ) reviews of the parts and values in this pack. I\'m looking to improve. I noticed that the ASAS\'s node_collider is a bit too small, and that sometimes there\'s a weird triangle shadow on it. I\'d really appreciate some reports of things like that - so that I can fix them. So please, any issues you have, post em!

Nah. I pay for the game engine / background / map view / planets, that sort of update. I can\'t remember when I last used a stock part in any of my rockets. Perhaps a RCS thruster - so i\'m not paying for stock parts anyway! The balance issue is not really that hard to do. I think we\'re getting closer to a good time for doing some basics, but there\'s nowhere near some sort of 'deadline' after which you can\'t change them. Even for the free edition. I suspect there\'ll be a flood of stock parts ( like docking ports, landing legs ) and things like 2m diameter tanks / engines in stock variants - they\'ll need to be there for the campaign. That\'s when you want to have a good balance in place, anywhere before that, it\'s not really needed. Remember, it\'s still an unfinished game. Lots of time to fix stuff.

Thrust is not the only way to improve ISP - burn time is the other! so you\'ve already fixed them. Burn times of roughly 1 minute are reasonably in scale with reality / rest of KSP. 40 sounds quite correct, upper limit should be something like 90 I think. My SRB\'s on my ICBM pack burn for 50 each, and I find them quite allright, perhaps a tiny bit too much. Might downscale to 45 or so. The reason there is such a thing as Silisko edition is because he was annoyed by decoupler weight and diffirent values not working together aswell. Stock KSP actually pushes you to use as much single-stage to orbit as you can, instead of the realistic ( and cool! ) staging. I\'ll see what I can do, although I think I mentioned it a few times to harvester, together with ASAS weight ( should be lighter, smaller and more expensive compared to normal SAS ) and decoupler weights. I\'ll think about writing something about solids. Too much in one post will dilute it too much, perhaps...

No. You take liquids, slightly reduce ISP, and voila. Balanced. Not pulledo out of thin air, but balanced compared to the rest of the program. The very problem I have is that there is not one set of numbers that are used by the guy who wrote the program. There is a marked, very sharp diffirence in the numbers for liquids and the ones for solids; that\'s the whole point; there are 2 sets of numbers. To give an illustration; Orbit with stock solids only. Just try it. Now orbit with stock liquids only. I assume you know the real-life diffirences between solids and liquids? ISP for lower stages is around 285, compared to 339 isp for LOX/RP1. ISP for solid upper stages can be as high as 303, compared to 359 for lox/rp1. This is assuming ACP/ APCP fuel. These fuels are not totally optimized; harder to handle and more dangerous solids exist with better ISP. ( with cool names like Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane - also known as china-lake compound 20 ) This clearly shows the small gap, and why we should not use the numbers by the guy who wrote the program. Use the biggest set of numbers, of liquids and liquid tanks and command pod and RCS tanks and RCS blocks, sure. But there is no reason whatsoever to fix a mistake that was made by the maker and use that, instead of dogmatically make every solid rocket hoplessly underpowered just because that was the case with the stock one in a very early version of KSP. Yes, I just said that Harvester made a mistake with the stock solid. I have a ton of arguments for this, a few of which you\'ve already heard. I personally think it\'s impossible that they\'ll not be changed or atleast a better version introduced, likely with a big update that\'ll fix certain balancing issues ( decouplers weighing 0.4, heh? ) all at once. I see no reason whatsoever to continue using these numbers. This is arguing from real-life rockets. Arguing from possible KSP lore and logic is also possible. Solids are easier and are basically explosions. They make bigger booms and can\'t be turned off or controlled as easy as a liquid. Liquids require stuff like plumbing and cryogenic turbopumps, while a solid is basically a steel tube plugged on one side.

No, what i\'m saying is that the stock solid is underpowered compared to the stock liquids, mod liquids which are based on the stock ones, stock tanks, mod tanks which are based on stock tanks, and mod solids which are based on a reduced ISP / heavier weight for the same performance as the liquids of the same weight, ie reality. Call it whatever you will, official or not, it\'s a bad thing in the original game. I don\'t care at all for a distinction between mods and official game parts. I don\'t value a 'I made it with all stock parts\' any more then 'I made it with 2151 mod parts that are balanced to stock liquids + solids '. Not a single bit. Ask Harvester. He said he came up with 'just some numbers' - not a carefully balanced SRB. Reason enough to change it. So, I hope this pack balances its SRB\'s to reason instead of using the not carefully chosen numbers that make little sense. That\'s all.

Nah, the standard should be uniform so that you can build a rocket that uses both parts. Since this pack already has done the tank weight / balancing and the same for liquid engines ( a lot parts ) i\'d just be easier to adjust the solids to the liquids in here instead of the other way around. Basically, a lot of solids have been made by modders, and the further we\'re out, the stronger and more realistic they have become, especially kwchallengers. Harvester made a single solid that is by all measures underpowered, and there is not a single reason why that one single solid should be used as a guideline in a mod pack.

If you are rebalancing, please take a look at KWchallenger solids, or perhaps even my ICBM pack solids. Stock solids, compared to stock liquids, are just awfull.

Sadly, I think it\'s not possible at this time...

Good to hear that! I did the same thing using RCS to spin up, although I didn\'t think of releasing in pairs- good idea. On that note, There are other fun things to do. You can launch with a single nuke ( or 2 ) off-center - ie not balanced. That way, the missile will tilt ( in the later stages of propulsion, RCS + ASAS are able to negate it in my experience ). By using RCS to roll, and thus roll your point of instability, you can make actual gravity turns! Also, I\'m thinking of writing up some sort of challenge after the weekend -as well as work in progress of PAM modules - about hitting certain areas of the map. This has gotten quite harder, with the turning and all. I\'ll also probably edit some cfgs of the mirv / command pod to get rid of some of the wobbling.

Nope, that\'s because of a problem with command module SAS. I wanted the capsule have 0 force, but then for some reason even RCS turning didn\'t work. If you disengage SAS, the wobble will stop. That\'s why the RCS is so strong and there is a lot of RCS fluid - because i\'d really like the command pod to have no SAS at all. Sadly, when you engage RCS with no SAS in the command pod, RCS doesn\'t seem to have any effect, even if they show the gfx effect. Also, Nice video! You can optimize by turning the first stage to 10-20 degrees very fast after liftoff. Also, you can back away using rcs after each individual warhead, not just after the group of 3 - That should spread them out a bit more, especially if you do this at apogee, or all of them before reentering the atmosphere.

Also, I think i\'ve decided for my next project. This will be more true to nature, correct real-life models, textures and behavior. With Fuel lines available, I think I\'ll do: - PAM in diffirent sizes, possibly radial spin-up boosters ( or RCS could be used ) -Briz-M with doughnut drop tanks -Blok D -Fregat ( also with drop tanks ) I\'ll probably do them in versions that fit inside 1 and 2 meter fairings, possibly 1.5 or 1.75 if there is demand. What do you guys think? This will make it possible to actually fly realistic missions to GEO ( how high is that anyway? ) with launchers that actually look like the real thing. I\'ll start with PAM since it\'s easier, being a solid and all...

I actually thought about that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87 was the role model - scaled up a bit because the diameter is bigger, but scaled down a bit because kerbal\'s aren\'t very good at precision nuclear engineering. I\'d say 400 - 500 kiloton per warhead. I was actually surprized by how small the complete package was - 2.9 megabyte. Then again, I run KSP from a SSD, so loading times are somewhat reduced - does this pack add a lot? any way I can optimize it? I\'m thinking about doing a retexture with some smarter UV mapping, and going for default 512x512 maps instead of 1024x1024... Thanks for the praise - any tips? problems? cool screenies? Ideas for parts that should be in the pack?

Agreed! added to the wanted improvements list. Doesn\'t need to be high quality either, just a bigger version of the normal one ( think 100 times? ) would be amazing. Also, you can go in the .cfg file of the warheads and enable or disable other tracking flare directions if you want. I can imagine some people wanting to remove them completely, others want a very big cross to pin-point position and attitude. Just play with the effects part all you want. I chose for the single one backward because it roughly looks like a reentry plasma, and you can see the warheads point toward the target when they reenter the atmosphere.

Allright. Mission report, MinuteKerbal III - 2 MIRVs to the moon. Rocket on the launch pad. Burnout of the 3rd stage ( straight up ) After a bunch of RCS firing ( also straight up ) Circularization burn using RCS. Orbit! Mun Capture orbit! Retro burn at apogee, aim point was the bottom half of the big crater. Release of the first warhead, backed away a bit after that. All 3 components that made it to orbit. At the front, first warhead ( with signal flare firing ) - in the middle, hard to spot, the command module warhead. At the end, the used Post-boost vehicle. about a quarter of a second before I lande- errr impacted the surface. And what do we see there? after about 5 seconds, I see a point of light flying over my impact space - the 2nd warhead impacted a few hundred meters from the first one. Mission Succes! Pack is also released now, for more minuteman fun! http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=4555.0 It\'s really quite a challenge to hit anything now, with kerbal turning. Perhaps something for a challenge? ;D

Hey! Here I\'ll release my various packs and mod parts. I\'m always VERY open to critique, tips or questions - and I might even try to do some requests! Currently, 2 packs are finished, and work on the third pack of upper stages and drop tanks is progressing. 0.5 stock pack: A 0.5 stock rocket on top of the normal stock size rocket -made of the same stages.. Makes for nice upper stages! Download: http://www./?0t6arpslo43f7z2 Always wanted to launch a subscale rocket? need a small vernier engine? Want an effecient droptank? some small boosters for liftoff? Then download the 0.5 stock parts v0.1! This pack is a 0.5 scale in all dimensions ( x, y, z ) of the 0.14 rocket parts. Fuel consumption, rocket engine strength, weight and aerodynamics resistance is roughly scaled to this shrink. included are all the parts that where in 0.14 and went in the 0.15 stock folder - normal rocket fuel tank, smaller tanks, all 3 liquid engines, the solid booster, the SAS and ASAS, the RCS tank, the command pod, parachute pack, etc etc etc. Only the struts, fuel connectors and RCS tanks arent shrunk. I\'ve fixed some very small parts on meshes, rotated them for use in blender and shrunk them- but in every file the original creators of the textures and meshes are credited. Keep in mind, this is pretty rough - I used some logic in calculating the volume of fuel, the scaling empty weight and the thrust of the engines, but I foresee quite a few iterations of this pack with fixed or more balanced 0.5 stock parts. Please post comments if you find that certain parts are underpowerd ( or overpowered ) compared to their stock cousins. Also makes for nice landing stages with very precise ( and thus efficient ) thrust, made to fit on your precise payload! and here for small boosters to assist liftoff aswell as for a lander stage - Download: http://www./?0t6arpslo43f7z2 ICBM pack: http://www./?s2sz1nh31cval4e http://www.multiupload.com/7BBUHKMHRL Changelog for version 0.2: This version adds some parts, and is more closely balanced towards stock parts. I find the 2nd stage solid a very good replacement for stock solids. -Reworked balance of various parts -Reworked some textures / meshes -Added new part: 2 slot baseplate. -Added new part: Decoy mirv. Just a simple decoupler that looks like one of the MIRVS. stackable. Some images of the decoys: Stack of decoys on the top, rest is real! deploying some of them, just look at the swarm! I just love images like this. Reentry, the decoys have a tiny bit more drag - Reentry at 2km/s, hurtling towards the ground - and below you, 2 other warheads are hurtling downward in their reentry plasma.. from a simple 2 stage launcher, 2 mirv pad. Only one of these warheads is real - the bottom one! The ICBM pack is a collection of parts, most of them solids, that try to mimick various ICBMs, most focused on the Minuteman III. It includes reentry vehicles, baseplates, decoys, a custom RCS system, ASAS, a powered payload fairing and decouplers. Everything is possible - 1 stage single nukes, 2 stage 2 nukes / decoys, full 3 stage 6 decoys + 3 nukes with global range. Or you can slap your own together! All the parts are balanced towards the stock parts. What you\'ll notice as soon as you use them however, is the fact that the solids are stronger then the stock one. This is not a mistake. The stock solid is frankly, unrealistically weak. These solids are balanced ( weaker ) compared to stock liquids of this size, just like in real life. Watch a video of a launch! Kerbal Nuclear Missile Program - Test 2 - Thanks to Gojira for making the video! Known bugs / wanted improvements: -Stages need gimballing, just like the real thing. unfortunately, solids can\'t gimbal yet in KSP. Then the RCS can be downtuned aswell, and the RCS tank weight and capability reduced. -more finetuning of Commandmodule MIRV to avoid stuttering when enabling SAS on it - Ideally, I\'d like it to have no control at all, but that screws up the RCS system aswell - Harvester, please fix the command pod torque / RCS settings! -Bigger explosions. They\'re nukes! Gimme a sprite about 200 times the size of the normal one please harvester, it\'s needed! =P Other packs - coming soon! Currently in the pipeline: Upper stages / drop tanks package.

Interesting thread. I had a few contributions in earlier versions ( notably Ares-1 and Gemini-titan ) - I currently have a Delta II version with 6 boosters. Working on releasing my own parts now, I want to make a better Delta IV and Atlas V with parts balanced with stock, as well as the boosters for them. What boosters do you use?

Yes, I nuked the moon. Twice.

Almost finished! Thanks for this thread, getting some refinement. After I finish this, it\'s time for some rods of god!

Soon my pretty\'s, sooon...

Just a question - why don\'t you make it 1m based? That should be quite easy now that you have all the parts, and it fits way better with '3 man apollo type capsule' that is the 1m stock part, not to mention all other mod packs created. If you fit a Mei Long capsule on that, it\'d be a complete simulation.

Nice! Perhaps it\'s a good idea to update the image previews on the first post edit: 139 mb + 62.5 mb woah.

yes. As said, the optimized stage order is this: stage1 : 4 boosters AND the core stage stage2: decoupler stage3: 3rd stage etc. You want to get out of the heavy gravity and the huge air resistance as soon as you can. Optimizing this might turn out that you should throttle down ( to perhaps 70% )above 14km ( when the air gets thinner alot ) - but optimizing this is hard. A very good rule of thumb that comes close to this is 'thrust as hard as you can without exploding ' - i\'m not kidding. Gravity gets weaker exponentially the further you get away - get out of there fast.

I know the feeling :-[