Paul Kingtiger
-
Posts
1,258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Paul Kingtiger
-
-
Higher fuel ratios mean less dV in rocket designs, and increasing ISP just makes the parts that much less realistic (the ISP's of the engines are the real life ISP's of the engines)..
Sort of. The ISP ranges are close to real life for RP-1 and requireing you to carry more oxidizer would reduce the dV for a given rocket. But LOX is considerably lighter than RP-1 so the dV loss isn't massive. The much larger ratio of LH/LOX is more than made up for by the lightness of LH and the higher ISP.
By using real world values you've got a huge amount of data available to help design and balance parts in game. It's a fair assumption to make that space agencies use the ratios and designs they do because they work best.
-
In game fuel and oxidizer are mixed in a ratio of 1.2 (1.1 part oxidizer to .9 fuel).
In real world rockets the mix is about 2.5 for RP-1 (Kerosene) and 5 for Hydrogen.
So my question is, is there a reason the 1.2 value was used and are there any plans to revisit this later and change to a more real world mix ratio?
The question is, is there any value to the game to do so? I think there is. Firstly you don't have the invent anything new, the mixtures for engines and tanks can already be changed and secondly I see a benefit to playability when resource collections comes along. Finally it will increase the educational value of the game by giving players a closer approximation to real world rocketry without making the game any less fun.
Here is my suggestion.
First up, I'm sure at some point in the future you'll be running a balance pass on all the parts. At that point reconfigure the liquid engines to require the new ratio of 2, it's a nice clean number that is closer to the real world and has the advantage of needing double the oxidizer (easy numbers to work with). Then change the fuel tank parts to match the new ratio.
As a more advance change, link the fuel into the research system, so that LH/LOX equivalent engines and tanks can be researched (either are new parts or changes to existing parts) that would have the 5 ratio and an increase in ISP and cost to represent the more efficient fuel and the complexity of storing it. If and when teakables come in you can use the research to unlock the tweakable option to change to the more advanced engine and different ratio in the tanks.
-
I would just like to reply to your comment though about it not being set in the .21 folder structure.
Hello,
I didn't know that, I thought you had to have things separated out. I'm running the windows version and when I ran the tests it was on a fresh install with only this mod enabled. I'm going to test that again though just to make sure, I'll let you know what I find.... So it turns out you're quite right, I tested it again and it works! I must have screwed it up some other way.
Regarding some of the problems others have had, I noticed a compatability issue with this and KW rocketry, in that the vessel view wouldn't work on a multi-stage rocket, but would start working as soon as you activated the engine on the last stage. After removing KW it works fine.
Finally, I've used ialdabaoth Module Manager to add the Flight Engineer modules to all the stock pods. To use it you just have to drop ModuleManager.dll in the GameData folder and the .cfg file in the Engineer folder. These files can be freely distributed as long as credit and link backs are given to ialdabaoth so if you wanted to include it in Engineer, that's an option.
I've adding the ModuleManager.dll and config file to Spaceport: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/21-x-engineer-redux-stock-pods/
If you include it with Engineer as standard let me know and I'll take it down to keep spaceport tidy.
Paul
-
Thank you very much, Engineer is a core mod for me and even though you get a lot of the same functionality from MechJeb I prefer this solution.
Please, please keep up the good work.
Looking at the zip file on spaceport the folder structure isn't set for .21, the parts are not in a Parts folder.
I fixed it by putting the three parts folders in a folder called Parts and the dll in a folder called Plugins then you just have to put the Engineer folder in GameData
after that it works like a charm
-
It mostly There was an issue with selecting a target in the Rendezvous tab of the Flight Engineer, that caused to dialog to shrink to almost nothing, though it's reportedly been fixed by a recompiled dll that was posted a page or so back (I haven't tested it myself).
That fix didn't work for me, I'm going to hold on for a few days see what happens.
-
The Engineer Redux mod can help with this. In the VAB you can set which body the Delta V calculations are for, allowing you to set it for Eve. Then you need to strap on engines until you get a thrust to weight ratio of around 2 and enough fuel for the 11km DV
-
Youtube vids, all the time!
-
As said there is an add on, although I'd welcome some more lights in stock. I'd really like to see more streamlined lights that we have now and also more parts having lights built in like the landing gear. Adding orientation lights to docking ports would be a great start.
-
I'm getting an error on .21 when I select the Rendezvous view and select a celestial target (the Mun) then the entire window shrinks down to just the title bar, with no buttons or text. From there I can't get it back without reverting the flight.
Regarding the parts. I agree, that using the ModuleManager to add engineer functionality to command pods then removing the parts would be a great way to go. Cleaner parts list and automatic engineer views on every craft.
-
Fantastic update! Thanks for a great mod!
I've noticed something that may not be apparent, when creating double ended fairings with different sized end plates the end you attach the fairing part to defines the shape of the fairing. Attach it to the large end and you get a large cylinder with a blunt taper at the small end. Attach the part to the smaller plate and you get a more conical effect. This is great for customising your rockets. You can see the effect in the screen shot below.
-
Great thread! I'm about to try something similar myself, having just finished Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct.
-
As a compromise they could split the description into two sections. The first part explains what the part does, maybe with links to wikipedia articles for the educationally minded.
The second section could contain flavour text with quotes and humor to give the part some life.
-
I just did a Saturn V last night...
Great pics! I'll give that a go.
-
The ultimate would be a way to select skin in the VAB maybe using tweakables?
So you start of with industrial looking parts that become sleeker as research improves. It would also allow you to build a craft to your liking, polished metal, orange insulation, white and so on...
-
I love the more slick look of rockets made with Nova Punch or KW, especially the way decouplers fit to other parts to maintain a smooth external surface.
Having rockets use the same design style as the B9 aerospace pack would be awesome!
-
A lot of the newer parts have a distinct, clean design. This has become really apparent with the new KSC buildings.
Personally I love the new design, it make rockets look more aerodynamic and just plain cooler.
So I was wondering if the older parts are going to be updated to match the new graphics style?
-
Hello,
First up, great mod, really helps make rockets look like rockets and by far the easiest fairing mod to use.
I'm trying to make a Saturn V analogue using double ended fairings, with a 3.25 plate at the bottom and a 2.5 plate at the top. This works great until I mount an engine on the service module. Because the plates are quite tall there is a noticeable gap between the engine and the rest of the service module. Also the plates do not allow fuel cross feed.
Is it possible to make a second set of base plates which are much slimmer and have fuel cross feed?
-
I've found a lot of the time I'm building far bigger ships than I need too (which is fun in it's own way). I enjoy making my rockets as efficient as possible with the absolute minimum needed to complete the mission.
It's surprising what you can do without when you go back to the VAB and review things.
Engineer Redux or Mechjeb (for readouts only) are essential for that though as you need to know your DeltaV and TWR.
-
I've just finished reading Mars Direct by Robert Zubrin, so I'll be designing a mission to replicate that (with the help of a few mods of course)
-
Reaction wheels are separate modules, as in a separate block of code you can add to any part .cfg file.
Pods will still have a reaction wheel included and you'll be able to add a separate part with a more powerful reaction wheel.
So it'll kind of be like it is now, where command pods provide some torque and you can add SAS parts to provide additional torque. The difference is the new SAS goodness shown in C7's video and that reaction wheels require electricity to work.
-
I build as small as possible, adding up all the delta V requirements for the mission then seeing how minimal a rocket I need to achieve the goals.
That's where I find the fun, but of course everyone enjoys the game in different ways, which is one of the cool things about it.
I get a lot of enjoyment out of trying to shave off weight in the VAB.
-
If it was just the new SAS system and nothing else I would be happy. For me that's a massive improvement to the controllability of rockets and planes.
It should make the game far more accessible to new players without removing any complexity.
-
You can use the Mun to show how this works. Apollo entered a retrograde orbit around the moon (orbiting backwards compared to it's rotation). If you've seen Apollo 13 you'll see this as the classic figure of eight flight plan. Why do they do this?
So if you fly to the Mun and orbit prograde, then when you come to leave you'll be burning prograde to break Munar orbit, but this prograde burn will also increase your orbit around Kerbin, so the burn to exit the Mun also takes you further from Kerbin. That's the opposite of what you want to do.
If you orbit the Mun retrograde like they did with Apollo then the burn to escape the Mun is the same direction as a burn to lower your orbit around Kerbin, which means a single burn will escape the Mun and return you to Kerbin. That means less DeltaV to get where you want to go! In my experiments it's about 300m/s less which it substantial.
Exactly the same logic applies when breaking orbit from Kerbin to travel to Duna or Eve. Prograde orbit will send you away from the sun, Retrograde will send you towards it. Is the delta v saved worth the extra cost of launching the wrong way? I don't know, you'll have to experiment.
-
Putting boxes in stores involves a lot of cost. Manufacturing the boxes, CDs and other contents. Then you have to distribute the boxes in stores, which means promotion and advertising to the store owners. Finally they take a cut of the sale price which means less money for you.
It used to be that the added exposure to customers was worth it, these days I don't think it is, especially for an indie game like KSP where all your marketing is either word of mouth or Steam.
I guess they could do a limited collectors edition box and sell it direct though the site. But the cost per unit to cover small batch manufacturing could well be higher than even collectors are willing to pay.
Kerbinauts will not want to be strapped in their seats for a year or two. Please ...
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
Mir was quite a bit smaller than the ISS but some Cosmonauts clocked over a year there. But yes, an Apollo sized pod would be bad for all sorts of reasons.
I include larger facilities on my longer range craft.