Shmelta Vee and TWR readouts

[klgraham1013]

Delta v and TWR readouts during construction and in flight.

[r4pt0r]

I maintain the following stance: "Falange: I wanted it sometimes, and I un-wanted it other times. In the end, it takes away a gameplay element because it takes some of the guesswork and some of the trial and error and figuring out for yourself what the delta-V is. It might take some of the magic away. One of the great things about KSP is doing just what Chad was doing just now [Editor's note: this was Thursday afternoon, and Chad Jenkins was in the process of livesteaming his creation of a flying rocket-powered surfboard, killing two-dozen Kerbals in the process] . That ridiculous contraption he was doing, just trying to see if he could make it to the water, just shooting it on a rocket. If you make it too technical, it's certainly possible to calculate it. But it's like giving the answer to a puzzle sometimes, and I don't know if we want that. The same applies to showing how much burn time you have remaining. I think there's always this element of tension of trying to calculate in your head how much fuel you have left and if you're going to make it. It's like filling out the crossword puzzle for you."

[regex]

+1 OP. Also, we need a radar altimeter and orbital information on the main flight display, not scattered all over in other views.

[Frozen_Heart]

^ What Regex said. Having this information available makes you put a lot more care into designing craft rather than just throwing engines and fuel tanks at it till it flies.

[Robotengineer]

I maintain the following stance: "Falange: I wanted it sometimes, and I un-wanted it other times. In the end, it takes away a gameplay element because it takes some of the guesswork and some of the trial and error and figuring out for yourself what the delta-V is. It might take some of the magic away. One of the great things about KSP is doing just what Chad was doing just now [Editor's note: this was Thursday afternoon, and Chad Jenkins was in the process of livesteaming his creation of a flying rocket-powered surfboard, killing two-dozen Kerbals in the process] . That ridiculous contraption he was doing, just trying to see if he could make it to the water, just shooting it on a rocket. If you make it too technical, it's certainly possible to calculate it. But it's like giving the answer to a puzzle sometimes, and I don't know if we want that. The same applies to showing how much burn time you have remaining. I think there's always this element of tension of trying to calculate in your head how much fuel you have left and if you're going to make it. It's like filling out the crossword puzzle for you."

I maintain this stance: If you don't want readouts, don't click on the readout button. If you really feel it's so bad, don't do it. I sometimes play without looking at readouts, it can be fun on the rare occasion when I have done it, but if I really want a mission to succeed, I use readouts.

[Motokid600]

I really disagree on how Squad feels about information. Trial and error is only fun for a little while, but soon it gets infuriating. How is KSP supposed to even teach anything if the devs are scared of providing the player information?

Trial and error... Wow, that sucks.

[Wjolcz]

I agree with OP

[Giggleplex777]

I've given up nagging to SQUAD and download KER a while ago. They won't reply to any of my questions and suggestions even if I'm the first poster in a Dev note. Good luck getting your point across to them.

First page of a devnote:

<li>The Round8 Toroidal Fuel Tank was repurposed as a 1.25m inline Xenon Tank.</li>

That is going to screw a lot of designs up. Why not just make a new 1.25m xenon tank and add a 1.25m electric thruster (doesn't have to be the same type as the current 0.625m one)?

Look, even the creator of the tank believes that it should stay as it is:

I will miss the toroidal tank. That was my favorite tank for compact landers...

And while you guys are at it, could you please add more 0.625m parts? The smaller sized parts have been neglected for many updates and 1.0 could potentially make the problem worse. Smaller jet engines, intakes, long 0.625m fuel tanks, and a better nosecone (the current one is outdated and weights 0.1t) would be great.

I feel that SQUAD lacks testers that like to build aesthetically, that this, a builder who utilizes a variety of parts to create something "unconventionally", like the creations in this thread. Many of those creations use the toroidal tank as an important part of the design and would not function if the part was changed, and a skilled craft builder would would've noticed the consequences of the change immediately. Just look at all the complaints throughout this thread. Adding new parts has no real downside, and it gives us builders more tools to play with. The aforementioned 0.625m parts would allow for a plethora of great new designs and would benefit everyone would plays the game.

Don't let me down, SQUAD!

There has been a lot more work put into balancing and tuning the aero system too. The jet engines have had another pass with respect to their characteristics. For those that don’t know, the airflow through jet engines (and thus fuel flow, and thus thrust) is now a function of mach and of air density giving them more interesting limitations and effects.

If jet engine behavior is going to be changed, a ramjet/scramjet would be nice to have too. It would allow for more realistic jet engines that aren't overpowered, and sits nicely between turbojets and rockets. RAPIERs would be more useful as convential turbojets won't be enough for SSTOs.

Another addition for the turbojet could an afterburner. The dry thrust of the engines should be lowered, and the afterburner could be used to reach the current thrust levels. Of course, activating the after burner would consume much more fuel, but it would make the jet engines more balanced and allow for some cool glowing exhaust plumes on jets. Who wouldn't want that?

Nope, nothing. Although there was enough community uproar that they did end up reverting the changes to the torodial tank. Ramjets would work marvelously with the new jet engine behavior, but obviously SQUAD didn't think so.

First reply to the 0.90 Q&A:

I have a few questions:

1: Can the OKTO2, QBE and Stayputnik probe cores have at least some troque? 0.15 or 0.2 would be enough, but not none at all. Many of my probes use the OKTO2 and they're all unless without reaction wheel troque.

2: The cost of most of the parts are not realistic. Some engines (e.g. LV-1R, O-10 monoprop engine) are too expensive while the other engines like the LV-T30 is not expensive enough. There are many other stat changes I would like to see that I don't have room to mention here.

3: Are the radial decouplers finally fixed? Those things have been blowing up a whole bunch of my rockets.

4: Also, will larger landing gears be including in 0.90.1 or do we have to wait 'til the next major update?

5: Finally, are you guys planning on adding engines with larger gimbal ranges (maybe a standalone KS-25 and/or increase the gimbal range of the LV-T45 to 10°?) and larger SRBs (2m to 2.5m would work) to accommodate the new Mk3 parts? Would make building shuttles and larger rockets a lot easier.

I've been trying to be one of the first posters in posts like this for several updates in a (so far futile) effort to get a Dev to respond. Maybe fifth time's the charm.

BTW Thanks for the update guys.

Couldn't even get an answer in the questions and answers thread. sigh.

There are a couple more but you guys get the point. SQUAD doesn't give a damn about what 99% of us say, unless you can get the entire community behind your back.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Giggleplex777

[Hcube]

I've given up nagging to SQUAD and download KER a while ago. They won't reply to any of my questions and suggestions even if I'm the first poster in a Dev note. Good luck getting your point across to them.

Even though I want a deltaV and twr display in KSP, I STRONGLY disagree with you here. The community is totally capable of influencing and giving ideas to the developers. What about mod integrations ? And the ROUND8 tank that wasnt changed in the end ?

And saying "they dont answer to my post even though i'm FIRST!! " is a pretty childish argument. Note that the ksp playerbase is huge. You cant expect SQUAD to answer every single comment

[Giggleplex777]

Even though I want a deltaV and twr display in KSP, I STRONGLY disagree with you here. The community is totally capable of influencing and giving ideas to the developers. What about mod integrations ? And the ROUND8 tank that wasnt changed in the end ?

Mod integrations are decided by the devs, not the community. We've been asking for useful mods to be included such as KAC and KER and it never happened. The round 8 was changed back because the majority of the community advocated against the changes.

And saying "they dont answer to my post even though i'm FIRST!! " is a pretty childish argument. Note that the ksp playerbase is huge. You cant expect SQUAD to answer every single comment

You would be frustrated too if you had been trying to get at least a reply for two years. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a representative from SQUAD can't reply to more than two posts. All I want is an indication that they have read and considered my suggestions and ideas. The game is about to be released as a complete game and there are still simple, glaring issues concerning the balance of some parts that could be fixed in a few minutes, yet they have failed to do so for several updates.

[r4pt0r]

Have you ever considered PMing one of them? I mean thats usually not cool but jesus if you have spent 2 years of your life trying to get some game devs to respond to you then jeez

[Giggleplex777]

Have you ever considered PMing one of them? I mean thats usually not cool but jesus if you have spent 2 years of your life trying to get some game devs to respond to you then jeez

Just sent a PM to HarvestR with suggestions on improving the RT-5 "Flea" booster. I really hope that I'll get a reply this time.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Giggleplex777

[klgraham1013]

+1 OP. Also, we need a radar altimeter and orbital information on the main flight display, not scattered all over in other views.

If only there was a place to put it all. Like a dock or a toolbar.

[DevoidLight]

+1

Calculating TWR and Delta-V was fun the first time, but recalculating after every single change is just pointless tedium.

[mattinoz]

If they want to make us work for it then it might be a good chance to give meaning to test contracts.

After all how would our Engineers know engine data if we haven't run the tests to find it out.

Thinking two contracts per engine one fixed to ground and fire at full throttle for 15sec's, to confirm thrust and ISP at sea level.

Then a launch to x,000m and burn for 15sec to determine ISPvac.

[Frozen_Heart]

improving the RT-5 "Flea" booster

Don't get me started on that thing...

[rkman]

it takes away a gameplay element because it takes some of the guesswork and some of the trial and error and figuring out for yourself what the delta-V is.

I think the amount of time spend on trial and error to figure out the correct amount of dV for long-duration missions is prohibitive.

[klgraham1013]

Trail and error is fine for the Mun. Not so much when you're trying to build a large scale base on Laythe. Of course, this is my opinion.

[Red Iron Crown]

I get that Squad wants to avoid overloading players with numbers and turning KSP into Kerbal Spreadsheet Program, but TWR and delta-V are the basic fundamentals of rocketry. These readouts are one of my most desired features, and have been for years.

[GusTurbo]

I get that Squad wants to avoid overloading players with numbers and turning KSP into Kerbal Spreadsheet Program, but TWR and delta-V are the basic fundamentals of rocketry. These readouts are one of my most desired features, and have been for years.

Ironically, by leaving it out, they force people to rely on spreadsheets (or mods). This should have made it into 1.0. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait another 2+ months.

[Kegereneku]

Someone once said :

New Player: "What's that number next to the compass after I make a maneuver?"

Squad: "That's the delta v you need to do the maneuver."

New Player: "Ok. So how much delta v do I have?"

Squad: "We're not telling!"

I think this sum-up my opinion on this.

I was never fan of trial&error either, we have enough of those even with Mechjeb.

[Wanderfound]

+1 OP. Also, we need a radar altimeter and orbital information on the main flight display, not scattered all over in other views.

Kerbal Flight Data ​to stock ASAP. And let us move and resize the navball while they're at it.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Wanderfound

[klgraham1013]

Someone once said :

I think this sum-up my opinion on this.

I was never fan of trial&error either, we have enough of those even with Mechjeb.

I agree with that person!

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I feel pretty strongly about this. If they dont want to overwhelm new players they can have it come in with upgrades to the VAB and tracking station.

[klgraham1013]

Yeah I feel pretty strongly about this. If they dont want to overwhelm new players they can have it come in with upgrades to the VAB and tracking station.

See, I disagree with this. I feel like these numbers are fundamental to rocket design and they're not actually that hard to explain. Just teach new players rather than treat them like they can't handle it.