Rebalance of the MK2 Lander Can.

[Michaelbak]

Maybe somebody can tell me the purpose of the MK2 lander can because I can't see one.

In the past the MK1 was the lightest and yet most fragile pod in the whole game. The MK2 weighted a lot more than the MK1 but was more crash tolerant as well as having a larger size. We see this as well in the MK1 and MK1-2 Command pods even in the current update. It weighs more than the smaller ones tripled but has a much greater crash tolerance as well which balances it.

But now the MK1 and MK2 have the exact same crash tolerance and the MK2 weighs over twice as much as a doubled MK1! Why would you ever use it?

I mean sure I guess it has bigger reaction wheels, but I can add an external one to get the same capability and it still weighs under half. Bigger diameter size? Maybe, but why does it weigh over TWICE as a doubled MK1 instead of like 125%-130% as much???

[Murph]

It has 2 seats, where the small one only has one. That's important if you want to level up your crew. If you're doing Rockomax (2.5m) missions, it's both aesthetically correct, structurally correct (stronger attachment nodes, I believe), and quite possibly aerodynamically superior under the new system. The weight is no big deal for Mun and Minimus landings with a 16 tank and a Poodle, and certainly no big deal on top of a full 2.5m launch stack. If you're doing 2.5m stuff, why wouldn't you use it? I certainly wouldn't dream of using the small one in any circumstances other than very early missions (before 2.5m stuff is properly unlocked in the tech tree), or very long range solo missions.

There's also basic maths. It's not twice the size, it's 4 times the size. Area = Àr². If anything, either it's not heavy enough, or the small can is too heavy, based on its size and structural capacity.

If crash tolerance is an issue, either your design or piloting skills are lacking. Crash tolerance should be irrelevant for it, due to the tanks, engine, and landing gear below it.

[Keith_Bones]

I think the point being made here is that even though the MK2 has 2 seats, it's actually more efficient just to stack and / or clip two of the smaller MK1 cans together to achieve crew capacity. But lets address some points here.

- It's only aesthetically correct on it's own, when you try to actually build a lander out of the thing (like an apollo style 2 man lander) you'll find the thing weighs so much that it becomes unwieldly. I may be a crap builder, but mine looks nothing like the superlight apollo LEM.

- 2 MK1 lander cans could also be considered structurally correct, since the considerably lighter pods wouldn't need as strong of a node.

- 2 Mk1 pods would cause less atmo drag, being 1.25 meter parts, they have a smaller cross section. Also, arguably both versions of the can are most optimal for non-atmo landers.

- In my experiences (again, apollo style attempts) the weight is absolutely a big deal

- It's not necessarily 4 times the material, it's only 4 times the volume, but since the wall thickness is presumably the same as the smaller version, given that they have the same crash tolerance, then the wall-to-space ratio of the area becomes smaller, meaning that the larger version would actually weigh less per amount of volume than the smaller pod, and only end up weighing slighty more overall.

[tater]

Yeah, the mk2 is just not ideal, particularly for anyone unwilling to make fairings that don't look reasonable.

It's 2.66t and 0.16t is mono.

Mk1 is 0.66t, and 0.06t is mono.

An AIS masses 0.1 for the same torque as the mk2, and the SIRW has 5 torque for 0.05t, 2 more torque than the mk1.

2 mk1 pods is 1.32t, and only differs by 10 mono, and 6 vs 15 torque.

Stripped of unused parts and mono, the 2 mk1 pods would be 0.90t. Add an AIS, and we have a 2-man lander can at 1 ton. Throw in the 0.16t of mono, and we can replicate the functionality of the mk2 with just 1.16 tons.

On top of this, the thing is not the best looking part.

[Keith_Bones]

Having given the subject more consideration, the only reason that I could think of that I would ever use the MK2 is if I was in really dire need of a 2m node, but given that landers are often purpose built for weight efficiency, I can't really think of a situation where overcoming node problems would be more difficult than overcoming weight problems.

[Joonatan1998]

It is mostly for decoration.

If we want to argue about effinency we should compare it to one MK1 can and a rover seat.

One lander can is enough to give all the advantages they have over the seat.

(EVA Fuel refill, Flags, crew report, storing more than one surface sample/EVA report)

Having 2 cans is actually better than having 1 larger can because it allows you to store 2 copies of each experiment.

I think closest thing to the MK2 can would be MK1 can + seat + small reaction wheel + small monopropellant tank (+battery?): much lighter, better torque, more monopropellant, (more electric storage), Easier EVA reports.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[Keith_Bones]

On that note, we could realisticly do some number crunching / theorycrafting and find the absolute most efficient ways to do things, but isn't the point just to have most things in a relatively usable state? As it stands now, the MK2's weight could be nearly halved before it would approach a usable state.

[tater]

If life support was a thing, then it could have longer duration.

[Joonatan1998]

If life support was a thing, then it could have longer duration.

That would really only work with a system that only stores LS in pods, or maybe it could change how fast LS is consumed.

I think there aren't anough important stats for pods to give a use for the amount of different types we have now.

The only important stat is mass/crew capacity, re-entry survivability could be important if reentry wasn't so harmless even at 120%.

Reaction wheels, batteries and monopropellant can be easily added with just a few new parts, they are only important in early career, but in early career you don't have many different pod types.

Life support that has separate containers would have same issues.

[KSK]

The weight isn't ideal but for ease of use, I'd much rather use a Mk2 can than fiddle around with pairs of Mk1 cans or a Mk1 can and a seat.

I don't tend to use either very much though to be honest, so take my opinion with that in mind.

Stock is forgiving enough that if I'm sending a single kerbal to the Mun/Minmus, I'll be using a capsule and combining the lander and return vehicle into one. That would probably be the case even I was doing a more elaborate mission with multiple biome hops. By the time I want to send multiple kerbals anywhere, I can build a big enough rocket to brute force the problem anyway. If I was playing a realism overhaul mod or a harder career mode where cost was more of a consideration then I might use the cans more. In stock though, they're usually a roleplaying choice for me.

[tater]

I rarely use capsules for powered landings, and never the mk1 pod. (I used to, back in the day, but I'd argue that if you couldn't do it from IVA, you likely shouldn't use that pod).

[Michaelbak]

If life support was a thing, then it could have longer duration.

But the problem is that life support isn't a thing. You shouldn't defend current misbalancing based off possible outlets which will have to be accounted for in the future.

[Jouni]

Reaction wheels, batteries and monopropellant can be easily added with just a few new parts, they are only important in early career, but in early career you don't have many different pod types.

Life support that has separate containers would have same issues.

You just need to look at the big picture. The obvious reason why multi-kerbal pods are heavy and inefficient is that they have the equipment necessary for long-term missions. Without that equipment, life support containers are worth nothing, just like fuel tanks are worth nothing without engines.

This hasn't been implemented in the game yet, but it might be one day. Until then, it's better to keep the multi-kerbal pods heavy, instead of making large parts just scaled-up copies of small parts.

[Keith_Bones]

You just need to look at the big picture. The obvious reason why multi-kerbal pods are heavy and inefficient is that they have the equipment necessary for long-term missions. Without that equipment, life support containers are worth nothing, just like fuel tanks are worth nothing without engines.

This hasn't been implemented in the game yet, but it might be one day. Until then, it's better to keep the multi-kerbal pods heavy, instead of making large parts just scaled-up copies of small parts.

Except that the same assumption must be made for the small parts, given that they are both lander based pods, we can assume that their mission parameters would be extremely similar. As such, the MK1 pod weight would also be consistent of life support and mission tools, but only for 1 kerbal, so again, the MK2 pod would only theoretically need to be roughly double the weight. In fact under the assumption that some of the weight associated with parts is tool mass, we could even argue that some of that weight doesn't need to be doubled, because you don't necessarily need 2 of every tool.

But as Michaelbak said, these things aren't actual features in the game, atleast not at this point. So any argument using these features to indicate some level of balance is not only entirely theoretical, it's also unrealistic. Given any statistical imbalance in the entire game I could dream up some distant future feature that would balance it out, but the point is to have balanced parts now.

[Jouni]

Except that the same assumption must be made for the small parts, given that they are both lander based pods, we can assume that their mission parameters would be extremely similar. As such, the MK1 pod weight would also be consistent of life support and mission tools, but only for 1 kerbal, so again, the MK2 pod would only theoretically need to be roughly double the weight. In fact under the assumption that some of the weight associated with parts is tool mass, we could even argue that some of that weight doesn't need to be doubled, because you don't necessarily need 2 of every tool.

I didn't understand what you tried to say here.

The Mk1 command pod is essentially equivalent to the Mercury capsule, and the Mk1 lander can is supposed to something equally primitive and barebone. They're supposed to sustain the pilot for up to a few days, but no more than that.

For missions lasting for weeks, months, or even years, the ship needs more facilities than just a seat for the pilot. There has to be a toilet and a way to maintain personal hygiene. The crew needs room for exercise and some personal space to maintain physical and mental health. There must be a place to rest, a way to manage waste, and the equipment to maintain the ship and make repairs. All this makes the ship bigger and heavier.

But as Michaelbak said, these things aren't actual features in the game, atleast not at this point. So any argument using these features to indicate some level of balance is not only entirely theoretical, it's also unrealistic. Given any statistical imbalance in the entire game I could dream up some distant future feature that would balance it out, but the point is to have balanced parts now.

I don't really care about game balance like that. An unbalanced game with distinct parts is much better than a balanced game, where all similar parts are equivalent.

Besides, the OS X version of the game has been suffering from serious memory usage issues for the past few versions. If the Mk2 lander can were the equivalent of two Mk1 lander cans, then it would just increase the memory usage and make the game less stable without any benefit. Therefore it would be better to remove the Mk2 lander can entirely than make it redundant.

[Keith_Bones]

I didn't understand what you tried to say here.

The Mk1 command pod is essentially equivalent to the Mercury capsule, and the Mk1 lander can is supposed to something equally primitive and barebone. They're supposed to sustain the pilot for up to a few days, but no more than that.

For missions lasting for weeks, months, or even years, the ship needs more facilities than just a seat for the pilot. There has to be a toilet and a way to maintain personal hygiene. The crew needs room for exercise and some personal space to maintain physical and mental health. There must be a place to rest, a way to manage waste, and the equipment to maintain the ship and make repairs. All this makes the ship bigger and heavier.

I don't really care about game balance like that. An unbalanced game with distinct parts is much better than a balanced game, where all similar parts are equivalent.

Besides, the OS X version of the game has been suffering from serious memory usage issues for the past few versions. If the Mk2 lander can were the equivalent of two Mk1 lander cans, then it would just increase the memory usage and make the game less stable without any benefit. Therefore it would be better to remove the Mk2 lander can entirely than make it redundant.

My point was that anything that could be said about the MK2 mission capabilities could be said about the MK1, they are both lander cans, the name suggests that they share mission requirments.

Secondly, you went back to the life support facilities argument, which again, is a moot point because those requirements don't exist in the game, and until a point that they do, discussing them is entirely theoretical, and current game balance would have no effect on balance in the future where these things exist. If you want life support requirements, then there are mods for that, and they deal with balance on that end.

Thirdly, I totally agree, an unbalanced game with distinct parts is exactly what I'm advocating for, because there is no real distinction between the parts in question, other than that one of them is terrible that it negates any fun distinction between them.

I'm not talking about making it exactly equivalent to two MK1 cans. It should weigh more, it is larger, and with that size it offers a couple of advantages that have been touched on previously in the thread, but those advantages are so negligible compared to an easily fixed disadvantage that it's just never worth the trade. In fact I could argue that in it's current state it is so rarely, if ever usable, that it's currently a waste of memory capacity.

Honestly at this point you just don't have an argument other than anecdotal personal opinion. Numerically speaking, the thing is bad, and it's a pretty simple tweak to bring it in line.

[Michaelbak]

Besides, the OS X version of the game has been suffering from serious memory usage issues for the past few versions. If the Mk2 lander can were the equivalent of two Mk1 lander cans, then it would just increase the memory usage and make the game less stable without any benefit. Therefore it would be better to remove the Mk2 lander can entirely than make it redundant.

I run OSX, could you please explain to me how changing a number in part's file from "2.66" to something like "1.70" would cause memory issues?

[Wallygator]

Besides, the OS X version of the game has been suffering from serious memory usage issues for the past few versions. If the Mk2 lander can were the equivalent of two Mk1 lander cans, then it would just increase the memory usage and make the game less stable without any benefit. Therefore it would be better to remove the Mk2 lander can entirely than make it redundant.

Sorry Jouni, This doesn't make sense to me. Fixing the OS X memory leak is several orders of magnitude above this. It's not about parts and textures, but rather the way scenes are handled, and likely many other very subtle yet crippling operations occurring behind the scenes.

[Jouni]

My point was that anything that could be said about the MK2 mission capabilities could be said about the MK1, they are both lander cans, the name suggests that they share mission requirments.

Sopwith Camel and Airbus A380 are both planes, so they too apparently share mission requirements.

I'm not talking about making it exactly equivalent to two MK1 cans. It should weigh more, it is larger, and with that size it offers a couple of advantages that have been touched on previously in the thread, but those advantages are so negligible compared to an easily fixed disadvantage that it's just never worth the trade. In fact I could argue that in it's current state it is so rarely, if ever usable, that it's currently a waste of memory capacity.

From my point of view, crew modules are payload parts. The choice between them is always based on mission requirements, not on game mechanical efficiency considerations. If my mission requirements state that the lander must have a Mk2 lander can, it's impossible to complete the mission with a lander with two Mk1 lander cans or five Mk1-2 command pods. Making the Mk2 lander can more lightweight would just make it worse, because missions using it would become less challenging.

Sorry Jouni, This doesn't make sense to me. Fixing the OS X memory leak is several orders of magnitude above this. It's not about parts and textures, but rather the way scenes are handled, and likely many other very subtle yet crippling operations occurring behind the scenes.

Fixing the memory leak will also take a lot more effort. I'm kind of hoping that the leak will be gone when we have a stable version of KSP using Unity 5 (because it will probably require rewriting a lot of stuff), but that's probably not going to happen in 1.1 or even in 1.2. Until then, the best workaround is to limit the number of redundant assets in the stock game.

[Keith_Bones]

Sopwith Camel and Airbus A380 are both planes, so they too apparently share mission requirements.

The Boeing 747 and the Boeing 777 mostly share mission requirements, one is bigger. Don't try to make dramatic, inaccurate comparisons.

From my point of view, crew modules are payload parts. The choice between them is always based on mission requirements, not on game mechanical efficiency considerations. If my mission requirements state that the lander must have a Mk2 lander can, it's impossible to complete the mission with a lander with two Mk1 lander cans or five Mk1-2 command pods. Making the Mk2 lander can more lightweight would just make it worse, because missions using it would become less challenging.

Crew modules are not payload parts, any value associated with the payload contained in the pod is imaginary, subjective and unrealistic. I'm no historian, and may be wrong about this, but from what I understand heavy payload is always carried in a separate compartment. Available mods also work this way, having at most, tiny individual inventories for each kerbal in the pod.

"The choice between them is always based on mission requirements, not on game mechanical efficiency considerations."

Given the way the game works now, mechanical efficiency considerations are the primary mission requirement concerns. Again, self imposed mission requirements of having a MK2 can are subjective and have zero bearing on the statistical imbalance of the part.

Also, how challenging a mission is is tied to the creative aspirations of the pilot, not the statistical limitations of the part, because as parts get lighter and more usable, mission parameters can be adjusted to more efficiently utilize the numbers as the are now.

[tater]

The crew compartment is absolutely the payload.

[Michaelbak]

Because you guys are going off can I just state that the original intention of this thread was to ask for a reduction to the weight of the MK2 Lander Pod so that it was more like a doubled version of the MK1 lander pod...

[Keith_Bones]

The crew compartment is absolutely the payload.

Then a payload of 2 kerbals shouldn't weigh almost 5 times what a payload of 1 kerbal weighs

But I think he was talking about tools and utility equipment again.

[tater]

Depends on the actual role, I suppose. We have to make do with landers for a planet like Duna, or the Mun. We'd not ever use a LEM for Mars, for example.

Edited May 14, 2015 by tater

[Keith_Bones]

Depends on the actual role, I suppose. We have to make do with landers for a planet like Duna, or the Mun. We'd not every use a LEM for Mars, for example.

That's true, landers for duna need to be equipped for atmospheric environments, but seeing as the two pods both have the same heat tolerance, crash tolerance, and are otherwise comparable in most ways other than weight, and pure weight has arguably nothing to do with how the lander can handle atmo, then we can deduce that they are designed for the same environment.

Though this does bring up the possibility of a future, atmo-based lander.