Must I give up on KSP? I do not want it :(

[Initar]

Limit Acceleration: / Turn Shape / End fuel 1st Stage

20 / 40 / 328 --------- 17 / 40 / not tested

20 / 45 / 338 ------ 17 / 40 / Failure Roll

20 / 50 / 250 -------- 17 / 50 / 207

20 / 55 / 194 ------- 17 / 55 / 212

20 / 60 / 160 ------- 17 / 60 / 175

20/ 65 / 105 ---------17 / 65 / Not Tested

------------------------------------------------------

As you can see there is a very fine line between max fuel efficiency and failure (3m/s to be exact)

Wow, much testing, such awesome. THANK YOU SO MUCH for this! Acceleration it is! Limiting it to 17ms in mechjeb works for pretty much every situation with this rocket. Although god knows I limited the thrust in many ways during my previous tests. Not enough it would seem.

So maybe we can assume some stock engines are a bit unbalanced? This set of parts was meant to recreate the SLS after all...

Anyway, as a thank you, I'll reveal whats under the fairngs, or rather what would ideally be under there:

The orbital stage engine is actually a LVT-45 "Swivel", while the Rockomax brand adapter is modified to have some fuel, so it mimics the stats of the Rockomax X-200-8 fuel tank: 4.5 mass, 360 LF and 440 Ox. Here you can see a KW fairing support / decoupler, as well as the SHDI service module.

For testing purpose I used stock parts only exept for the modified adapter, but also tried the same as you.

Anyway, your solution works for both configurations!

@johnFX, I did use struts for the boosters, I lnow the rule ^^. You can actually see them on the pic.

TL;DR: you guys were right, engine was way too powerful. Maybe unbalanced?

Edited May 20, 2015 by Initar

[Ninjahgoblin]

I was having similar issues after the update. I use mechjeb. If you use mechjeb I recommend this profile posted by smjjames

After testing this profile. I launch every time no issue. And so long as you have the fuel you can set the Orbit altitude to whatever. I set mine lower to 120.

I also up 'limit acceleration' a few notches give or take depending on the craft.

[Kerr_]

anyone having trouble with the new aero needs to play with the drag indicators (F12) on

[SmashingKirby148]

I don't get you guys sometimes. I nowhere near a pro player and I think it's fine. O.o

[Korizan]

TL;DR: you guys were right, engine was way too powerful. Maybe unbalanced?

I wouldn't say your setup is over powered or too powerful.

It is more of a case you have a comfort zone.

These engines are also supposed to be heavy lifters so I wouldn't say unbalanced either.

It is a game and well the power lets us have some fun

Right now I am playing some heavy lifting fun

1st stage is (5) Mainsails and the second stage is a Rhino, no boosters.

It will put a 109.3 ton payload into a 80km orbit.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Korizan

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

I read the OP and a few posts...now I agree this is a whining thread and shud be closed; I am a stickler for realism myself and even had major problems as the OP suggests; well; I found a couple answers using stock (yes stock-only for now) parts; parts that use the aerodynamics and not modded ones that dont or are probly not configured; I dont think hardly any modded parts are configured for drag etc; most of my parts going into space so far are stock; so far; and I hope the stock fairings will cover up my non-aerodynamic modded parts shud they stick out...then again that probly wouldnt matter I dunno I never tested modded versus stock parts for drag.

I aint spoiling the parts used and how they are used; you can watch my last stream of a launch I just did today for the clues.

To my amazement I got 2000 units of fuel in Kerbin orbit; cost me $150K Kerkash; playing Career mode with over 100 contracts so far; slightly modded Squad contracts with more funds and more science.

So far I aint complaining; please let's work with what we got and keep improving KSP; everyone whined about flying; now there is a more realistic game model and we are all whining again.

We need constructive criticism not threads like these; am I wrong here? I didnt miss the space ship I am rendezvousing tonite live if you wanna watch...harr.

Cmdr Zeta

[Rakshasa]

If it looks like it is an unstable disaster of a rocket, it probably is. Do those engines even have thrust vectoring?

That rocket does not look like an unstable disaster to me, it looks like a reasonable design that should work. Powerful thrust vectoring engine, much taller than wide, etc.

Initar, what happens if you disable the upper 3.75m tank until it is needed? I think that would help keep the CoM further forward and the rocket more stable.

So it was an unstable disaster of a rocket after all... BTW, in case you missed why I called it that, it was partially _because_ it was far from enough 'taller than wide', had a beast of an engine on something that looks like a fat dwarf.

[little square dot]

We need constructive criticism not threads like these; am I wrong here?

I don't mind that people get frustrated and look to vent on the forums, but what does annoy me is how many people are going on like, "I'VE TRIED EVERYTHING", when it's quite obvious that they haven't really tried anything, nor even bothered to read what others have already said on the issue, repeatedly.

It's one thing to vent frustration when you truly can't figure something out, despite your best efforts, however if you're complaining simply because things are different, and you haven't even tried to adapt, I think that's called whining.

- - - Updated - - -

So it was an unstable disaster of a rocket after all.

No it wasn't. Ask Sal.

[Dspan_000]

Yeah I mean really its not that hard. But the part that ticks me off is the new way the Atomic rockets are used THEY DO NO LONGER USE OXIDIZER WHYYYYYYY

[Specialist290]

Alright, before this escalates any further: Let's all dispense with the accusations of "whining." Whether or not someone's opinion of the way the game's mechanics are set up is justified, telling them that they're "whining" is only going to pour fuel on the fire, which isn't going to help anyone regardless of their position on the matter.

[Murph]

I was having similar issues after the update. I use mechjeb. If you use mechjeb I recommend this profile posted by smjjames

After testing this profile. I launch every time no issue. And so long as you have the fuel you can set the Orbit altitude to whatever. I set mine lower to 120.

I also up 'limit acceleration' a few notches give or take depending on the craft.

There is no such thing as a universal "best" profile, the "one true profile" has never existed, and will never exist. It's always dependent on the rocket. I've just been playing around with a rocket that is a total failure with the profile shown in the pic (by the way, it would have been easier for everyone if you just gave the numbers, instead of requiring us to visit a photo site, then zoom in to actually see the numbers). 50% shape on MechJeb is a good profile for many rockets, but the one I was just playing around with needed 80% due to a slightly weak mid stage (which isn't easy to fix, due to lack of choice of parts).

[selfish_meme]

Yeah I mean really its not that hard. But the part that ticks me off is the new way the Atomic rockets are used THEY DO NO LONGER USE OXIDIZER WHYYYYYYY

Because real Nuclear rockets don't use oxidiser, now though you can design liquid fuel only stages to take advantage somewhat of the lack of oxidiser.

[Initar]

Yes I was frustrated, but this thread helped me a lot (except for people calling a NASA design an unstable mess xD ) and should stay up.

I tried for a week, testing everything I read on the forum, before posting here. But I'm not a math guy, I sometimes do calculations but only for interplanetary transfers. So I did reduce acceleration, but not enough, lacking the aerodynamic knowledge behind it. As Korizan said, its more of a comfort zone thing, 2 different environnements in a week is a lot to adapt to when you played in a soup athmosphere for 2 years ^^

Now I got the "feeling" of it, and will be able to determine launch profiles for any other rocket, hopefully.

So I may have been "whining" a little bit, but gentle and helpful helped me solve it, and they have my eternal gratitude.

[Varsi]

You were doing what a lot of people then to do. Too big engines and too little fuel. It's good to just try how many tanks you can actually slap on your first stage and still lift off.

Calling something like that "NASA design" doesn't sound quite right and is bound to bring some comments, real rockets tend to be taller. Someone else might know what those 3,75m parts are based on but my guess would be Saturn V.

[Murph]

You were doing what a lot of people then to do. Too big engines and too little fuel. It's good to just try how many tanks you can actually slap on your first stage and still lift off.

Calling something like that "NASA design" doesn't sound quite right and is bound to bring some comments, real rockets tend to be taller. Someone else might know what those 3,75m parts are based on but my guess would be Saturn V.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

It's the in-development new NASA toy, which absolutely isn't just them restarting Saturn V production, with a few updates and modern electronics, honest. Rumours that blueprints have been found with "Saturn V SLS" on them are not true.

It's tricky to build to real height in KSP due to the Bend-o-Maticâ„¢ stack joints. Struts only help so much (and yeah, I know about the joint reinforcement mod, but there's still some issues even with that).

[BENDERr]

funny, but I agree with topic-starter . new physics is really strange ... it shaking a cam in a vacuum with the engine running - its nonsense. Aerodynamics reeling plane regardless of the speed - just as bad.

Only a smaller load on the GPU hold me from a return to 0.9.

also failed to find the answer, why "Planetarium survey camera" always is broken no matter how slow i bring it to orbit ....

[KSK]

I think the camera shake is purely for dramatic effect. It's an exaggerated visualisation of the forces acting on your spacecraft - it doesn't cause those forces. And there's an option to reduce it or switch it off completely.

[NikkyD]

I cant believe how many people are/were playing with the SOUP and are now complaining about the long overdue correction of the drag system.

Whenever i read "will revert back to .90" im just thinking... i would still have similar stuff there with FAR so why go back ? Oh wait, they never installed FAR, they just played a rocket game with a crazy air resistance based on the rocket mass... omg

[BENDERr]

I think the camera shake is purely for dramatic effect. It's an exaggerated visualisation of the forces acting on your spacecraft - it doesn't cause those forces. And there's an option to reduce it or switch it off completely.

that's interesting , can you please tell me how to torn "trilling" off? for me flame from engines is dramatic enough .

- - - Updated - - -

I cant believe how many people are/were playing with the SOUP and are now complaining about the long overdue correction of the drag system.

Whenever i read "will revert back to .90" im just thinking... i would still have similar stuff there with FAR so why go back ? Oh wait, they never installed FAR, they just played a rocket game with a crazy air resistance based on the rocket mass... omg

looks,like i newer installed... can you please tell me what is FAR?

i don't see it on addon list

Editor Extensions v2.6

FASA v5.33

Filter Extensions v2.0.5

Firespitter propeller plane and helicopter parts v7.1

ForScience Continued - V0.27.1

Freight Transport Technologies v0.4.0

Fuel Tanks Plus 0.8.2

[selfish_meme]

FAR is Ferram Aerospace Research, by forum member Ferram4, it is a mod thats been around for a long time, it previously changed the atmospheric modelling to be more realistic, much as Squad has done with this update. Arguably it is still superior and has better tools to help design aircraft. Used in conjunction with Advanced Jet Engines, ISP difficulty scaler and Deadly Re-entry mods you get pretty much what we have now. Those mods probably do it better, especially as nuFAR has now got voxelisation modelling rather than box modelling for drag.

Edited May 21, 2015 by selfish_meme

[cybersol]

There is no such thing as a universal "best" profile, the "one true profile" has never existed, and will never exist. It's always dependent on the rocket. I've just been playing around with a rocket that is a total failure with the profile shown in the pic (by the way, it would have been easier for everyone if you just gave the numbers, instead of requiring us to visit a photo site, then zoom in to actually see the numbers). 50% shape on MechJeb is a good profile for many rockets, but the one I was just playing around with needed 80% due to a slightly weak mid stage (which isn't easy to fix, due to lack of choice of parts).

I find it funny that people mostly play with turn shape, when in most cases turn altitude end has the most impact on dV expenditure. As you lower the end altitude, raising the final angle above 0 will also become more important.

[BENDERr]

Yes, thx . Google found it me. Local Search - sucks.

2 NikkyD

a r you say, that the SQUAD released the third time broken game normally not working without addons ?

[Tortoise]

The aero still sucks, but 'makes sense' in a way.

If you're all for the realism and use mods to enhance the gameplay, why don't you use FAR for realistic aerodynamics?

[selfish_meme]

The aero still sucks, but 'makes sense' in a way.

If you're all for the realism and use mods to enhance the gameplay, why don't you use FAR for realistic aerodynamics?

The game was never intended to have the pre 1.0 aero system, it was a beta placeholder. They don't wan't to replicate FAR but the aero was too basic. It was easy for some things but ridiculously bad for others, and of course this affected engine balance. So when the aero changed engines had to be rebalanced. Of course the amount of realism the game needs is very subjective but Squad made no secret that they had intended to change the aero for a long time.

[Rakshasa]

No it wasn't. Ask Sal.

Yes, had to rely on an expert to get it into orbit and he basically flew it in a way that simulated a reasonably sized engine. Definitely not a problem with the design... ;/