Frozen_Heart Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I do find it odd that radiators were added in addition to the heat nerf. They were needed due to the large amount of heat produced, now they are no longer needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Frozen_Heart said: I do find it odd that radiators were added in addition to the heat nerf. They were needed due to the large amount of heat produced, now they are no longer needed.Exactly this, there's barely any reason for them to be in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-SR71 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Not to mention I find it a bit funny to add something that should belong to a car on a rocket. At least give it a cool scientific name like heat sinks. What's next? Fuzzy dices on antennas? Are radiators even used in rockets in real life? Pardon the stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 There's a difference in function between a "heat sink" and a "radiator". One stores, or sinks, heat, the other radiates it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 X-SR71 said: Not to mention I find it a bit funny to add something that should belong to a car on a rocket. At least give it a cool scientific name like heat sinks. What's next? Fuzzy dices on antennas? Are radiators even used in rockets in real life? Pardon the stupidity.https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/radiators.htmlActually, our use of the word with cars is stupid. Cars are cooled by forced convection, not radiation. Spacecraft are cooled by radiation.But NASA being NASA, they do talk about "thermal control systems", if you prefer more words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalculusWarrior Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 X-SR71 said: Not to mention I find it a bit funny to add something that should belong to a car on a rocket. At least give it a cool scientific name like heat sinks. What's next? Fuzzy dices on antennas? Are radiators even used in rockets in real life? Pardon the stupidity.Thermal control is very important in space; the only method of heat dissipation is radiation, so you need radiators to shed that heat before it cooks the crew inside. See page 4 of this NASA document on the ISS' thermal control systems, and you'll see a very familiar-looking part http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/473486main_iss_atcs_overview.pdfAlso, the 'radiator' in a car is a bit of a misnomer, it conducts the engine block's heat through the atmosphere, rather than radiates it away. #physicsPedantry everyone else is doing hashtags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nich Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) Yes and no. In real life the light side of the craft is extremely hot and the dark side is extremely cold. This can be handled by slowly spinning the craft or with heat pipes that distribute the heat through the craft for satellites that can not spin. Engines produce very little heat as they use the cold liquid fuel to absorb it to run the pumps then it is burnt and expelled. I have never heard of a nuke engine in real life being used. I am not sure on nuke powered craft but i suspect they need heat on any craft with a nuke power supply. Generally you can control the temp by using the correct ratio of area exposed to dark space and bright sun. Edited July 27, 2015 by Nich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 regex said: Exactly this, there's barely any reason for them to be in the game.I use radiators for two reasons:1) To cool the Near Future nuclear reactors and electric engines2) As a band-aid for selected ships if they have some kind of buggy heat problem that causes small parts to randomly blow up- - - Updated - - - Nich said: Yes and no. In real life the light side of the craft is extremely hot and the dark side is extremely cold. This can be handled by slowly spinning the craft or with heat pipes that distribute the heat through the craft for satellites that can not spin. Engines produce very little heat as they use the cold liquid fuel to absorb it to run the pumps then it is burnt and expelled. I have never heard of a nuke engine in real life being used. I am not sure on nuke powered craft but i suspect they need heat on any craft with a nuke power supply. Generally you can control the temp by using the correct ratio of area exposed to dark space and bright sun.A lot of spacecraft are locked into particular orientations for mission reasons. Antennas need to be pointed in the right direction, sensors need to be pointed in the right direction, landing legs need to be pointed in the right direction, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 mikegarrison said: 1) To cool the Near Future nuclear reactors and electric enginesThat's not a very good reason for radiators to be in the stock game. mikegarrison said: 2) As a band-aid for selected ships if they have some kind of buggy heat problem that causes small parts to randomly blow upAlso not a very good reason for radiators to be in the stock game. They're just not needed; even in 1.0.2 wing parts were more than adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-SR71 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I never would've thought those big radiators are actually real! Though 'Thermal control system' does sound cooler! (pun intended) Thanks for the explanations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 regex said: That's not a very good reason for radiators to be in the stock game.Yes, I know. I was agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallygator Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 My KSP world now seems upside down with the proverbial "dogs and cats living together" situation. At some point my recollection of past forum history there were a number of veterans calling for both realism AND gameplay. Now (it seems to me, and yes I could be interpreting it wrong) those same veterans are calling for game play in spite of realism. Can someone explain or clarify please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Wallygator said: Can someone explain or clarify please?Basically the game was less boring when there was something to design a craft around, especially since stock is so ... simple.Also, RE: my philosophy around KSP, I gave up wanting or asking for realism once I realized the game would never live up to my expectations. Seriously, we're at 1.0.x and we still have a toy solar system with a lack of destinations beyond easy-mode, the ISRU boils down to getting all your products from "Ore", there is no life support, career mode lacks any sort of actual management and is still incredibly incoherent... Granted, there are a lot of awesome things that were added in 1.0, things that seriously needed to happen for the stock game, but that still doesn't excuse it from being a toy. So here we are with a gimped spaceflight simulator for the masses, and it's not going to get any better.Thus, it is better to keep a blatantly unrealistic mechanic in the game to make it engaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 regex said: ...but that still doesn't excuse it from being a toy...You say that like it's a bad thing. It's actually the exact descriptor I'd use to talk KSP up to someone I thought would like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 5thHorseman said: You say that like it's a bad thing. It's actually the exact descriptor I'd use to talk KSP up to someone I thought would like it.Clearly we differ in what we want out of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) regex said: Clearly we differ in what we want out of the game.That is very true The big difference though is that I want what the game was presented as. When I tried my hand at the demo 2+ years ago, I thought to myself, "This is EXACTLY the game I've wanted to play my whole life, but didn't know it." I won't presume to think for you, but I imagine your first thought was along the lines of, "How can I make this more like Orbiter?" Edited July 27, 2015 by 5thHorseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 5thHorseman said: I won't presume to think for you, but I imagine your first thought was along the lines of, "How can I make this more like Orbiter?"No, but one of the first things I wondered was why there was no reentry heating or break-up of large objects. The more I Iearned about spaceflight (I was kind of new to it beyond broad concepts) the more I wanted a comprehensive sim that would let me explore concepts in a realistic sandbox, and the less I wanted to play around with a toy. You might say (not you exactly, but others) "go play Orbiter" and I seriously would but for the fact that Orbiter lacks a Linux client and the VAB/SPH (and no, I have no desire to stich together pre-made stages in a text editor). I would never have played KSP as heavily or put so much time into it if it weren't for NathanKell and others making Realism Overhaul into an actual thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coupon Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 KSP is a game, not a simulator. People say "Mechjeb is OK because NASA automates everything in real life!!!!" but in real life, space flight isn't a game, real lives are at stake and manual control is too risky. Imagine how boring KSP would be if it automatically went to any planet at the click of a button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Coupon said: KSP is a game, not a simulator. People say "Mechjeb is OK because NASA automates everything in real life!!!!" but in real life, space flight isn't a game, real lives are at stake and manual control is too risky. Imagine how boring KSP would be if it automatically went to any planet at the click of a button.Take your MechJeb trolling and strawmen elsewhere, we're having a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Coupon said: KSP is a game, not a simulator. People say "Mechjeb is OK because NASA automates everything in real life!!!!" but in real life, space flight isn't a game, real lives are at stake and manual control is too risky. Imagine how boring KSP would be if it automatically went to any planet at the click of a button.You need to mention female kerbals in addition to MechJeb and "game not a simulator" for full trolling points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windspren Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 regex said: Basically the game was less boring when there was something to design a craft around, especially since stock is so ... simple.Also, RE: my philosophy around KSP, I gave up wanting or asking for realism once I realized the game would never live up to my expectations. Seriously, we're at 1.0.x and we still have a toy solar system with a lack of destinations beyond easy-mode, the ISRU boils down to getting all your products from "Ore", there is no life support, career mode lacks any sort of actual management and is still incredibly incoherent... Granted, there are a lot of awesome things that were added in 1.0, things that seriously needed to happen for the stock game, but that still doesn't excuse it from being a toy. So here we are with a gimped spaceflight simulator for the masses, and it's not going to get any better.Thus, it is better to keep a blatantly unrealistic mechanic in the game to make it engaging.Ahem. I would now like to introduce you to "mods" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coupon Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 regex said: Take your MechJeb trolling and strawmen elsewhere, we're having a discussion. Red Iron Crown said: You need to mention female kerbals in addition to MechJeb and "game not a simulator" for full trolling points.Jeez, didn't know this forum was full of troll-accusing bumfaces. Nice job with the "Welcoming community" . Now take out your anger elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Laythe Dweller said: Ahem. I would now like to introduce you to "mods"We're talking about the stock game, but thanks for playing.- - - Updated - - - Coupon said: Jeez, didn't know this forum was full of troll-accusing bumfaces. Nice job with the "Welcoming community" . Now take out your anger elsewhere."I'm the victim here, not the thread I tried to derail." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I think this thread has about reached its end, the vast majority of players asked for (1) lower LV-N heat production so they could carry on using nuclear engine clusters for all their craft, from SSTO space planes to Gilly landers, without them exploding due to heat after being run continuously for several minutes at 100% output.And (2), for radiators to manage the heat produced by the above.Well Squad listened, players got what they asked for I guess if you cluster enough of them and are prepared to carry enough fuel for a half hour burn you can continue to enjoy the heat production mechanic, but for now this thread has started to go off-topic and into the realm of personal attacks.Closing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts