Drew Kerman Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: The BDB parts are balanced to be in line with the stock parts, however, because the stock parts are not properly scaled to the stock system, the stock parts are themselves overpowered, as well as any mod parts that hold to their balance. Normally you accept this and move on. However, when you scale real life launch vehicles down to kerbal part scale, they wind up significantly outperforming their IRL counterparts. Nothing I can really do about that other than making the BDB parts vastly inferior to other parts in the game, OR recommending people use a rescale mod. Not sure if that really answers my question, but I may also be wrong in my assumption that stock has proper volume measurements as well. I honestly haven't checked I just thought it would be simpler to ask but I may not have phrased my question well. Nevermind the engines - are the fuel tanks holding the amount of fuel they should for their actual volume in the game or are they holding the amount of fuel that would be suitable for an engine that would be attached to them? In other words are they realistically balanced or gameplay balanced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock3tman_ Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 46 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said: Not sure if that really answers my question, but I may also be wrong in my assumption that stock has proper volume measurements as well. I honestly haven't checked I just thought it would be simpler to ask but I may not have phrased my question well. Nevermind the engines - are the fuel tanks holding the amount of fuel they should for their actual volume in the game or are they holding the amount of fuel that would be suitable for an engine that would be attached to them? In other words are they realistically balanced or gameplay balanced? They are holding the amount of fuel that they should. This just happens to be overpowered for the stock system, not of fault by BDB, but on the part of SQUAD. Volume measurement is not the issue, the issue is that the stock system is too small for its own rockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Kerman Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Rock3tman_ said: They are holding the amount of fuel that they should thanks, good to know 29 minutes ago, Rock3tman_ said: the issue is that the stock system is too small for its own rockets. yea I get that but my concern was it would have been a compounded issue if the fuel tanks were carrying more fuel than they actually should physically be able to carry (gameplay balance) which is why I wanted to make sure they were not so I could adjust things accordingly Edited January 23, 2018 by Drew Kerman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock3tman_ Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said: thanks, good to know yea I get that but my concern was it would have been a compounded issue if the fuel tanks were carrying more fuel than they actually should physically be able to carry (gameplay balance) which is why I wanted to make sure they were not so I could adjust things accordingly Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Woot! #400pgs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted January 23, 2018 Author Share Posted January 23, 2018 So, real life has had a tendency to be busy and distracting lately. I wanted to have the AJ-260s, with the hotfix, released this past weekend. If you can't tell, that did not happen. Tonight I'll try and make up some lost time. Swing by Twitch to catch a dev stream tonight starting between 6-7 PM Eastern (it'll depend on when I get out of work). I'll probably try and get the AJ-260s finished up and get them all in game tonight - shouldn't be too difficult considering the texturing is pretty much done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRedTom Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 20 hours ago, slaintemaith said: Hrm. Although it -did- scale it up, (and thanks for the config to get it to the proper size) I don't think something's quite right with that... Am I missing some other stuff? (Also sorry for jacking this thread off topic) Ah, mistakes were made. I may need @Galileo's help here (2.5/other rescales for ssrss Galileo) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheRedTom said: Ah, mistakes were made. I may need @Galileo's help here (2.5/other rescales for ssrss Galileo) I’m really unsure what is going on here. If someone is looking to Rescale SSRSS then they are going to have issues because you can’t rescale a rescale. Doesn’t work that way. There is a cfg floating around the SSRSS thread that makes SSRSS into a quarter size system. You will have to look for that. The issue you in the screenshot above is cause by not raising the altitude of the KSC pqscity. Essentially, you didn’t take the KSC position into consideration when upscaling the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notJebKerman Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) Just some stuff I forgot in the last post Edited January 23, 2018 by notJebKerman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted January 23, 2018 Author Share Posted January 23, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, notJebKerman said: Just some stuff I forgot in the last post Hrmm, I don't like how everything looks like it's made out of the exact same metal material... also, looks like the normals on your Apollo Service Module are messed up. I hope I didn't bugger them in the last release... Edit: The CM itself looks nice. Edited January 23, 2018 by CobaltWolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notJebKerman Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 14 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: Hrmm, I don't like how everything looks like it's made out of the exact same metal material... also, looks like the normals on your Apollo Service Module are messed up. I hope I didn't bugger them in the last release... Edit: The CM itself looks nice. Actually, for the SM I set the texture to default since IRL it's not as reflective as CM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinkboy77 Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 design is very good and I love to control your ship, but can you make ship interior more realistic? the LEM For exemple But realy good job I love! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaintemaith Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Blinkboy77 said: design is very good and I love to control your ship, but can you make ship interior more realistic? the LEM For exemple Read up a few posts (or a couple pages) I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billgarlic Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 Just curious. Has anyone created Test Flight mod configs (for stock) for the BDB collection? They have real-world counterparts ('real' names) so that data is in the Test Flight configs in Realism Overhaul (those values should not need to be scaled like power and fuel). I was thinking of trying to make a few as an experiment but curious if they already exist. Also, since another RO (for 1.3.1) seems in the near future, I was hoping to use these parts in another run at that mod collection. I saw that there are engine configs in that tree but they did not include any TestFlight data that I saw. Thanks to anyone who may have an answer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimothyC Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 We are go for Launch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted January 24, 2018 Author Share Posted January 24, 2018 AJ-260 beta is now on Github. Now, to fix the bugs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcink Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 LEM interior almost 100% - I plan on completing and handing over to @CobaltWolf tomorrow - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 As discussed on stream, scaling issues https://imgur.com/a/Mrlur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kerbal01 said: As discussed on stream, scaling issues https://imgur.com/a/Mrlur I am looking into this today. It scales from 3.75 to 5.625 just fine as well as down to 2.5m But below that is when I noticed things. ---------------Edit 1---------------- Testing the below information (as well as a few other things... AJ-260, Saturn II INT-17.... ) but I found this line in the tweakscale cfg that is on NO OTHER part including the other IMUs. I have commented it out and am loading KSP #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] -------------Edit 2---------------- CONFIRMED, the Above line impacts how much Tweakscale is shrinking or expanding the Saturn IVB IMU. @CobaltWolf One bug solved Edited January 24, 2018 by Pappystein Solution Found! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted January 24, 2018 Author Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Kerbal01 said: As discussed on stream, scaling issues https://imgur.com/a/Mrlur 44 minutes ago, Pappystein said: I am looking into this today. It scales from 3.75 to 5.625 just fine as well as down to 2.5m But below that is when I noticed things. ---------------Edit 1---------------- Testing the below information (as well as a few other things... AJ-260, Saturn II INT-17.... ) but I found this line in the tweakscale cfg that is on NO OTHER part including the other IMUs. I have commented it out and am loading KSP #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] -------------Edit 2---------------- CONFIRMED, the Above line impacts how much Tweakscale is shrinking or expanding the Saturn IVB IMU. @CobaltWolf One bug solved Soooo... what does it need to be? Forgot to post this before, but here it is if anyone still needs a better idea of what new parts we are getting in the update. I also wound up whipping up another new part, which I don't believe was mentioned - a 7x engine mount for the S-II stage. Many of the uprated Saturn V (in this case, we are mostly talking in terms of a second or third production run of Saturn Vs, with some level of tank stretch, F-1As and one of the uprated J-2 variants, no fins on the first stage, etc...) designs included this 7 engine mount, I believe for TWR reasons as the S-II stage does much of the ascent and circularization work. It was a really easy part to make, honestly. Just sliced up the original engine mount and rearranged the bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said: Soooo... what does it need to be? I have found the line posted on every command part that has no crew save the S-IVA IMU. I am in the midst of checking the other parts in game but it appear that you just need to delete one line from the tweakscale_Saturn.CFG at the moment. Agena Command checks out fine as do all the other INLINE command parts for the US rockets. I have not verified the Vexin control parts yet. I did confirm that the S-IVC engine mount is now not working. I am going to RE-download the pre-hotfix1 version of this mount because it WAS working fine on my install. But that will follow in a bit. 4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: - a 7x engine mount for the S-II stage. Yes you can all now launch Saturn II-INT-17s with no SRBs... well if you can find a good HG-3 analog that is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEB'S DESTINY Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 Do I have to stick a probe core into the LEM, or can you control it like a probe core by itself? I am planning to de-orbit the LEM after docking with the CSM before my trans earth injection so there wouldn't be any space junk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 minute ago, JEB'S DESTINY said: Do I have to stick a probe core into the LEM, or can you control it like a probe core by itself? I am planning to de-orbit the LEM after docking with the CSM before my trans earth injection so there wouldn't be any space junk. Use the Pioneer probe in Surface attach mode. Gives you an additional science experiment and gives you probe control all without mussing with other crazy stuff to make what you want to do work. And Good Luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEB'S DESTINY Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kablob Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 6 minutes ago, JEB'S DESTINY said: Thanks! There's also a mod out there somewhere that allows you to control manned parts like a probe core when they're unmanned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.