Jump to content

Hype Train 1.0.5: The Local Train Route

Whirligig Girl

By Whirligig Girl
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted

I Zaprudered Scott Manley's video in HD and came up with some interesting info:

- The new "Vector" LF&O engine looks to have 937kN of thrust and an Isp of 295s at sea level. This would make it one of the best boosters in the game.

-The new form of the Wheesly will get an efficiency bump and thrust reverser.

-The Panther will basically be a toggle-able combo of the current Wheesly and Whiplash, which will make it an excellent spaceplane engine *if* it tops out like the current Whiplash.

- The Goliath will feature a very high efficiency (about 30% over the current Wheesly) and, of course, thrust reversing.

I didn't get any new info on the Juno or Whiplash :(

Of course... this all assumes that we get the same engine stats that Scott Manley was using.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alshain

Alshain

Posted
Posted (edited)
I Zaprudered Scott Manley's video in HD and came up with some interesting info:

- The new "Vector" LF&O engine looks to have 937kN of thrust and an Isp of 295s at sea level. This would make it one of the best boosters in the game.

-The new form of the Wheesly will get an efficiency bump and thrust reverser.

-The Panther will basically be a toggle-able combo of the current Wheesly and Whiplash, which will make it an excellent spaceplane engine *if* it tops out like the current Whiplash.

- The Goliath will feature a very high efficiency (about 30% over the current Wheesly) and, of course, thrust reversing.

I didn't get any new info on the Juno or Whiplash :(

Of course... this all assumes that we get the same engine stats that Scott Manley was using.

Best,

-Slashy

Stats can change at a moments notice. Scott's video is not the final 1.0.5. Nathan and Ted both indicated they will probably do a balancing pass before release in streams.

Edited by Alshain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
severedsolo

severedsolo

Posted
Posted
Tuesday would make more sense because they can use a devnotes to announce it.

I would say that traditionally a tuesday release is likely, but the last tuesday release was 0.23.5 (I think.)

I suspect tuesday/wednesday. We haven't had the usual KSP media group roundup yet, but not all the videos are up. (Roninpawn is definitely missing. I forget who the others are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alshain

Alshain

Posted
Posted (edited)
I would say that traditionally a tuesday release is likely, but the last tuesday release was 0.23.5 (I think.)

Ummm, the last Tuesday release was 1.0.4.

- - - Updated - - -

In fact the only real correlation to days is that there has never been anything but a bug fix on a Friday at least since 0.20. Actual releases seem spread across the other 4 days, though Tuesday does have the greatest number of full releases (and only one bug fix patch).

Monday

1.0.3

1.0

0.90

Tuesday

1.0.4

0.25

0.23.5

0.23

0.20

Wednesday

0.22

0.21.1

0.21

0.20.1

Thursday

0.24.1

0.24

Friday

1.0.2

1.0.1

0.24.2

Edited by Alshain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
severedsolo

severedsolo

Posted
Posted (edited)
Ummm, the last Tuesday release was 1.0.4.

Well as 1.0.4 was not an intended release, but a hotfix for 1.0.3 - I don't think you can use that to interpret intended release dates.

According to your data, the last intended tuesday release was 0.25, which kind of validates my point. It's nice to see the actual data though, rather than using my clutzy memory.

Edited by severedsolo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Temeter

Temeter

Posted
Posted

I think Squads communication always heavily indicated they developed a patch as long as it needs and don't follow a specific release schedule*. It comes out when all the big bugs are squashed. Although I wouldn't be surprised if we get a hotfix release shortly after, which I'd be 100% fine with.

Still hoping for monday here. <3

*or said schedule got screwed up by a tenacious bug anyway^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alshain

Alshain

Posted
Posted (edited)
Well as 1.0.4 was not an intended release, but a hotfix for 1.0.3 - I don't think you can use that to interpret intended release dates.

According to your data, the last intended tuesday release was 0.25, which kind of validates my point. It's nice to see the actual data though, rather than using my clutzy memory.

I wouldn't say that. It was a whole week after the previous version. They could have released it any day in between but chose Tuesday. Also, 0.25 was not that far back if you only are counting the feature releases. 0.25 -> 0.90 -> 1.0

Oh, and it might also be worth noting, I distinctly remember 0.24 was supposed to be Tuesday or Wednesday but they ran into issues. (I remember Miguel posting pictures of Felipe with a very 'serious' look on his face before they pulled the plug on the release)

Edited by Alshain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
juanml82

juanml82

Posted
Posted
I Zaprudered Scott Manley's video in HD and came up with some interesting info:

- The new "Vector" LF&O engine looks to have 937kN of thrust and an Isp of 295s at sea level. This would make it one of the best boosters in the game.

I hope they nerf it then. If it has those stats and, on top, it has enough gimbal range to take off a heavily asymmetric rocket, why would anyone need to:

Use another booster?

Bother with symmetry for any reason besides aesthetics?

Such an engine should have some serious drawbacks, so it becomes sort of a niche engine for ships which have an asymmetric shape but, with a penalty in performance, players would still be encouraged to make symmetric rockets and use other engines. The part selection is already cluttered as it is, and there is no point in an engine which would make every other booster obsolete, IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Temeter

Temeter

Posted
Posted
I hope they nerf it then. If it has those stats and, on top, it has enough gimbal range to take off a heavily asymmetric rocket, why would anyone need to:

Use another booster?

Bother with symmetry for any reason besides aesthetics?

Such an engine should have some serious drawbacks, so it becomes sort of a niche engine for ships which have an asymmetric shape but, with a penalty in performance, players would still be encouraged to make symmetric rockets and use other engines. The part selection is already cluttered as it is, and there is no point in an engine which would make every other booster obsolete, IMHO

That's a completely pointless discussion as long as you don't know the engines weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chaos_Klaus

Chaos_Klaus

Posted
Posted
That's a completely pointless discussion as long as you don't know the engines weight.

... and it's price tag. The whole point of the shuttle was to have a reusable craft that could use more expensive components then an expendable system. That's at least what they set out to do. ;)

So if the Vector engine is going to be late tech tree and very expensive, than that's ok with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted
... and it's price tag. The whole point of the shuttle was to have a reusable craft that could use more expensive components then an expendable system. That's at least what they set out to do. ;)

So if the Vector engine is going to be late tech tree and very expensive, than that's ok with me.

I would agree with that. Make it so expensive that it has to be recovered in order to be economically feasible.

But even then, I think it needs some nerfing. It's stats are better than the current aerospike at sea level. No way that should be happening.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
royying

royying

Posted
Posted

NASA style shuttle only rely on 3 Vector engine on shuttle back and 2 SRB,

if the vector engine being nerf, it will limit the weight (size) of the shuttle design.

Also asymmetric craft need more thrust x-component to point the thrust vector to CoM

the thrust against gravity will deducted.

So, I think the current setting is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Temeter

Temeter

Posted
Posted
I would agree with that. Make it so expensive that it has to be recovered in order to be economically feasible.

But even then, I think it needs some nerfing. It's stats are better than the current aerospike at sea level. No way that should be happening.

Best,

-Slashy

If you want to go for minmaxing, then you'll only use a handfull of powerfull engines anyway. E.g. poodle or even skipper are almost always less efficient than a craft using mainsails because of the latters lifting capability.

I'd expect the shuttle engines to be more expensive, higher on the tech tree, but also a bit more efficient than other engines. Then again, depends on the final balancing pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nosirrbro

nosirrbro

Posted
Posted
OH ....! I MISSED MY BOARDING OF THE HYPE TRAIN! I THOUGHT IT WAS 6 PM NOT 6 AM! CRAAP!

HELP, SOMEONE FIND A WAY TO GET ME ON! MAKESHIFT SOME ROCKET OR PLANE OR SOMETHING! DO IT NOW!

Please, do it for the hype.

Please.

Okay, well, with no help from any of you, I finally got on the hype train using a turbocharged Narhwal. HYYYYYYPE

But, in all seriousness, I am quite excited for the new release. Many of these new aero parts are things I have been waiting on for a long time. Yay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted (edited)
NASA style shuttle only rely on 3 Vector engine on shuttle back and 2 SRB,

if the vector engine being nerf, it will limit the weight (size) of the shuttle design.

Also asymmetric craft need more thrust x-component to point the thrust vector to CoM

the thrust against gravity will deducted.

So, I think the current setting is good.

royying,

My current shuttle replica uses 2 SRBs and 3 Skipper engines that have a lot lower thrust and worse Isp. It's not hampered by this.

Kourageous3_zps2y0ogul9.jpg

Kourageous1_zpsiovlv8m6.jpg

60% of the thrust and 15 seconds lower Isp is still enough for a full scale shuttle.

The Vector could be bludgeoned with a nerf- bat and still do the job just fine.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited by GoSlash27
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted
I think the vector could get less ISP, thats true, however I think it's thrust shouldn't be altered.

I'd recommend going the other way. These engines are way overpowered for a full scale KSP shuttle. If their thrust is reduced drastically and their Isp is shaved a little, 3 of them will be perfect for a shuttle.

As the stats stand now a full scale shuttle would only need 2.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alshain

Alshain

Posted
Posted

The Vector engine will NOT be good for conventional rockets. After watching the streams I'm confident of that. Its Gimbal range actually works against you, Kofeyh was having a lot of trouble controlling it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoSlash27

GoSlash27

Posted
Posted
The Vector engine will NOT be good for conventional rockets. After watching the streams I'm confident of that. Its Gimbal range actually works against you, Kofeyh was having a lot of trouble controlling it.

Alshain,

According to Scott Manley's video, the gimbal range can be adjusted or even locked. We're still left with a rocket that looks to be overpowered and too efficient. If they don't rebalance it, it will break the game.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alshain

Alshain

Posted
Posted
Alshain,

According to Scott Manley's video, the gimbal range can be adjusted or even locked. We're still left with a rocket that looks to be overpowered and too efficient. If they don't rebalance it, it will break the game.

Best,

-Slashy

Oh, I didn't know that. I knew Claw's stuff added it though, so it does make some sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...