[1.2, 1.3] KW Rocketry Redux 3.1.1.1 released

[linuxgurugamer]

3 hours ago, Bornholio said:

Question of the 1.25m Stack Decoupler (low profile no fuel transfer) vs the TR-18A.

Is the weight so high because of the 3400K Temp rating (Made of tungsten)? its 5x the weight of the larger TR-18A.

Very nice model for it.  Makes me cry in RSS for lost dV. Suppose I should use it as a rocket blast diverter plate between stages with engine on immediately.

It may need some balancing, both in weidht and temp rating

[smotheredrun]

Weight problems? Low deltaV ?

Just add MOAR BOOSTERS!!!

 

That's usually my solution to the weight issue with the 1.25m decoupler

Edited February 11, 2017 by smotheredrun

[Phoenyx]

On 03/02/2017 at 10:31 AM, linuxgurugamer said:

Need a log file, the functionality of the parts didn't change.

and your comment about the 2nd engine doesn't make sense.

The initial release of 3.1 was missing a file which provided a couple of new parts, among them a service module, I think.  You might be  missing that, try downloaded the current version.

Launcher Data > Output log? But the archive is date from 10/29/2016.
No output log in KSP_Data or in KSP_x64_Data.    =(

Help!

Edit: Is this? https://www.dropbox.com/s/8yp7z1vy5w0mmgr/output_log.zip?dl=0
 

Edited February 12, 2017 by Phoenyx

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Launcher Data > Output log? But the archive is date from 10/29/2016.
No output log in KSP_Data or in KSP_x64_Data.    =(

Help!

Edit: Is this? https://www.dropbox.com/s/8yp7z1vy5w0mmgr/output_log.zip?dl=0
 

yes, that is the file, thanks

[Dr. Acula]

On 10.2.2017 at 5:23 PM, Bornholio said:

Question of the 1.25m Stack Decoupler (low profile no fuel transfer) vs the TR-18A.

Is the weight so high because of the 3400K Temp rating (Made of tungsten)? its 5x the weight of the larger TR-18A.

Very nice model for it.  Makes me cry in RSS for lost dV. Suppose I should use it as a rocket blast diverter plate between stages with engine on immediately.

Many parts apart from the engines in the KW Rocketry pack have never been properly rebalanced. They have still the same stats as when they were introduced. So they were made to be balanced for an entirely different version of the vanilla game. The stock decouplers once had very similar stats compared to the decoupler KWR gives you. But that was a long long time ago.

And it's not just the decouplers. Have you ever taken a closer look at the liquid fueltanks? Basically all KWR fueltanks have way to low entry costs, have a to low empty weight if compared with the stock fueltanks for their capacity but if you actually using them in carrer mode they cost slightly more than the stock tanks per unit fuel they hold.

KW Rocketry was originally made for a very different game, in a time when reentry heating wasn't a thing in KSP and when Carrer mode didn't exist and many parts still show evidence of this time. That's the reason some parts seem to have strange stats compared with similar vanilla parts in KSP 1.2.

[Drew Kerman]

2 hours ago, Dr. Acula said:

Many parts apart from the engines in the KW Rocketry pack have never been properly rebalanced. They have still the same stats as when they were introduced. So they were made to be balanced for an entirely different version of the vanilla game. The stock decouplers once had very similar stats compared to the decoupler KWR gives you. But that was a long long time ago.

And it's not just the decouplers. Have you ever taken a closer look at the liquid fueltanks? Basically all KWR fueltanks have way to low entry costs, have a to low empty weight if compared with the stock fueltanks for their capacity but if you actually using them in carrer mode they cost slightly more than the stock tanks per unit fuel they hold.

KW Rocketry was originally made for a very different game, in a time when reentry heating wasn't a thing in KSP and when Carrer mode didn't exist and many parts still show evidence of this time. That's the reason some parts seem to have strange stats compared with similar vanilla parts in KSP 1.2.

we need @Deimos Rast to come back so he can do a full re-balance!

[linuxgurugamer]

A full rebalancing (which I looked into at one time) would break every existing game that uses the current KW.

This would need to be a new version, which I'm not adverse to. 

I have a lot of stuff on my plate right now, but would gladly welcome an effort to do the rebalancing.  I'm mainly maintaining this, keeping it working and fixing bugs, I don't really have time to essentially totally redo it.

[Bornholio]

Regardless they all look great, work good in my RSS/StageRecovery career game.

Of course real world tank dry masses are lower but the game is balanced for Kerbin and easy dV to orbit so as they are is ok.

I noticed and mentioned about the extreme temp rating which is possible but improbable.

Hydrox Flame temp is only 3100K, so they could great at protecting something from cryogenic engine blast.  /smirk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Starslinger999]

Is it just me or is the Vesta 1.25m a little op for an upper stage. I cant seem to make 1.25m 2 stage launchers work very well with the vesta it gets 3.35 TWR for most of my rockets

[neutroncookie]

Is there anyway to use or convert .craft files involving KW rocketry parts from 1.0.5 to 1.2.2?

[SickSix]

So just reading this last page, is this not a good mod anymore? Sounds terribly imbalanced for a current career game?

[eberkain]

6 hours ago, SickSix said:

So just reading this last page, is this not a good mod anymore? Sounds terribly imbalanced for a current career game?

Yeah, its a bummer because the parts are great.  Although for a Real Fuels 6.4 scale playthrough I'm still going to give it a shot and see how things are. 

[Drew Kerman]

 

16 hours ago, SickSix said:

So just reading this last page, is this not a good mod anymore? Sounds terribly imbalanced for a current career game?

Part balancing is an easy fix. Doing the entire mod would be a challenge but if you find a part you like and you think it's unbalanced, just edit its config. Taken on a part by part basis based on what you want to use I think this pack is still very serviceable.

[Dr. Acula]

On 27.2.2017 at 8:21 PM, Drew Kerman said:

 

Part balancing is an easy fix. Doing the entire mod would be a challenge but if you find a part you like and you think it's unbalanced, just edit its config. Taken on a part by part basis based on what you want to use I think this pack is still very serviceable.

Yep, that's also what i did with the KWR fueltanks in my game. It's not especially complicated to balance the KWR parts to the stock ones, it's just tedious because you have to understand the balancing of the stock parts first.

[linuxgurugamer]

If someone would like to spend some time balancing the parts in KW, I'd be happy to review and either merge or a minor fork, depending on the changes.

[Calvin_Maclure]

Id like to see an imgur album of some sorts showcasing the parts of this mod. That's what id like to see. 

[linuxgurugamer]

14 hours ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

Id like to see an imgur album of some sorts showcasing the parts of this mod. That's what id like to see. 

So would I.  Are you volunteering to make one?

This whole mod is a community effort.  I can't do it all

[Temeter]

On 27.2.2017 at 4:12 AM, SickSix said:

So just reading this last page, is this not a good mod anymore? Sounds terribly imbalanced for a current career game?

It's not that bad. KSPs career is fairly roughly balanced anyway, the game might just get a slight bit harder/easier. IIRC decouplers were the only stand out issue, but you might either just use stock decouplers or change the cfg's when they are too heavy for you.

[Calvin_Maclure]

5 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

So would I.  Are you volunteering to make one?

This whole mod is a community effort.  I can't do it all

Indeed it is a community effort! At the moment, Im still waiting on a few mods to update to 1.2.2, so, I wont be able to install and run the latest version of this mod... yet... 

[linuxgurugamer]

You are still waiting for 1.w.2 updates?  What mods?

[Calvin_Maclure]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

You are still waiting for 1.w.2 updates?  What mods?

Id have to get back to you on that. Although, to be honest, I think I should be up and ready to go and update all the ones I use (plus a few more), roughly 80 in all (or so). I just have to take the time. BD Armory is one that I think is still WIP for 1.2.2. 

[DebianGamer]

Hello! Have been playing KSP since 0.23.5, but not created a forum account until now.

Is there a thread on the 3.1.2 release? I couldn't find any. Anyway, I wanted to talk about the interstage adapters,. especially the Saturn V-style petal one. It doesn't seem to work the way I expected – if I but it over an engine, it doesn't decouple. Which, if I understand the cfg file and how nodes work correctly isn't surprising. The KW engines all have an extra upward-facing top node, so they can be attached both to the fuel tank above and to the downward-facing top node (topFDown) of KW3mPetalAdapter. But that node doesn't decouple, only top does.

I'm thinking, wouldn't it make more sense and be more consistent to have a downward-facing top node on each engine? Then both the petal adapter and the other interstage shrouds would attach in the same way and the petal adapter decoupling would work (changing the explosiveNodeID would work too, of course, but then attaching the petal adapter below wouldn't work, but who wants that?). Now the interstage shrouds have to be attached at their upward-facing bottom nodes and often clip into the next fuel tank.

Additionally, I think downward-facing top nodes would combine well with the fairing bases.

[toric5]

made an issue on github about some off-center nodes.

[FutureLeak]

Let me first say, i updated alot of mods for this game for the newer version (~32 in total) I am having issues with components within the assembly buildings

I am having an issue with the mod where my RCS thrusters are not showing up in the VAB or AAH(Aircraft Assembly Hanger?[I think that's right]). Furthermore, there was a sizable amount of pre-constructed ships I had for quite a bit of missions that I cannot use anymore because they are missing the "KW1mNoseCone" I looked in the KW files and found that exact file, I am wondering why I am having this issue. Is there a way to go in and edit the schematics as so i can just use a Squad nosecone to replace it and is there a solve for my RCS issue?

[linuxgurugamer]

14 hours ago, FutureLeak said:

Let me first say, i updated alot of mods for this game for the newer version (~32 in total) I am having issues with components within the assembly buildings

I am having an issue with the mod where my RCS thrusters are not showing up in the VAB or AAH(Aircraft Assembly Hanger?[I think that's right]). Furthermore, there was a sizable amount of pre-constructed ships I had for quite a bit of missions that I cannot use anymore because they are missing the "KW1mNoseCone" I looked in the KW files and found that exact file, I am wondering why I am having this issue. Is there a way to go in and edit the schematics as so i can just use a Squad nosecone to replace it and is there a solve for my RCS issue?

Get me your save file, I'll take a look at it.