What parts do you find especially unrealistic

[cantab]

1 hour ago, kBob said:

I've also wondered about those 100% reliable throttles.  Every time I go to a satellite that's been parked for a long time I think, no way is it going to throttle up, yet it does, Kerbol technology is pretty amazing in some areas.

I see Kerbal rocket parts, compared to Earth rockets, as reliable, rugged, and cheap - but heavy and underperforming. Kerbals have that luxury because they live in a small planetary system that makes spaceflight a doddle, whereas we Earthlings have to push the limits of engineering just to make orbit round our bloated planet.

As for why Kerbin and its friends are so dense, best idea I've come up with is dark matter cores. As in, I feel we can't say that's definitely impossible in our universe.

[kBob]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 3:03 PM, regex said:

Actually roughly 1/10th the size of Earth.

Yeah don't know where I got that since I've been thinking about trying the 10x scale mod.  Anyway  it's very dense to have such gravity and it makes me wonder what it's made of, something high on the periodic chart  .

Edit: Duh, I was thinking time not size  .

Edited July 11, 2016 by kBob

[Kami_K220]

Engine Bells. Atmospheric engines should have a smaller Bell while the highly efficient vacuum engines should have Extra large bells. Pretty much the functionality of the Mammoth and Poodle should be reversed

[Galactica55]

Solar panels they generate wayyyy too much power compared to IRL

[KerikBalm]

Well, yes and no... we have no idea what amount of energy 1 Electric Charge unit is.

The thrust put out by the ion drives would require massive amounts of power... yet at the same time, consider how many gigantors you'd need just to power a science data transmission without batteries to store electric charge.

Somehow data transmission takes more energy than running an ion drive... and that is the unrealistic part

[wumpus]

4 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, yes and no... we have no idea what amount of energy 1 Electric Charge unit is.

The thrust put out by the ion drives would require massive amounts of power... yet at the same time, consider how many gigantors you'd need just to power a science data transmission without batteries to store electric charge.

Somehow data transmission takes more energy than running an ion drive... and that is the unrealistic part

I think the real problem is that both data transmission and ion drives are expected to run 24/7 over the course of months (not sure how long far horizons took to send back all the data.  I suspect that the total amount of data was limited by how much storage they could bring that could survive at pluto temperatures).  You wouldn't need the batteries because you would be sending slowly and steadily.

I remember JPL boasting that they were tracking voyager and it was producing the power of a single candle.  But candles are pretty hot and if you focused all the light that's a bit of power.  On the other hand, ion thrusters tend to push all the power of the weight of a single piece of paper (KSP ion engines are a lot more powerful, largely because they aren't expected to burn for months in real time).

So you are comparing fake apples to fake oranges.  But the "can't send the message because you don't have the power" is the point where the fake parts intrude and start breaking the game: transmission isn't a "peaky" power draw.  Also this whole idea makes me suspect the batteries are equally "lolfake": NASA developed fuel cells for a reason (Apollo used them).  Presumably real batteries (and solar) weren't as up to the job as kerbal batteries (who don't discover fuel cells until near the end of the tech tree).

[moogoob]

10 hours ago, Galactica55 said:

Solar panels they generate wayyyy too much power compared to IRL

To compensate for batteries that last a tenth what they should and always charge at ridiculous speeds.

Many of the ideas in this thread could be filed under "acceptable breaks from reality" due to being forced for gameplay balance purposes. (Though that doesn't mean I dislike this thread - it's quite fascinating actually to see what each person notices and values!)

[Corona688]

7 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, yes and no... we have no idea what amount of energy 1 Electric Charge unit is.

As a very, very, very rough estimate by comparing the energy produced by a rocket to the energy produced by fuel cells for an equivalent amount of fuel...  One unit of charge would be approx. 40 joules.

Batteries that last a tenth what they should, and charge at ridiculous speeds, might just be capacitors.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Corona688

[Rath]

On 6/14/2016 at 2:15 AM, mk1980 said:

ISRU seems a bit over the top. i'm not really sure if it's *unrealistic* since i have no clue how real ISRU is supposed to work, but i guess the converters would be a lot less efficient and heavier? (i may be totally wrong here).

also, the nuke engines seem a bit unrealistic to me. as far as i know, they were never actually used in real life, so having working nuke engines in the game seems a bit weird, especially since they are placed on a fairly cheap research node. i could see them as some sort of "near future" tech similar to the rapier engines, but then they'd have to be on a 1000 tech node and require the fully upgraded R&D to unlock.

but maybe that's just me.

They were ground tested.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

[foamyesque]

My big beef is reaction wheels. They almost totally negate the use of RCS for anything except translation control and they make that bit of monoprop in all the capsules early in the tech tree completely useless. RCS linear ports ought to be on the first node and reaction wheel torque dramatically cut (or some kind of oversatuation mechanism applied, or both).

[foamyesque]

On 2016-07-08 at 9:57 AM, Xyphos said:

Fuel Ducts. you get to squeeze unlimited amounts of propelants through a flexible garden hose without any flow restriction, they pass through it mixed and then come out the other end separated again.

also, requiring struts to hold everything together; struts once had more drag than a drogue parachute. usually my vessels start around 80 parts total and then come out to 260+ parts after adding all the f***ing struts. KSP joint system is a f***ing joke, except nobody's laughing. there's absolutely no reason to have a flying ball of struts, which is why I insist that KJR is required to play this darn game.

I've launched thousand-ton+ vehicles with under a dozen struts; you're building poorly.

[KerikBalm]

it used to be that you needed a lot of struts, but joints got strengthened in one of the releases not sooo long ago - either 1.0 or just before that

[Andem]

5 hours ago, foamyesque said:

I've launched thousand-ton+ vehicles with under a dozen struts; you're building poorly.

 

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

it used to be that you needed a lot of struts, but joints got strengthened in one of the releases not sooo long ago - either 1.0 or just before that

^^ These, @Xyphos. KSP is designed for simple, Node to node connections. If you're doing anything crazy, that's on you, not SQAUD. If yiu are having issues, install KJR.

Oh, and my beef is with Landing Wheels/Struts.

A) You can't distribute the weight of the new landing wheels.

B) Struts slide around. The Lunar Lander had spikes in the feet so it could stay put on the Lunar surface.

C) Landing gear can somehow launch you into the air if you aren't careful.

D) SPLAYED LANDING GEAR STILL DON'T WORK.

[Terwin]

On 7/8/2016 at 10:11 AM, SyzygyΣE said:

This isn't the most unrealistic part we've mentioned, but I'm not sure whether a solar system like the stock system can actually exist in the sense that it could be stable. If we could generate that system in real life, would gravitational forces from various objects disturb each other and cause everything to break down? Would something just go horribly wrong? The game uses locked orbits and spheres of influence so this isn't a problem, but if we could make the celestial bodies have dynamic orbits and then induce n-body simulations or something, I'm really interested to see the result.

As for parts, I don't think real engines throttle down as far as stock engines. You can't just say "I want to cut the throttle to 0.1%" and expect it to do that on many rocket engines. Some rocket engines are throttle-able, but from what I know virtually none are as flexible as stock engines.

The stock system is not stable.  Bop and Vall get ejected from Jool in less than a century if you have n-body physics:  (80 year simulation)

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Terwin

[SyzygyΣE]

@Terwin

Ah, I see. It's interesting to see only two objects be disturbed. Everything else seems to hold together pretty well. Planets in KSP are small but they're very dense, so I was expecting a gas giant like Jool or Eve to cause some significant impacts. Doesn't seem to be the case though. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by SyzygyΣE

[KerikBalm]

43 minutes ago, Andem said:

A) You can't distribute the weight of the new landing wheels.

B) Struts slide around. The Lunar Lander had spikes in the feet so it could stay put on the Lunar surface.

C) Landing gear can somehow launch you into the air if you aren't careful.

D) SPLAYED LANDING GEAR STILL DON'T WORK.

A: actually, I'm pretty sure that you can. However, when landing, its had to get multiple pairs to touch down at once. I think playing with spring strengths can help a bit (the 2nd set to touch down should have higher spring strengths/max strength, so it starts taking stress as soon as possible, while the first is still compressing)

While these aren't landing wheels, these small rover wheels, on their own, are not sufficient... but I have many of them, and they do distribute the load enough to drive up the cargo ramp with a full fuel load even on kerbin (haven't tested on Eve, don't really care as I won't be using a mk3 cargoplane to transport stuff around eve)

It should work the same with wheels meant for landing, but its rather hard to land just right to distribute the load.

B: Yea, its annoying, I wish extending the drills and drilling into the surface would stop the sliding... but even that doesn't.

- Technical point: The lunar lander did not have "spikes in the feet so it could stay put on the Lunar surface". "The footpad of each landing gear contained a 67-inch (170 cm)-long surface contact sensor probe, which signaled the commander to switch off the descent engine"

Those "spikes" were sensors to signal engine shutoff. I don't think they ever worried about sliding around because a) they weren't designed to land on steep slopes (lander tipping was a concern) and b) they expected it to be like sand/gravel and were actually more concerned about sinking in, which would preclude sliding, and thats why the pads have wide areas.

c) Yea, that's annoying. I've had issues with the landing gear that stop responding to extend/retract for a while, and then suddenly decide to deploy liek they were told to do 5 minutes ago, or deploy after I load a save, and then launch the vehicle in the air. Its best to have them all extended well before you intend to do anything

d) I haven't tried recently, it didn't even work so well in 1.05, but I suspect that you are right

[wumpus]

On 7/11/2016 at 11:49 AM, moogoob said:

To compensate for batteries that last a tenth what they should and always charge at ridiculous speeds.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/07/sonnens-new-battery-for-solar-self-consumption-could-succeed-in-us/

What caught my eye about the above article (and isn't commented on anywhere) is that the company is already announcing widespread use of a lithium-iron-phosphate battery.  Of course, I suspect that this is one of many "bet the startup" (I couldn't get much about the company, but I suspect that is due to a lack of German).

A lithium-iron-phosphate battery should charge (and discharge) at "ridiculous" speeds (although probably not kerbal speeds).  Just about 60 years after whatever is also with "KSP batteries" on the tech tree.

[moogoob]

12 hours ago, foamyesque said:

My big beef is reaction wheels. They almost totally negate the use of RCS for anything except translation control and they make that bit of monoprop in all the capsules early in the tech tree completely useless. RCS linear ports ought to be on the first node and reaction wheel torque dramatically cut (or some kind of oversatuation mechanism applied, or both).

If they had some smaller tanks and probe-sized RCS blocks then I'd say sure! The existing ones are way to large and powerful (and a mass burden if you have to cut thrust 80/90% to keep it controllable) to use on probes, and the smallest tank is the size of an Octo probe core by itself.

[ZooNamedGames]

I find the Wing Connector Type B completely unrealistic as to how it makes parts moving in a straight line at high speeds within an atmosphere float off the ground, it's like it's got antigravity!

Edited July 14, 2016 by ZooNamedGames

[Slam_Jones]

- Never mind.  Did some research and apparently the parts I mentioned work as intended! -

Edited July 14, 2016 by Slam_Jones

[foamyesque]

13 hours ago, moogoob said:

If they had some smaller tanks and probe-sized RCS blocks then I'd say sure! The existing ones are way to large and powerful (and a mass burden if you have to cut thrust 80/90% to keep it controllable) to use on probes, and the smallest tank is the size of an Octo probe core by itself.

I wouldn't mind smaller RCS units, but probes are exactly the situation reaction wheels are best at; relatively small items being made to turn in a vacuum. I'm talking about stuff like making it so reaction wheels can't provide attitude control for a multi-hundred ton vehicle during ascent.

[moogoob]

5 hours ago, foamyesque said:

I wouldn't mind smaller RCS units, but probes are exactly the situation reaction wheels are best at; relatively small items being made to turn in a vacuum. I'm talking about stuff like making it so reaction wheels can't provide attitude control for a multi-hundred ton vehicle during ascent.

Ah, yes. IMO that could probably be done with a simple modulemanager script. I've always wanted to write one.. Ascent wouldn't be that much of an issue, and all orbital insertion stages would need is RCS (a-la the SIV-B Saturn V 3rd stage) to point in the right direction after engine cutoff.

Probes do commonly have RCS IRL, as real reaction wheels can get saturated and have to be de-spun periodically. They use RCS jets while braking the wheels to bleed off the excess collected angular momentum. Now, this isn't an issue in KSP (due to magic!) but having some more options for attitude control would be really nice.