0.16 Is even more challeng(er)ing

[Vanamonde]

The thing that\'s driving me nuts right now is that either planes are more fragile or the ground is rougher in .16. Spaceplanes still dive off the side of the runway on takeoff, and my experimental planes rarely make it to the runway on landing, so I don\'t really have a choice about sending them rolling across the terrain. And when that happens, they can just plain rattle themselves apart. Pieces just fall off. Sometimes pieces affixed with multiple struts will still come loose! Aargh! >

[Kosmo-not]

The thing that\'s driving me nuts right now is that either planes are more fragile or the ground is rougher in .16. Spaceplanes still dive off the side of the runway on takeoff, and my experimental planes rarely make it to the runway on landing, so I don\'t really have a choice about sending them rolling across the terrain. And when that happens, they can just plain rattle themselves apart. Pieces just fall off. Sometimes pieces affixed with multiple struts will still come loose! Aargh! >

That\'s why I stick to rockets, lol.

[segaprophet]

I also like the gameplay changes they have made in 0.16. KSP was becoming a bit too easy and run of the mill before. It has forced me to go back to the drawing board with my rocket designs, as the old ones either can\'t make orbit efficiently or have stability issues.

The new designs I have found work best in 0.16 have much more similar staging/fuel proportions to real life rockets. That tells me the devs are on the right track. ;D

[Vanamonde]

Struts DO stick to cockpits now

Thanks for pointing that out. It\'s been helpful.

Meanwhile, I feel dumb for just noticing, but I think part of my rocket troubles has been that engines seem to run through fuel much faster now. I just did some tests to see how long an engine of each type would take to consume one standard 400-thingy fuel tank at full thrust:

radial mount at 80 thrust: 72 seconds

that big 20 thrust jobber: around 6 minutes (I couldn\'t keep it airborne long enough to run out of fuel)

the large 135 thrust new one: 43 seconds

gimballed 200 thrust: 33 seconds

non-gimballed 215 thrust: 31 seconds

and the monster 1200: 5 seconds

Clearly, I\'m going to have to start packing A LOT more fuel.

[NannerManCan]

Are they going to make asas,sas and rcs fuel pods that are as wide as the new parts. Also I think the should add another part like the 3 part coupler but instead turns in back into one stack.

[bsalis]

It\'s certainly harder in 0.16, but with practice and a lot of trial and error epic failure, you can build large rockets from large parts. Dynamic pressure seems to be more important now. With many a launch going fine until a certain speed... then a tanks falls off or decoupler gets crushed.

I posted details elsewhere. This is 1142 tons. Does over 1000m/s in atmosphere without breaking up. It\'s surprisingly stable on the pad.

[Ziff]

I also like the increased difficulty of .16. It\'s much harder to even reach orbit, but it\'s great when you do.

I am actually finding the opposite. I find I can get into orbit with far less complicated rockets and a lot less parts than it used to take. In fact, I can put heavier loads into orbit as well. I am not abusing the LFE fuel bug either. My rocket designs have gotten very efficient with this new update and it makes me excited for the future of KSP.

-Ziff

[Bluejayek]

What is the LFE bug?

I am finding in 0.16 that my old designs are a bit more efficient in this patch then they were before. Trying to make new designs with the larger rockets sort of failed; I managed to make orbit, and get to the mun. However, the mass of them means that I need an absurd number of rcs thrusters/tanks to do any turnover while not thrusting, and I don\'t like that. With my old designs I leave off RCS altogether and just do slow cockpit SAS turnovers.

[Ziff]

Liquid fuel engines at low throttle are using much less fuel then they report. Sometimes as little as 1/10th what it should. Once you get above 10km you can throttle way down, just keep it where you are still barely gaining velocity and you can cheat all the way to orbit. So I make sure I\'m at near full throttle or none at all.

I will post some designs tomorrow when I get home. Im currently accessing the forums from my phone, its a pain to post pictures from here.

-Ziff

[mattig89ch]

having come in at 1.5, I\'m finding the difficulty just shot up. I\'m debating on whether I should take my old rocket designs that gained orbit, and lunar orbit and try them with this update, just to see if they\'ll still work.

[Demetrious]

It\'s certainly harder in 0.16, but with practice and a lot of trial and error epic failure, you can build large rockets from large parts. Dynamic pressure seems to be more important now. With many a launch going fine until a certain speed... then a tanks falls off or decoupler gets crushed.

I posted details elsewhere. This is 1142 tons. Does over 1000m/s in atmosphere without breaking up. It\'s surprisingly stable on the pad.

Which would be here'>http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=17393.0']here, in a thread I started about the exact same problems without, apparently, seeing that one already existed. Go me. There\'s a lot of good advice in very little space there, so give it a look.

I learned, straightaway, that simple G-Forces are the problem, and that\'s because the new parts provide truly massive power. As others have pointed out, the new engines generate a few orders of magnitude more thrust then the old ones. My remaining, insurmountable obstacle was solved simply by throttling back a bit - just a wee bit - after takeoff. My rocket was basically having the top smashed into the bottom when G-forces were exceeded - crushed top-to-bottom like a beer can, with the point-of-failure being the oft-lamented new decoupler.

Using the 'new' parts as a powerful main-stage and the old parts to make good boosters works fine, but after accounting for the terrific power of the new engines, I was able to launch a (properly-reinforced) rocket into orbit that was a carbon-copy of one of my oldest and best designs. It\'s possible - just watch that G-meter like a hawk and keep it in the green.

[TheKerbinator]

The thing that\'s driving me nuts right now is that either planes are more fragile or the ground is rougher in .16. Aargh! >

Concerning running off the runway, I\'d suggest you use the avionics package (or regular ASAS, if you\'re so inclined) to maintain your heading on the runway. Switch it on before you lift off, and you should be fine. Unless you\'re flying very large or asymmetrical planes, in which case, try something simpler.

I believe the atmospheric model has been changed abit in 0.16, so that would also contribute to the changes in rocket and plane dynamics.

[Vanamonde]

I\'d suggest you use the avionics package

I always do, but I\'m talking about that glitch they\'re trying to fix that causes taxiing planes to dive hard to one side or the other. It\'s so strong that often neither multiple SAS nor hand-steering can stop it. :\'(

[TheKerbinator]

Oh that. Well I don\'t know a solution to that I\'m afraid. Maybe using the cart mod as a landing gear? Or does the problem come from the wings?

[Vanamonde]

Maybe using the cart mod as a landing gear?

Unlike most designers around here, I\'m not a size queen. I like to make the smallest plane that can do the job, so using the cart for landing gear would be like bolting a Cesna to a Honda.

Well I don\'t know a solution to that I\'m afraid.

Neither does anybody else, but thanks for trying. I understand they\'re working on it.

[kuulness]

I dont have any problems at all gettinng in to orbit, or getting to the mun. I just cand land on the mun becuase im an amurture.

[segaprophet]

The 'part instability' some are talking about in 0.16 seems to be an unintentional excuse for a lack of structural redundancy.

This unreleased heavy rocket is rock solid all the way to orbit. It lifts 16 large fuel tanks, 12 small fuel tanks, 21 large SRBs and all the trimmings on launch without issue. The trick is effective cross-bracing at all critical points.

[Oddbin]

That is some quality cross bracing. As a newcomer in 0.15 this has been a steeper learning curve than 0.15 was. I currently am having a bit of difficulty getting a nice circular nondecaying orbit. It

started when I tried to put a lifeboat into orbit based on a crewtank, RCA, legs, chutes and a mechjeb. Now whilst my lifeboat idea was scupperred by staging setting off or breaking my chutes and bits I did notice that when I was getting into a nice stable orbit I would lose several hundred meters each orbit.

Also I seem to burn massive amounts of fuel in 0.16 but not get higher or further. Looking back through this and other posts I think it\'s time to look at a new series of craft.