Why are later developed probe cores less useful?

[Spricigo]

14 minutes ago, Phelan said:

Okay, my mistake. But your "don't want an RGU, don't use an RGU" completely misses the point. What should I use when I build a 2.5m drone ship with as few parts as possible that's also intended for vacuum usage only?

More like you missed the next phase in my post: If what you want is an advanced probecore, that is the HECS2.

You may use any probecore (including the RGUs) . it's just a matter of what works better for you.

 

[Phelan]

5 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

More like you missed the next phase in my post: If what you want is an advanced probecore, that is the HECS2.

You may use any probecore (including the RGUs) . it's just a matter of what works better for you.

 

Yeah, except of course the HECS2 isn't a 2.5m core, so you need a huge service bay for a tiny probe core. Part count and vessel length have just gone up for no good reason at all.

[Spricigo]

2 minutes ago, Phelan said:

Yeah, except of course the HECS2 isn't a 2.5m core, so you need a huge service bay for a tiny probe core. Part count and vessel length have just gone up for no good reason at all.

 

No. There is no reason for a service bay.

If you insist to including a part you don't need you will pay the price. But that don't make the part bad, that make your design bad.

 

 

[Phelan]

Just now, Spricigo said:

 

No. There is no reason for a service bay.

If you insist to including a part you don't need you will pay the price. But that don't make the part bad, that make your design bad.

 

 

Fine, build me a 2.5 drone "tug" ship with a 2.5m docking port at the bow, a non-2.5m probe core and no service bay. No part clipping either.

[Spricigo]

2 minutes ago, Phelan said:

Fine, build me a 2.5 drone "tug" ship with a 2.5m docking port at the bow, a non-2.5m probe core and no service bay. No part clipping either.

 

I don't have time for a new craft right now, but I could do like this , this. or this. 

Or I could just put in whatever open node I had, because I can control from the docking port without worrying about exactly where the probecore is.

 

 

[Phelan]

9 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

 

I don't have time for a new craft right now, but I could do like this , this. or this. 

Or I could just put in whatever open node I had, because I can control from the docking port without worrying about exactly where the probecore is.

 

 

I don't know how the first and last one even remotely address what I asked for, and the second one may not have a service bay, but that fairing is basically the exact same thing.

Oh, and if the fairing part should get decoupled (I can't fully make out whether that's a decoupler), then where's the engine? It's supposed to be a tug afterall.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Phelan

[MinimalMinmus]

My take at balance: the 2 biggest probe cores (2,5m and HECS2) have a rudimentary AI, and can still be controlled for 1 hour after the loss of signal. However, the map view switches back to "no patched conics" during the time.

[Spricigo]

 

1 hour ago, Phelan said:

I don't know how the first and last one even remotely address what I asked for, and the second one may not have a service bay, but that fairing is basically the exact same thing.

Oh, and if the fairing part should get decoupled (I can't fully make out whether that's a decoupler), then where's the engine? It's supposed to be a tug afterall.

1st:It don't adress what you asked for. I said I will not build the craft. No time for this.

2nd:You request was open enough, so I could use fairing and RCS propulsion and still meet the required specs.

3rd: control from the docking port make the exact position of the probecore irrelevant .

4th:Each part will have pros and cons. Finding the combinations that best suits your needs is one of the objetives of the game.

[Phelan]

Just now, Spricigo said:

 

1st:It don't adress what you asked for. I said I will not build the craft. No time for this.

2nd:You request was open enough, so I could use fairing and RCS propulsion and still meet the required specs.

3rd: control from the docking port make the exact position of the probecore irrelevant .

4th:Each part will have pros and cons. Finding the combinations that best suits your needs is one of the objetives of the game.

Yeah, except that a tug with just RCS for "propulsion" utterly fails. A tug is a small vessel with a completely overpowered engine, so the exact opposite of what you've offered there. And sorry, but saying "I didn't use a service bay, just a fairing" is... "letter of the law" kind of pettiness.

[Spricigo]

 

5 minutes ago, Phelan said:

Yeah, except that a tug with just RCS for "propulsion" utterly fails. A tug is a small vessel with a completely overpowered engine, so the exact opposite of what you've offered there. And sorry, but saying "I didn't use a service bay, just a fairing" is... "letter of the law" kind of pettiness.

Why this selective reading? I already posted twice how to include a probecore without a service bay.

2 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Or I could just put in whatever open node I had, because I can control from the docking port without worrying about exactly where the probecore is.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

3rd: control from the docking port make the exact position of the probecore irrelevant .

 

use any attachment node available, is simple like that. If there is none, a single cubic strut(1part, 16funds, 1kg) is all you need.

Another solution: just place between two parts of the main stack.It will be ugly and not so strong, but it will work.

 

[Phelan]

Just now, Spricigo said:

 

Why this selective reading? I already posted twice how to include a probecore without a service bay.

 

 

use any attachment node available, is simple like that. If there is none, a single cubic strut(1part, 16funds, 1kg) is all you need.

Another solution: just place between two parts of the main stack.It will be ugly and not so strong, but it will work.

 

Cubic strut isn't a part? You keep bringing up solutions that just demonstrate that you are indeed just sticking to the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law. One major reason behind the "no service bay" is to keep the part count down. Yet all your solutions add at least one part (fairing, cubic strut or other ways to have open nodes).

And yes, putting the core just between two 2.5m parts will work. But exactly, it'll be weak and ugly. Not what'd call a reasonable reaction to me asking for cheap, lightweight probes with a 2.5m diameter.

[Spricigo]

31 minutes ago, Phelan said:

Cubic strut isn't a part? You keep bringing up solutions that just demonstrate that you are indeed just sticking to the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law. One major reason behind the "no service bay" is to keep the part count down. Yet all your solutions add at least one part (fairing, cubic strut or other ways to have open nodes).

So you request is that I make a vessel as capable as your idealized tug but with one part less?

Sorry, I supposed that equal part count was ok Seemed fair). Still, already gave the solution for this:  remove the service bay.

 

50 minutes ago, Phelan said:

And yes, putting the core just between two 2.5m parts will work. But exactly, it'll be weak and ugly. Not what'd call a reasonable reaction to me asking for cheap, lightweight probes with a 2.5m diameter.

Also pointed out; the game is easy to mods. you can just make a copy of the config existing part, change name and a few stats and enjoy.

[Dunbaratu]

On 1/26/2018 at 8:04 AM, Capt Snuggler said:

I wish they would add programmable flight script automation to the 2.5m probe core. *not an auto pilot as the player must assemble the command list.

for example, a basic launch script would look like:

1. set throttle: 100%
2. set SAS mode: rotation hold
3. set rotation hold: pitch: 90° yaw: 90° roll: 0°
4. Stage!
5. wait for: alt = 7000m
6. set rotation hold: pitch: 45° yaw: 90° roll: 0°
7. wait for: stage fuel = 0.0L
8. Stage!
9. wait for: alt = 20000m
10. set SAS mode: prograde hold
11. wait for: apoapsis = 100000m
12. set throttle: 0%
13. wait for: altitude = 71000m
14. Stage!
15. wait for: altitude = 100000m
16. set throttle: 100%
17. wait for: periapsis = 99000m
18. set throttle: 0%
19. print msg: (free text) You are now in orbit. have a nice day!
20. end

 

It would make the high end probe cores worth striving for.

Would a mod that lets you write this script be close enough?

1. // Kerboscript does exactly what you mentioned with a script like this:
   lock throttle to 1.0.
   lock steering to heading(90,90).
   stage.
   wait until altitude >= 7000.
   lock steering to heading(90,45).
   
   wait until stage:liquidfuel < 0.02. // give a small epsilon for KSP's floating point wibblyness - don't expect it to reach all the way to zero.
   
   stage.
   wait until altitude > 20000.
   lock steering to prograde.
   wait until apoapsis >= 100000.
   lock throttle to 0.
   wait until altitude >= 71000.
   stage.
   wait until altitude >= 100000.
   lock throttle to 1.0.
   wait until periapsis >= 99000.
   lock throttle to 0.
   print "You are now in orbit. have a nice day!".

   That is literally what kerboscript in the kOS mod looks like.  (disclaimer - I typed the above by just editing your post and altering the syntax slightly.  I haven't really tested this to ensure I didn't make any typos.)

Edited January 28, 2018 by Steven Mading

[Corona688]

On 1/27/2018 at 2:35 AM, Phelan said:

I simply tried to put together 'packages' that at least give the stats of the 2.5m wheel. I also never went with the HECS2, so no idea why you keep bringing it up.

Because the HECS2 is the only one which makes everything else look bad by comparison.  If it didn't cost twice as much as everything else it'd be hilariously OP.

Quote

Now look at your own list there and compare the ones that I actually mentioned myself, namely the "flat" 1.25m core compared to the 2.5m one (forget about the 0.625m ones for the time being).

I did that pages ago.  The 2.5m core has triple the reaction wheel strength, twice the battery capacity, and 25% more internal runtime than the 1.25m core.  The worst I can say about it, it's a bit heavy for its size.

On 1/28/2018 at 1:08 AM, Phelan said:

What should I use when I build a 2.5m drone ship with as few parts as possible that's also intended for vacuum usage only?

Whatever you want.

Which is best really depends on how big your ship is, what features you need, and how you plan on getting it to orbit.  You could use the Rovemate for all I care.  Just don't think "best for you" is always the same as "best for everyone" and we're golden.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Corona688

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

  Just don't think "best for you" is always the same as "best for everyone" and we're golden.

^This.

 

And, you can easily  make the game better for you, without making any different for people that think the game is fine. Modding is, in that regard,  a win-win situation. Both You and the next guy get what they want.

 

If you make a copy of the config file, edit it a bit in a text editor and save as a .cfg in your Gamedata folder you will have a new part for your own use. (You can do the changes using a MM patch. In that case you may even distribute it as mod, following some rules you may find in the Addons section of this forum). In particular:

name = probeStackLarge

that is the name of the part for the game. Can't be the same of any other part. The game need a unique name for this or it will cause problems

title = RC-L01 Remote Guidance Unit 

that is the name of the part as displayed for the player. You don't want two parts named the same.

 

The rest is mostly self explanatory, with the parameter named in common language. E.g. the mass of the part is show as

mass = 0.5

and particular functionality in blocks. E.g. the reaction wheels are described as

MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleReactionWheel
		PitchTorque = 1.5
		YawTorque = 1.5
		RollTorque = 1.5
		RESOURCE
		{
			name = ElectricCharge
			rate = 0.15
		}
	}

 

So, that is it. You want an improvedLargeCore with 20kN.m torque, 5000 EC and max SAS, 30% anomaly detection? Or a basicLargeCore with no fancy stuff for 800funds and 0,2t? It maytake like 10min of your time (seems to be less than what you expended in this thread) and won't mess with the game of anyone else.

[b0ss]

On 12/21/2017 at 7:21 AM, regex said:

Why are you using the service bays? They look bad, take up mass, and you can just clip all that stuff into a fuel tank, and then set an auto-strut.

Because some of us (or at least just me) like the service bay, and perfectionists such as myself get really bad OCD itch if anything's doing major clipping. especially into a fuel tank.

[Urses]

As i read through this tread somehow this tingles by me a subline message what says:

Make twickscale base option for the game for i can scale every probecore to fit my parameters... why stand then on probecores and not scale everything?

And for RCS-Tugs why they are "false"?

A tug is a docking help, for all other functionalitys you need a transfer stage. Or a puller or pusher ship, who we name for lazines reasons tugs.