Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 and its old version

[antipro]

hi, in this website:
https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Kerbodyne_ADTP-2-3

the changelog says:

Changes

1.6

• New model and texture
• Added 3 variants
• Increased mass from 0.2 to 1.875    <--------
• Added Liquid Fuel/Oxidizer

"increased mass from.." and ok, but when choosing parts in VAB - enable advanced mode - filter by cross-section profile - size 3,
the old adapter version is still selectable and it weighs 1.675t less, which is not cheap.

so is this to be considered a cheat in your opinion?
it apparently exists in 2 versions, so the changelog isn't correct and should say "added a new homonym heavier version"?
it is a programmers choice to leave it there?
why it doesn't appear in VAB simple mode?
do you use it?

When empty, the ADTP-2-3 weights 1.875t, isn't it too much compared to the 0.1t of the Rockomax Brand Adapter and the 0.05t of the FL-A10?
Just because it isn't only an adapter and it also contains empty tanks? this justifies its weight?

Edited November 14, 2020 by antipro

[Spricigo]

2 hours ago, antipro said:

so is this to be considered a cheat in your opinion?

It's up to each individual player to decide what is cheating in his single player game.

Effectively a new part was created in version 1.6 to substitute the old one. But, since there are people with the old part in their craft, the old part was hidden instead of removed. Personally, I just consider it like any other "modded" part.

And I'd rather use the version that can holds fuel most of the time.

 

 

 

 

 

[Snark]

On 11/14/2020 at 3:03 PM, antipro said:

When empty, the ADTP-2-3 weights 1.875t, isn't it too much compared to the 0.1t of the Rockomax Brand Adapter and the 0.05t of the FL-A10?
Just because it isn't only an adapter and it also contains empty tanks? this justifies its weight?

Yeah, what happened here is that they changed the part from being a mere structural adapter to being a fuel tank.  KSP fuel tanks tend to be heavy:  they typically have a dry mass 1/8 as much as the amount of fuel they can hold.  So for gameplay balance, it's appropriate to increase the dry mass of the part.

What you're running up against is that you want to use the part as a simple structural adapter... and using an empty fuel tank for that (which is what the part now is), is not very efficient.

Interestingly, the old (lightweight, structural-only) version of the part is actually still in the game-- the newer version is actually a different part, not an alteration to the older part.  (This is what they typically do, when they alter an existing part, since they don't want to break backwards compatibility for folks whose games already have ships with the older part in them.)  The old part-- i.e. the one that you want-- hasn't been deleted, it has only been hidden.

And it's possible to un-hide it, if that's what you want. 

Assuming that you have ModuleManager installed, then all you need is a snippet of config to un-hide the part and make it visible in the VAB.  I believe that what you need is this:

@PART[Size3to2Adapter]
{
    @TechHidden = False
    @entryCost = 8800
    @category = Structural
}

...I haven't actually tested that, but I believe it ought to work.  Just create a new text file somewhere in your GameData folder, whose name ends in the ".cfg" extension, and paste the above text into it.  Assuming that you have ModuleManager installed, then the next time you start up KSP, I believe you ought to be able to see the old lightweight part show back up in the VAB.

A cautionary note:  Just because Squad has chosen to leave the obsolete version of the part in the game up to now, doesn't necessarily mean that they'll leave it in there forever.  Maybe they will... but it's also possible that in some future version release of the game, they might eventually delete it for good.  If they ever did that, then any ships you have that include that part would break (be unplayable, the game wouldn't be able to load them), either in the editor or in flight.  My guess is that probably you'll be fine for a good long time, but I don't actually know that, so caveat emptor.

 

[AHHans]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

(This is what they typically do, when they alter an existing part, since they don't want to break backwards compatibility for folks whose games already have ships with the older part in them.)

Btw. Did I mention that I think this is a nice move by @SQUAD?