[0.23.5]General Propulsionâ„¢ SOLD

[forsaken1111]

You know I kind of disapprove of dumping mod parts at the end of the tech tree.

Do we need to get your approval before we develop mods sir?

[Galacticruler]

You know I kind of disapprove of dumping mod parts at the end of the tech tree.

well, they are very useful, and I didn't have much time to try and grab all the node names so I could spread them out.

Also, if you do get to them, it just means there was a reason to download them.

Do we need to get your approval before we develop mods sir?

I hope not.

[forsaken1111]

His post just seemed really rude to me. Coming into someone else's mod thread saying "You know I disapprove of this..." like we care what you approve of? If you don't like it, change it. Its easy to change research nodes. This isn't your mod.

[SergeantBlueforce]

His post just seemed really rude to me. Coming into someone else's mod thread saying "You know I disapprove of this..." like we care what you approve of? If you don't like it, change it. Its easy to change research nodes. This isn't your mod.

I did change it, and it was a general statement, directed at no one.

[little square dot]

Even though you are partly right, there is a reason tracks are mainly used for heavy vehicles. If it is high speed capabilities you are after, tracks are not the way to go. Only when you are in need of a certain robustness or load spreading tracks are used, and then they are a compromise between speed and the desired capabilites. This is even true for the snowmobiles you mentioned.

Sure, all other things being equal, a tracked vehicle will not be as fast for a number of reasons, but we're not talking minuscule fractions, and it certainly is not beyond our current capabilities to design and build a tracked vehicle for exploration that is both light-weight and fast, particularly in a low-G environment.

Tracks add more friction and are mechanically more complex, meaning that they will be slower for the same amount of power and torque applied and will break more easily when not designed or driven carefully. There is not much that can be changed about that.

They're much heavier too, but again, this doesn't mean that they have to move at a crawl. The chassis needn't be bulldozer-like, and in a low-G and/or dusty environments that additional friction would actually be a huge benefit, both for traction and speed.

It is true. Compare the record in tracked speed to the record in wheeled vehicles - with any vehicle, so not just tanks. There is a fundamental reason for that.

It is only true from a narrow perspective. Again, your argument is dependent on all other things being equal. This is not an argument that I would dispute, but why are we restricting ourselves to all things being equal? If I was designing a tracked vehicle for exploration it would be light-weight to begin with, and depending on the operational requirements of the vehicle I could simply add power to compensate for the weight and friction if need be. It might be slightly heavier and slower than a wheeled variant of the same design, but assuming that we're talking about reasonable operational demands and not drag-racing, I don't see why it couldn't be just as fast.

[Neutrinovore]

Weighing in on this discussion, the American M1-A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank weighs approximately 75 TONS (that's 150,000 pounds!) and can go 40 miles per hour on level ground. That about 18 meters per second, or 65 kilometers per hour. Yes, it has a 1,500 horsepower turbine engine to power it, but my point is that 'heavy' plus 'tracks' doesn't always have to equal 'slow'.

So yeah, I don't think it would be out of line to have these tracks be able to go 20 - 30 m/s. I would request that they actually be able to STEER at that speed as well! As they are now, they'll hardly turn at all above 5 m/s. That factor, as well as the slowness, has kept me from using these parts in any design that I've actually employed.

[Camacha]

Sure, all other things being equal, a tracked vehicle will not be as fast for a number of reasons, but we're not talking minuscule fractions, and it certainly is not beyond our current capabilities to design and build a tracked vehicle for exploration that is both light-weight and fast, particularly in a low-G environment.

Like I said before, tracks have certain distinct downsides and those are exactly the reason why tracked vehicles are 1) never as fast as wheeled vehicles can be 2) generally quite slow and 3) not used on extraplanetary missions.

They're much heavier too, but again, this doesn't mean that they have to move at a crawl. The chassis needn't be bulldozer-like, and in a low-G and/or dusty environments that additional friction would actually be a huge benefit, both for traction and speed.

I think you are confusing friction and traction here. Friction are purely losses within the system, meaning you would need more power to do anything, which in turn mean a bigger rockets (I do not need to explain that last bit I assume ). It also means more energy gets stuck in the system, risking damage.

The tracks also cause extra friction in relation to the ground, but those are two seperate matters. It does add up though.

I don't see why it couldn't be just as fast.

It is not true from a narrow perspective, quite on the contrary. There is a fundamental difference. Please read the earlier comments: using tracks is always a trade-off. If you are going to use them, it is almost always because you need a certain robustness (not necessarily meaning reliability) and load spreading. In return, you lose speed, add weight and need more power. They do not cope well with high speeds, as driving and especially turning introduces high amounts of stress into the system, much more than in wheeled vehicles.

Just looking at the speed records shows the truth pretty clearly: tracks are inherently slower. That is what we are seeing in real life, so it is good to see it reflected in KSP too.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Camacha

[Camacha]

Weighing in on this discussion, the American M1-A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank weighs approximately 75 TONS (that's 150,000 pounds!) and can go 40 miles per hour on level ground. That about 18 meters per second, or 65 kilometers per hour. Yes, it has a 1,500 horsepower turbine engine to power it, but my point is that 'heavy' plus 'tracks' doesn't always have to equal 'slow'.

Could we please stop making the same points over and over again? Compare that tank to fast wheeled vehicles and you will see that it is actually dead slow in comparison. Compare any tracked vehicle to wheeled vehicles and you will find the same.

So yeah, I don't think it would be out of line to have these tracks be able to go 20 - 30 m/s.

To be honest, that would push the parts into the realm of the hack parts. You would not be basing yourself on anything resembling reality, as you would be looking at rare exceptions instead of the general state of things. Also, tracks should be slower than the wheels in KSP, a point that I think has been made.

[Neutrinovore]

To be honest, that would push the parts into the realm of the hack parts. You would not be basing yourself on anything resembling reality, as you would be looking at rare exceptions instead of the general state of things. Also, tracks should be slower than the wheels in KSP, a point that I think has been made.

So 18 m/s (the actual performance of an actual 75 ton tank in the actual real world) is okay, but 20 m/s makes it a 'hack' part? I consider that to quite closely "resemble reality", but if you have a different definition of the word 'resemble', well, that's your choice, I guess.

But, more importantly, why must everything in this game be totally realistic? It's a GAME, one wherein the player can construct a craft in any manner he or she chooses, no matter how 'realistic' or fanciful it may be. Also, as it happens, it's a game wherein there are little green men that don't speak, all have the same last name, and apparently are only capable of building a few buildings on the entire planet, which is otherwise totally uninhabited, yet these little green men are capable of building rockets and spacecraft that can travel to any other body in their solar system. Hmm, yeah, that sounds totally realistic to me.

It gets down to this: I play PC games because they're NOT reality. If I want 'reality', I can step out my front door and have way more of it than I can handle, thanks. If I want to participate in a 'realistic' space program, I can go to college for a decade and then go work for NASA... oh, wait, I forgot, they don't really 'do' space anymore... okay, I could go work for Bigelow Aerospace or Scaled Composites or SpaceX or any number of other private companies getting involved in space travel. But again, I don't want 'real', because 'real' is actually pretty boring, in my opinion. That's why I play this GAME. Capisce?

If you want to play KSP with as much realism as possible, that's your choice, more power to ya'. Yet you want to deny ME, and others, who would like to play with a bit more freedom and excitement, shall we say, the opportunity to do so, just because you say the part would be 'too overpowered' or 'not realistic enough'. Well, why do you get to decide? Why must we all proceed at the pace of the slowest? Lol, literally, I mean the speed of the tracks, not that you or anyone is 'slow'.

Here's an idea. If the tracks can go, say, 30 meters per second, but you think that it would be more realistic for them to only be able to go 7, then how about YOU only drive at 7 m/s? You can have all the realism you want, and I can have a crater-hopping Mun 'dozer.

Now, being completely serious, a solution for this debate or argument or whatever would be simple: Could someone just figure out how to write the configuration file so that it's easy to change the f&$%ing top speed, steering performance, grip, torque, and other factors, please?!? Or otherwise post clear and concise directions on how to make such changes? It's infuriated me ever since I started editing my configs to tweak my gameplay that the ONE thing that can't be changed is how the wheels, and of course also tracks, behave in the game.

Alright, end of rant. The preceding is entirely my opinion, probably worth what you paid for it.

[Camacha]

So 18 m/s (the actual performance of an actual 75 ton tank in the actual real world) is okay, but 20 m/s makes it a 'hack' part? I consider that to quite closely "resemble reality", but if you have a different definition of the word 'resemble', well, that's your choice, I guess.

You also mentioned 30 m/s, which is more than 50% more than that tank.

But, more importantly, why must everything in this game be totally realistic? It's a GAME, one wherein the player can construct a craft in any manner he or she chooses, no matter how 'realistic' or fanciful it may be. Also, as it happens, it's a game wherein there are little green men that don't speak, all have the same last name, and apparently are only capable of building a few buildings on the entire planet, which is otherwise totally uninhabited, yet these little green men are capable of building rockets and spacecraft that can travel to any other body in their solar system. Hmm, yeah, that sounds totally realistic to me.

If we were going for totally realistic, the tracks would move at bulldozer speed, because that is how the majority of tracks worldwide operate. Instead, favorable values are already chosen. Going beyond that is generally considered cheaty by most of the community. It is very interesting to see how the people making things for KSP seem to be largely self governing when it comes to these things. Parts that make life too easy are generally not very popular. I guess most people play KSP because it is manageable enough to plan and build complex craft on your own, while staying as close as possible to reality in the process of doing that. Pure simulation? No. But fairly strong ties to reality for sure.

Anyway, I think I have made my point and sullied the topic enough by now. Tracks are - by nature - not as fast in KSP as in real life and I feel the RBI tracks should reflect that. Although I would indeed much prefer them configurable, giving everyone the option to change whatever they do not like.

[little square dot]

Like I said before, tracks have certain distinct downsides and those are exactly the reason why tracked vehicles are 1) never as fast as wheeled vehicles can be 2) generally quite slow and 3) not used on extraplanetary missions.

1) "Tracked vehicles are never as fast as wheeled vehicles can be"???

What an absurdly skewed statement. It's akin to saying, "cars are never as fast as motorcycles can be".

While technically true, this doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of cars that are faster than plenty of motorcycles.

2) "Tracked vehicles are generally quite slow"

Because most tracked vehicles that you've seen are not in any way built for speed. We've been over this already.

3) "Not used on extraplanetary missions"

I can't even bring myself to respond to this.

I think you are confusing friction and traction here. Friction are purely losses within the system, meaning you would need more power to do anything, which in turn mean a bigger rockets (I do not need to explain that last bit I assume ). It also means more energy gets stuck in the system, risking damage.

The tracks also cause extra friction in relation to the ground, but those are two seperate matters. It does add up though.

Traction (engineering)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traction, or tractive force, is the force used to generate motion between a body and a tangential surface, most generally through the use of dry friction, though the use of shear force of the surface is also commonly used.[1][2][3]

Traction can also refer to the maximum tractive force between a body and a surface, as limited by available friction; when this is the case, traction is often expressed as the ratio of the maximum tractive force to the normal force and is termed the coefficient of traction (similar to coefficient of friction).

It is not true from a narrow perspective, quite on the contrary.

In the context of this discussion it absolutely is.

Just looking at the speed records shows the truth pretty clearly: tracks are inherently slower. That is what we are seeing in real life, so it is good to see it reflected in KSP too.

Yes, we've been over this already and I agreed with you.

Argh... are you intentionally ignoring the context of the discussion, or just oblivious to it?

Tracks are inherently slower, tracked vehicles are not.

[Galacticruler]

I can't even bring myself to respond to this.

Well, the Russians considered it for the Lunahod missions, but decided it would get stuck in the lunar regolith.

[little square dot]

Well, the Russians considered it for the Lunahod missions, but decided it would get stuck in the lunar regolith.

For unmanned missions I would avoid tracks as well because of the relative complexity compared to wheels, and if a track were to slip or become damaged it's mission over, whereas wheels a 3-wheeled rover should still be usable.

I didn't respond to the point out of exasperation, because the context of the discussion kept changing.

The conversation began over the relative speed of tracks vs. wheels, however it seemed to shift each time a valid point was made until finally becoming a different discussion altogether.

...speaking of which...

If we were going for totally realistic, the tracks would move at bulldozer speed, because that is how the majority of tracks worldwide operate.

That doesn't even make sense. Nothing about this statement makes sense.

So when designing vehicles for missions, space agencies and their contractors would just shrug their shoulders and resign themselves to bulldozer-specifications simply because the majority of the tracks worldwide are on bulldozers?!? Gah!

Edited December 8, 2013 by little square dot

[Camacha]

Tracks are inherently slower, tracked vehicles are not.

Either we are having a miscommunication, or this is a non sequitur. If tracks are inherently slower than wheels, tracked vehicles are inherently slower than wheeled ones. In practice there will be exceptions both ways, but it goes without saying that when making a model (= something that resembles most real world cases as closely as possible) you do not want to pursue rarities.

That doesn't even make sense. Nothing about this statement makes sense. Gah!

No need to get upset when you don't understand something. I was simply referring to models usually being a common representation of reality.

But really, I think this discussion has gone far beyond the intention and purpose of this thread. Maybe it would be better if we left it at that.

[little square dot]

Either we are having a miscommunication, or this is a non sequitur. If tracks are inherently slower than wheels, tracked vehicles are inherently slower than wheeled ones.

All other things being equal, yes, we agree. I think this has been the sticking point.

The variables needn't be the same.

If I have both wheeled and tracked variants of a vehicle, and with the same power applied to both the tracked version moves 15% slower, I can simply place a more powerful motor in it and suddenly it's faster, albeit more powerful and heavier. With no alterations to the wheeled version, the tracked version is now inherently faster if we look at the vehicle design in its entirety.

So my take on it is that tracked vehicles are not inherently slower, because we can simply design them to be faster if need be.

Wheeled variants will have inherent potential to be faster, but they are not inherently faster because that depends entirely on the rest of the design. We need more than just the specs of the propulsive systems in order to determine the top speed of a vehicle.

...argh, I have a feeling that we've been caught-up in semantics.(<-my arch nemesis=)

[Andon]

So what you're saying is:

Wheels can go faster, but just because it has wheels doesn't mean it'll go faster.

[little square dot]

So what you're saying is:

Wheels can go faster, but just because it has wheels doesn't mean it'll go faster.

hahahahaha... well, yes...

I prefer a much more long-winded, bumbling approach to speaking though.

[rdfox]

For the record... the M1-series Abrams tanks *are* capable of higher speeds than the listed one; they are *governed* to their official maximum speed. (This governor always seems to go missing or otherwise stop operating whenever one is sent to a combat zone... odd, that! ) It's widely agreed that they can approach 100kph/62 mph if ungoverned, and I know someone who anecdotally claims to have been driving 90 mph down a freeway and had four XM1s (early prototypes, much lighter than the final version) pass him on a parallel tank road, doing at least 100 mph/160 kph. HOWEVER...

The reason for their being governed is quite simple: Above their official top speed, wear and tear on the drivetrain becomes extreme, and there's a very good chance of their "throwing a track" (having one of the link pins between the track cleats break--a very bad thing) at those speeds, too. So the speed limit is placed on them for safety and reliability reasons.

In short: Tracked vehicles ARE relatively slow. They'll ALWAYS be used for slow-speed applications compared to wheeled vehicles; they simply tend to tear themselves apart at high speed. Besides, the whole point of tracks is to reduce the ground pressure compared to wheels; this implies a rather heavy vehicle for its footprint, and do you really WANT to have a building tearing around at high speed? Leave "fast" to the wheels. I say, keep the tracked vehicles down to 10-15m/s at most--there should always be a tradeoff if you gain something, and in this case, what you gain is "turn in place" skid-steer operation that would, for example, make surface-docking of modules much easier (since you could turn sideways to shift laterally, then turn back once aligned properly for docking).

[Lurven]

I woud really have liked some tracks that could go at 20-25m/s, and as previously stated there are MANY tracked vehicles able to go at that speed. Would be able to make alot of epic stuff with those

[Hodo]

For the record... the M1-series Abrams tanks *are* capable of higher speeds than the listed one; they are *governed* to their official maximum speed. (This governor always seems to go missing or otherwise stop operating whenever one is sent to a combat zone... odd, that! ) It's widely agreed that they can approach 100kph/62 mph if ungoverned, and I know someone who anecdotally claims to have been driving 90 mph down a freeway and had four XM1s (early prototypes, much lighter than the final version) pass him on a parallel tank road, doing at least 100 mph/160 kph. HOWEVER...

The reason for their being governed is quite simple: Above their official top speed, wear and tear on the drivetrain becomes extreme, and there's a very good chance of their "throwing a track" (having one of the link pins between the track cleats break--a very bad thing) at those speeds, too. So the speed limit is placed on them for safety and reliability reasons.

In short: Tracked vehicles ARE relatively slow. They'll ALWAYS be used for slow-speed applications compared to wheeled vehicles; they simply tend to tear themselves apart at high speed. Besides, the whole point of tracks is to reduce the ground pressure compared to wheels; this implies a rather heavy vehicle for its footprint, and do you really WANT to have a building tearing around at high speed? Leave "fast" to the wheels. I say, keep the tracked vehicles down to 10-15m/s at most--there should always be a tradeoff if you gain something, and in this case, what you gain is "turn in place" skid-steer operation that would, for example, make surface-docking of modules much easier (since you could turn sideways to shift laterally, then turn back once aligned properly for docking).

Having had experience with M1 tanks, yes they WILL go that fast, but as you stated they are governed for a very good reason. The wear on the tracks and the drive train is ridiculous, the other reason is the M1 doesn't stop on a dime and if you were to lock the brakes at those speeds it would tear the road up and cause serious damage and strain on the driveline.

Old "Christy" suspension designs from the 1930s were capable of 100km/h or more with ease, but again they were unreliable and prone to throwing tracks under load of changing directions or quick stops.

[Galacticruler]

anyone tested with .23 yet? I'm a bit late.

[Kass]

The reason for their being governed is quite simple: Above their official top speed, wear and tear on the drivetrain becomes extreme, and there's a very good chance of their "throwing a track" (having one of the link pins between the track cleats break--a very bad thing) at those speeds, too. So the speed limit is placed on them for safety and reliability reasons.

That depends on the design. Tracked vehicles are something I have a great, great deal of experience with having been armoured reconnaissance for a number of years and consider myself something of an expert (and I have a number of qualifications that agree). Tracks do wear a great deal yes. However you will find the main reason for armoured vehicles to be limited in top speed is cost, not safety. A set of tracks costs thousands of pounds and driving at high speed, as you correctly say, increases the wear on them exponentially.

The reason for their being governed is quite simple: Above their official top speed, wear and tear on the drivetrain becomes extreme, and there's a very good chance of their "throwing a track" (having one of the link pins between the track cleats break--a very bad thing) at those speeds, too.

No, throwing a track doesn't mean breaking a track pin, it literally means being derailed from the tracks. That can happen due to driver error at 1mph. Hell, it can happen by turning on the spot if you don't know what you're doing.

In short: Tracked vehicles ARE relatively slow. They'll ALWAYS be used for slow-speed applications compared to wheeled vehicles; they simply tend to tear themselves apart at high speed.

That's true for some types of tracked vehicles but not all tracked vehicles.The one area they shine is cross country and areas where there are no roads. A land-rover or Humvee may have to do 10mph on terrain that a Main Battle Tank can do at an excess of 50mph. Also, there are dedicated high speed tanks. The British Army has a high speed variant of the Scimitar chassis with hugely upgraded suspension for maniac cross country driving that I have personally drove at over 70mph on the A1. The look on peoples face when you cruise pass them in the fast lane is priceless. The important thing to understand is that there are two main types of tracks. Dead tracks and live tracks. Dead tracks are what you see on tractors and bulldozers. Live tracks on armoured vehicles. The main difference is that if you were to lay a dead track and a live track on the ground having been removed from the vehicle, the dead track would just lay flat on the ground while the live track would make a huge curve, they are designed to be naturally curved you see so are used in high speed applications, but this also increases their cost and makes then a real pain to change.

Besides, the whole point of tracks is to reduce the ground pressure compared to wheels; this implies a rather heavy vehicle for its footprint.

This is not the purpose of tracked vehicles. The idea behind tracks is that it allows vehicles to travel off road because they take the road with them (the tracks). If it was to reduce the pressure of the wheels on the ground, the track would have to be tight yet all tracks are designed to have a certain element of slackness in them or the track becomes too tight and pops off. The fact that many tracked vehicles have 10-14 wheels each resting on the width of an individual link of track instead of just the contact point on the circumference of the wheel reduces the ground pressure, not the tracks themselves. Usually when a vehicle wants to reduce it's footprint, it uses huge, lightly inflated rubber wheels.

Tracks do help spread out the weight of the vehicle yes, but that it not the main purpose of a track, more like an added bonus to an already useful method of locomotion.

the M1 doesn't stop on a dime and if you were to lock the brakes at those speeds it would tear the road up and cause serious damage and strain on the driveline.

Old "Christy" suspension designs from the 1930s were capable of 100km/h or more with ease, but again they were unreliable and prone to throwing tracks under load of changing directions or quick stops.

That's interesting. British Army armoured vehicle drivers are taught not to brake too hard because they can literally tip the whole vehicle over the vehicles stop so fast. Also, when any armoured vehicles are taken on civilian roads either in the UK or Germany, it has to have a sign on the back that literally says "KEEP YOUR DISTANCE, THIS VEHICLE CAN STOP EXTREMELY QUICKLY" (much faster than a car at the same speed).

Edited December 18, 2013 by Kass

[Camacha]

This is not the purpose of tracked vehicles. The idea behind tracks is that it allows vehicles to travel off road because they take the road with them (the tracks).

I hate to disagree with you, because you do seem to know what you are talking about, but is this not basically the same as load spreading? The usefulness of taking the road with you is that you get stuck less easily, because you are spreading the load across a larger area. It is doing the same as the semi-deflated wheels you talk about, but on an even larger scale. Reducing pressure is the name of the game and that is a useful property when on muddy building sites, or in shot up fields of mud or loose sand trying not to get stuck and become a sitting duck.

I find it difficult to divide this into two seperate qualities.

[Hellbrand]

so has ANYBODY tested this with .23?? or are we out of luck in that department

[Galacticruler]

so has ANYBODY tested this with .23?? or are we out of luck in that department

well, it all loads, but I forgot to test the tracks.

My engines however work perfectly, as they've got no plugin reliance.

EDIT:

Also, all of you arguing over the tracks, either take it to an IRC/Skype/Steam chat, or move it to another thread, its not quite on topic.

anyway, it is not like I've got control over the tracks.dll

Edited December 19, 2013 by Galacticruler