Tiberion Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 the swayingEnough said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Top 1/3rd sways due to the fact it\'s an imbalanced trashbucket I cooked up in 2 minutes pivoted on stock fuel tanks and really dubious small parts.Everything else is perfectly stable.The point was if that can sit around on the pad for 2 minutes without error, then any planned rocket can be perfectly fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 But the swaying is an artifact from the part weights over-running what the engine\'s connectors can handle, and it does it on lots of things, not just junk piles. Super-high collision settings and using struts where they shouldn\'t be needed seems to be out of line of the intention of the modpack.But I\'m not gonna browbeat you over it, I made my request; I didn\'t see any benefit from the huge numbers, and think it would be better if it was toned down, at least until the physics engine matures some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nivvydaskrl Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 But that is just it, you don\'t need the weight values, you aren\'t gaining any more realism than if you divide all the numbers by half or a third - its the ratios of thrust and weight and such that creates your balance.My fuel tanks are meant to be realistic with respect to the stock engine and based on a solid standard of 1 thrust unit = 1 kilonewton, and 1 weight unit = 1 metric ton, which is the prevailing standard adopted by the modder community (and, in fact, is supported by the game physics). Thus, if I want my tanks to be balanced with respect to the stock engine, my numbers have to be what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 My fuel tanks are meant to be realistic with respect to the stock engine and based on a solid standard of 1 thrust unit = 1 kilonewton, and 1 weight unit = 1 metric ton, which is the prevailing standard adopted by the modder community (and, in fact, is supported by the game physics). Thus, if I want my tanks to be balanced with respect to the stock engine, my numbers have to be what they are.Well I haven\'t actually used yours, I was talking in general since you suggested yours was 'like' this pack; Their 'big' 3m tank weighs 135 'metric tons' and holds 30,000 units of fuel, while its matching engine is 22 tons, burns 100u/s and puts out 2300 'kilonewtons'You can maintain the thrust/weight ratio of the stock parts without the big numbers, and I am not sure that a 3 meter by 12 meter cylinder (roughly 84 cubic meters of volume) would weigh 135 metric tons when full of fuel.(of course, that much water would be 84 Metric tons, but that is ignoring the added weight and loss in volume of the tanks and all internal parts) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 A few of the things that will be in v0.3One meter Vesta I engine1.75 meter engine (this is very unfinished, but you get the idea)The compressed nitrogen tanks for the RCS thrusters in 1m, 1.75m, 2m and 3m, and the thrusters themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrit Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 A few of the things that will be in v0.3niftys snippedYay more toys!This is fast becoming my go to pack for fuel tanks, engines and boosters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shedao Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 @TiberionJust for understanding your arguments: You say the tanks in this pack hold to much fuel and so create to much weight for the rocket? I am experiencing a lot of 'wobblines' with the parts of this pack but I also need the real big engines in here... Are they also part of the problem or would they work just well with other tanks?Or do I misunderstand the whole thing here? ???PS: My big rockets are all well balanced and connected with heavy struts, SAS etc. but always turn around at some point of the flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 @TiberionJust for understanding your arguments: You say the tanks in this pack hold to much fuel and so create to much weight for the rocket? I am experiencing a lot of 'wobblines' with the parts of this pack but I also need the real big engines in here... Are they also part of the problem or would they work just well with other tanks?Or do I misunderstand the whole thing here? ???PS: My big rockets are all well balanced and connected with heavy struts, SAS etc. but always turn around at some point of the flight.Its not related to the fuel, since the fuel numbers and weight are unrelated in the engine; Authors can set their own ratios.Kyle and Winston quite reasonably set out to make the weights somewhat realistic in their scaled parts, so some of them are 10 to 100 times heavier than common KSP parts, which would be fine since their engines also output more to compensate.Unfortunately, they ran against a limit in the game engine as it stands now, and the node connectors between parts don\'t handle the forces that result from the weight (sort of like trying to glue two cinderblocks together with kid\'s school glue) so they have had to workaround the issue by artificially boosting some behind-the-scenes numbers and created the heavy strut.That can\'t cover all the issues though, as the connection engine is pretty sensitive, so my big rockets still tend to get unruly.Using their engines with other fuel tanks would be... interesting. The engines are still heavy too, so they\'re likely to snap things off, especilly in upper stages - but the real issue would be their burn rates - the KW tanks have huge amounts of fuel so the engines are set to burn fast - a lot of them would empty a stock tank in mere seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crekit Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Really like the pack. Engines seem a little too efficient tho, but I\'m not shooting for the moon or anything yet. Also, IDK if its the pack or the game itself but controlling these things (big rockets once in space / close to space / a place without full atmosphere is impossible, even with a bazillion classic RCS. And of course, we need bigger RCS tanks xD. Waiting on v3!Oh, also want decouplers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nivvydaskrl Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Well I haven\'t actually used yours, I was talking in general since you suggested yours was 'like' this pack; Their 'big' 3m tank weighs 135 'metric tons' and holds 30,000 units of fuel, while its matching engine is 22 tons, burns 100u/s and puts out 2300 'kilonewtons'My big tank only masses about 40 tons and holds 4,000 units of fuel.You can maintain the thrust/weight ratio of the stock parts without the big numbers, and I am not sure that a 3 meter by 12 meter cylinder (roughly 84 cubic meters of volume) would weigh 135 metric tons when full of fuel.(of course, that much water would be 84 Metric tons, but that is ignoring the added weight and loss in volume of the tanks and all internal parts)The stock fuel is actually very dense: 1.8 tonnes per cubic meter (RP-1/LOX is around the same as water, H2/LOX is much smaller) which means that the 135 tonne value is actually conservative for that volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Posted October 16, 2011 Author Share Posted October 16, 2011 Kyle and I made an Omni-Directional Control Surface Module, available in 1, 1.75, 2 and 3 meter sizes for 0.3. Basically 18 fins that would tilt to direct airflow and steer your rocket inside the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venku122 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 You sir are a genius! Any chance we could get a 3m rcs tank, rcs thrusters, and a 3m command pod to top your giant 3m soyez tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Posted October 16, 2011 Author Share Posted October 16, 2011 That stuff is coming up in our next version, minus the command pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venku122 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 That stuff is coming up in our next version, minus the command pod.[move] :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D[/move] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Sorry to bring it up again, but....Thats one pod, 1 2x8 tank, and 1 Hercules X engine. Wobbles severely. Add my 1meter orbiter to the top and it comes apart on the pad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 A Hercules X engine plus four heavy struts will hold up two 3m 12L tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Not... exactly :-\And having to use struts on most connections.. isn\'t so optimal.The Herc X even wobbles with a little 2x4 and the pod. The engine just can\'t handle the mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crekit Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 In reality, no engine should ever be on the ground. The same goes for this pack xD.Use solid boosters (even the super small ones) as feet. Or download legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venku122 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 In reality, no engine should ever be on the ground. The same goes for this pack xD.Use solid boosters (even the super small ones) as feet. Or download legs.The engines wobble. doesn\'t matter whether on the ground or in flight. Also if the weight on the engine is too great it will break automatically. there shouldn\'t be any ill effects if it doesn\'t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derhp Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 In reality, no engine should ever be on the ground. The same goes for this pack xD.Use solid boosters (even the super small ones) as feet. Or download legs.Personally I use 3X radial stack decouplers, 3x Fuel tanks, and 3x 2m or 3m bulkheads as 'hold down clamps'. This allows me to fire my engine and adjust my thrust without the rocket leaving the pad. When I\'m ready to go I release the radial stacks and slowly accelerate upwards.However, if my rocket is using SRBs, I simply have those positioned lower than the core engine. I fire the engine first, and then the SRBs. Achieves the same result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crekit Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Should check the collider maybe. In my current attempts at making new parts, I make the collider .01 meters smaller than the mesh, on top and bottom.Also I don\'t plan on letting any engine have stack points on the bottom. The adapters and shrouds will do the connecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 There is plenty of give on the collider, We made sure of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semininja Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Is it possible that there\'s too much clearance on the collider mesh? If the connection points are too far away from the collision surface, could that make things wobbly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 It\'ll clip through it anyway if it\'s too close. Newer heavy struts are alot stronger, but at the same weight.We should hopefully be releasing the next version sometime on friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts