thorfinn Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Absurd amounts and ease should not go together :CWell, in the real world the limits come from cost and complexity.In KSP everything is still free and nothing ever breaks, so if somebody wants to build a gigantic rocket, it\'s likely that only his CPU can stop him.... : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 Yeah, foamy\'s rockets look like Jenga Incarnate.Good point. Honestly, I\'m fine with it in sandbox mode, but it shouldn\'t be much of a problem when we have money to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamyesque Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Oh come on. Just because my design philosophy is \'take biggest engine, layer fuel tanks on it until TWR ~= 1, add boosters, stage\', doesn\'t mean I\'m crazy.Does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Zoom Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 That\'s not crazy, that\'s Kerbal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 This is not the pack for you, foamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolRawley Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Took me b ten minutes to make that because of laggg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 I think I would tolerate mixing of mods with my pack if there were a balancing standard. I kinda developed one for myself, but it would be silly to assume people would just rebalance everything to match it.Also, 0.8 will have the tank\'s dry mass added to its full mass. I might up engine power a little, it\'s kinda getting more difficult than I would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolRawley Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Sorry, just wondering, what is TWR? Is it the number of tanks that can be put over an engine before the engine cannot lift it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archer Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Sorry, just wondering, what is TWR? Is it the number of tanks that can be put over an engine before the engine cannot lift it?Thrust to Weight Ratio. So, yes and no to the tank thing, the higher the TWR the smaller the portion of the work an engine does to lift itself, thus it can do more work to lift other things (e.g. LFTs, probes, etc).Well, kinda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 For comparison, the Saturn V\'s F1 engine has a TWR of 94... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damonjay Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 TWR is Thrust to weight Ratio.every rocket needs a certain amount of thrust to lift its weightthe mathematical equation is Thrust---------- = Final ThrustTotal Weighton earth the Final Thrust has to be over something like 9.8 for a rocket to be able to overcome gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolRawley Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 TWR is Thrust to weight Ratio.every rocket needs a certain amount of thrust to lift its weightthe mathematical equation is Thrust---------- = Final ThrustTotal Weighton earth the Final Thrust has to be over something like 9.8 for a rocket to be able to overcome gravity.What about Kerbin? Is it the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archer Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 [snip]Thrust---------- = Final ThrustTotal Weighton earth the Final Thrust has to be over something like 9.8 for a rocket to be able to overcome gravity.Shouldn\'t this be [Thrust] - [Weight] = [Final Thrust] as thrust and weight are both in units of force so dividing them gives a unit-less value?If you take your equation and substitute [Final Thrust] with [TWR] you\'d be correct.And TWR is more a gauge of efficiency, an engine with a TWR = 2 can lift itself plus a payload equivalent to its weight, a TWR less than or equal to 1 is completely pointless, as it could only lift itself or not even that.What about Kerbin? Is it the same?the [weight] factor changes depending on the gravitational body, so a TWR for kerbin will jump substantially when entering the Mun\'s SOI.Which is why engines that royally suck on Kerbin, can do decently well on the Mun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damonjay Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Shouldn\'t this be [Thrust] - [Weight] = [Final Thrust] as thrust and weight are both in units of force so dividing them gives a unit-less value?If you take your equation and substitute [Final Thrust] with [TWR] you\'d be correct.[snip]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratiomy apologies but i was going off the wiki page and i have a feeling i may have read something wrong :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icefire Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 TW = Thrust / (Mass*g)Thrust is in newtons, not kilo-newtons like the parts file, make sure to convert accordingly.Seeing you are taking just straight mass from the parts file you need to convert to weight, hence multiplying by g (9.80665 for Kerbin)Example of vanilla engine:Thrust: 200000nMass: 2000 kgWeight:2000*9.80665=19613.3Thrust to weight ratio:200000/19613.3=10.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Ben Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Oh come on. Just because my design philosophy is \'take biggest engine, layer fuel tanks on it until TWR ~= 1, add boosters, stage\', doesn\'t mean I\'m crazy.Does it?If your not cooking off your tanks and Liquid engines to lower the weight of your fuel while on the pad, your doing it wrong*!*Kerbal wrong, not RL wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 15, 2011 Author Share Posted November 15, 2011 Tomorrow I\'m going to release 0.8 (hopefully) and start work on an engine expansion packChanges for 0.8 that I can remember:Added mini decouplerAdded stackable parachuteAdded dry mass of tanks to mass totalTweaked liquid engines 1 and 5 (now both have the same Isp rating, overall efficiency increased slightly for both)Added double length 1m tankliquid engine 3 weight increasedReduced gimbal amounts on lower stage engines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icefire Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Are more engines really necessary? The current ones already do the jobs needed, and I fear that this pack will become like the Silisko Industries Doughnut Research pack, with far too many redundant parts cluttering the VAB menu if even more are added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 15, 2011 Author Share Posted November 15, 2011 Are more engines really necessary? The current ones already do the jobs needed, and I fear that this pack will become like the Silisko Industries Doughnut Research pack, with far too many redundant parts cluttering the VAB menu if even more are added.Good point. To hell with the engine expansion pack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Can you add fuel crossflow to the fairing baseplates for 0.8 pleeeeeeeeeeeze ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 0.8 releasedhttp://www./?ceh731hh6dy9c62http://dl.dropbox.com/u/575558/KSP%20Silisko%20Edition%200.8.zipAdded mini decouplerAdded stackable parachuteAdded dry mass of tanks to mass totalTweaked liquid engines 1 and 5 (now both have the same Isp rating, overall efficiency increased slightly for both)Added double length 1m tankliquid engine 3 weight increasedReduced gimbal amounts on lower stage enginesNew models for lander legs and noseconesMk1 pod weight decreased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherDalfite Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Yay 0.8 released! Just one question. I can\'t seem to get the small lander legs inside the payload fairings. I use the fairings as directed, yet still they refuse to go on. :\'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 16, 2011 Author Share Posted November 16, 2011 Yay 0.8 released! Just one question. I can\'t seem to get the small lander legs inside the payload fairings. I use the fairings as directed, yet still they refuse to go on. :\'(Put them at a 45 degree angle for now, I\'ll fix them in 0.85 soonish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venku122 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Are more engines really necessary? The current ones already do the jobs needed, and I fear that this pack will become like the Silisko Industries Doughnut Research pack, with far too many redundant parts cluttering the VAB menu if even more are added.FUCK NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOAR PARTS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ultrasquid Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 There can never be too many parts! I like being able to take a nap while waiting for the game to load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts