comando222 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 You did a great job, as always, and what could we expect in an update of this mod?Besides standard fixes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Barrett Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 AWW YEA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
space guy1 Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 in the next edition could you add a 2 meter decoupler and engine? and maybe a set of 3 meter parts (adapter, fuel tank or 2, & engine, maybe sas) for those really big engines. the 3 meter stuff can wait but I\'m really disappointed that there\'s no 2 meter engine or decoupler. other than that, though, great job it looks excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 in the next edition could you add a 2 meter decoupler and engine? and maybe a set of 3 meter parts (adapter, fuel tank or 2, & engine, maybe sas) for those really big engines. the 3 meter stuff can wait but I\'m really disappointed that there\'s no 2 meter engine or decoupler. other than that, though, great job it looks excellent.No 3 meter parts. 2m is going to be the limit for this pack.I have a 2m engine made but it\'s not textured yet, and it\'s designed as an upper stage. Still need to make a takeoff engine for 2m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talfryn Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Strong rockets rocking themselves to piecesThat\'s Kerbal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 Updated to 0.2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuff Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Updated to 0.2!nice! Just downloaded. Have a changelog?also, great pack btw! HarvesteR should definitely use these parts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 nice! Just downloaded. Have a changelog?also, great pack btw! HarvesteR should definitely use these parts!Mostly just experimenting with new efficiency and weight values. Don\'t get too attached to a specific version because it\'s likely a lot will change in between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howson Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 No 3 meter parts. 2m is going to be the limit for this pack.I have a 2m engine made but it\'s not textured yet, and it\'s designed as an upper stage. Still need to make a takeoff engine for 2m.Maybe you could make an Adapter for a 2m tank that has 9 1m engines in a square? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuff Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Mostly just experimenting with new efficiency and weight values. Don\'t get too attached to a specific version because it\'s likely a lot will change in between them.Excellent! Quick question.How do I switch out the mk1 pod for the mk3 pod? I\'m sure it\'s a simple change in the cfg but I can\'t figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 Excellent! Quick question.How do I switch out the mk1 pod for the mk3 pod? I\'m sure it\'s a simple change in the cfg but I can\'t figure it out.I was hoping there\'d be an official pod switching method by now but oh well.Copy the models, materials, and cfg of the mk3 pod into the mk1 pod folder and set it\'s part name to mk1pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuff Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 I was hoping there\'d be an official pod switching method by now but oh well.Copy the models, materials, and cfg of the mk3 pod into the mk1 pod folder and set it\'s part name to mk1pod.aye! thanks!sorry if it\'s been mentioned before, but what exactly does the advanced SAS module do over the regular SAS?edit:first flight successful! orbit\'s a bit farther out then I wanted, but it\'ll work!edit 2: doh nvm my SAS question, didn\'t know that was an added feature in .11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andras Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Could you make the 1m-2m cone adapter into a lightweight coupler instead of a fuel tank? There\'s no way to use the 2m SAS if it\'s going to cut off the fuel in the adapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuff Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Could you make the 1m-2m cone adapter into a lightweight coupler instead of a fuel tank? There\'s no way to use the 2m SAS if it\'s going to cut off the fuel in the adapter.Is it possible to run fuel through the SAS or is that technically possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feanor Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Is it possible to run fuel through the SAS or is that technically possible?It actually already does that. So there is no reason to change it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokmonkey Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Nova, have you thought about adding in a hollow decoupler from your previous packs? I always liked being able to hide away my orbital engine, or things of that nature inside a stronger feeling coupler. Either way keep up the good work.P.S. Solar panels can be used to recharge batteries for reaction wheels and/or control moment gyros for attitude control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 The connection nodes for the Mark 3 pod aren\'t placed properly; the bottom is below it, leaving quite a big gap, and the top one is inside of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvizz Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 I think being able to get off a planet an 11th the size of earth in one stage is perfectly realistic.That being said, your mod certainly makes it more challenging, which is good in my book.Also, could you ditch the 1.75 in your regular parts pack, 2m is where its at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andras Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Also, could you ditch the 1.75 in your regular parts pack, 2m is where its at.Ignore him! >I love the 1.75m stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 15, 2011 Author Share Posted October 15, 2011 Nova, have you thought about adding in a hollow decoupler from your previous packs? I always liked being able to hide away my orbital engine, or things of that nature inside a stronger feeling coupler. Either way keep up the good work.P.S. Solar panels can be used to recharge batteries for reaction wheels and/or control moment gyros for attitude control.I detest the functionality of those old hollow decouplers. They made things so unstable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Barrett Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 2 meter decoupler?WE NEEDZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icefire Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 I think being able to get off a planet an 11th the size of earth in one stage is perfectly realistic.That being said, your mod certainly makes it more challenging, which is good in my book.Also, could you ditch the 1.75 in your regular parts pack, 2m is where its at.I think the 2m parts deal started with nova\'s parts pack. Then later sundaypunch jumped on the band wagon and didn\'t even bother to match the standard already in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 16, 2011 Author Share Posted October 16, 2011 I think the 2m parts deal started with nova\'s parts pack. Then later sundaypunch jumped on the band wagon and didn\'t even bother to match the standard already in place.No, mine were inaccurate. Originally I called them 2 meter, but then he released his own 2 meter parts. And they were -actually- 2 meters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jouzu Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 I don\'t get the values in this pack. The \'800\' capacity tank weighs more when full, but the same when empty, as 4 of the \'200\' tanks :-\. If anything, I thought the advantage of 1 large tank over several small ones was the fact that volume increases faster than surface area - more fuel inside the same amount of metal. Since the larger tank is in fact a larger diameter, this should definitely be the case. Also, where is this extra mass coming from? *boggles* It\'s the same when empty: 1 ton (for the \'800\') or 1 ton (4*0.25 for the \'200\'s). So it\'s not the metal. The \'200\'s each contain 200 units of fuel in their remaining 1.75 tons of mass, whereas the \'800\' contains 800 units of fuel in its remaining 8 tons of mass. The \'1600\'s are similar - they\'re exactly twice the mass of the \'800\'s (full or empty). At least that\'s consistent (and since they are simply twice the height, I wouldn\'t expect any particular improvement due to the geometry like I would coming from the 1m \'200\'s.)Literally the only thing I can see that\'s an advantage is the doubled (or quadrupled, in the case of the \'1600\' tank) impact strength - which, again, I found bizarre - if anything I thought that in general, the larger tanks were more fragile (the Atlas would collapse under its own weight if not pressurized, etc.)The extra mass and subsequently reduced performance are just ..weird, though. If nothing else you could put the fuel into the same (rough) shape as a stack of 4 tanks, but use stringers instead of actual partitions between the \'tanks\' and still accomplish a weight savings that way, albeit much less than the improvement from improved geometry.Testing confirmed the crappier TWR - straight up, full throttle, got to 58.5km @ ~2700 m/s using 4x \'200\' tanks, while only reached 51.5km @ 2440 m/s using a single \'800\' tank. These numbers are at burnout.tl;dr - Why are the larger tanks heavier instead of lighter than the small tanks?PS - for what it\'s worth, the \'compressed\' fuel tank seems correct to me. You pay more of a mass penalty for such a small tank - running 4 of them (200 units of fuel) gives a crappier TWR than a single \'200\', as it should be. However, the name is deceptive! Allllll the other tanks, even the FL-R25 RCS tank, have the numbers indicating fuel capacity. This one is called the \'M100\' but has only a capacity of 50.PPS - I think using the 100:1 fuel to weight system that the \'200\' tank was supposed to weigh 2.25, not 2.0. If that was the case it would be functionally identical to the other 3 tanks .. which is still wrong, the fuel:structure weight ratio should improve with tank size, but it would at least be a start.The quote above needs to be adressed!Also, if we accept the 1m (200 units of fuel) tank, then 100 units of fuel = 200/1,75 -> 114.29 units of fuel per mass unit. I\'d say use 100 units of fuel per mass unit as a standard (as you, OP, said from the beginning when you presented the mod).Much less confusing and easier to scale the tanks instead of multiplying by 114.29 (rounded). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 16, 2011 Author Share Posted October 16, 2011 I do believe it\'s as simple as me copying the CFG and forgetting to change those values :u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts