RayvenQ Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 This + Your Lander parts = Most fun I\'ve had, although I used it as an orbital craft/Satelite instead of a lander (till the Mun gets here.)Another successful mission, this time modifying my lander so that it\'s a spacecraft and not a lander.Circular Orbit.Almost!Satelite DeployedLaunch VehicleEccentricity of 0.004 according to KSPCalc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 Updated to 0.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimothyC Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 The new Advanced SAS doesn\'t work quite right. It doesn\'t control RCS thrusters or winglets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeroignite Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 What\'s the changelog for 0.3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 What\'s the changelog for 0.3?Added two new 2m engines. I haven\'t been cataloging the changes properly.I really should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comando222 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Finally a 2m engine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Barrett Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Do I need to delete my current parts again for tue updates? Did any stats change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comradephil Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Time for a heavy lift rocket. For mun mission purposes.I do want fairings though, I find myself missing them. Or is aerodynamics not kerbal enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayvenQ Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Hmm, something in the new parts has caused my previously stable rocket to be unstable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 Do I need to delete my current parts again for tue updates? Did any stats change?I would, just to be safe. The mk1 pod dimensions also changed, so be warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLuv Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Front page still says v0.2 even though the link is for .3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icefire Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Liquid Engine 1 ISP: 3428 m/s or 349sLiquid Engine 2 ISP: 2857 m/s or 291sThis makes no sense, the main engine is more efficient than the OME Lowering the fuel consumption to 3 puts it at 3809 m/s or 388s, which is much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 18, 2011 Author Share Posted October 18, 2011 Liquid Engine 1 ISP: 3428 m/s or 349sLiquid Engine 2 ISP: 2857 m/s or 291sThis makes no sense, the main engine is more efficient than the OME Lowering the fuel consumption to 3 puts it at 3809 m/s or 388s, which is much better.nnnghnnghI hope Harv adds efficiency that varies with atmospheric density soonish so you can\'t use those small upper stage engines to take off with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comradephil Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 That four nozzle engine is ludicrously awesome, So good that I\'ve started using two 2m stages in my rockets. I just wish I had fairings (The bulkhead and explosive bolt kind) to hide the 1m decoupler necessitated by your KSP edition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeroignite Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I\'m currently trying to go >10km/s with this pack. It\'s... quite a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvizz Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 The problem is you don\'t have enough boosters....Anyways I think the A-SAS is bugged since it dose not do anything. The medium engine is worthless, since the big one is more efficient by 50% more or a 3rd depending which way you look at it. Engine weights are so low that efficiency and sufficient thrust is all that really matters. I like the boosters, though I think the big one should burn for 80 seconds, considering it weights twice as much and has twice the thrust burn time should be equal.The 2m engines weigh the same and have the same efficiency. So there is no point using the smaller one.Other than that you obviously put a lot of work into this pack, and I do like it over all. It\'s more challenging then the normal mod packs and feels more rocket like since stages burn fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeroignite Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Actually, with a stack as big as I\'m using boosters aren\'t worth much. My bottom stage is currently 4x of the large 2m engines, so compared to that SRBs don\'t offer much more thrust. It is worth noting that the two 2m engines are equally efficient. In many cases, since gimballing isn\'t implemented yet, there\'s no penalty to using the bigger engine since you can just downthrottle it when you want to. The only downside is that it lacks a bottom attachment point. I can definitely see the larger being preferable as a bottom-stage engine when you have fins for control in-atmo, then switching to the weaker version when you\'re higher, fins aren\'t as useful, and you don\'t need crazyhigh thrust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Actually, with a stack as big as I\'m using boosters aren\'t worth much. My bottom stage is currently 4x of the large 2m engines, so compared to that SRBs don\'t offer much more thrust. It is worth noting that the two 2m engines are equally efficient. In many cases, since gimballing isn\'t implemented yet, there\'s no penalty to using the bigger engine since you can just downthrottle it when you want to. The only downside is that it lacks a bottom attachment point. I can definitely see the larger being preferable as a bottom-stage engine when you have fins for control in-atmo, then switching to the weaker version when you\'re higher, fins aren\'t as useful, and you don\'t need crazyhigh thrust.That was the plan.Also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvizz Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Ohhhhhh, nice. Those never seem to work for me though.Also, I modified some of the thrust and weight values of the engines.The thin long SRB I downed to 60 thrust. The Big long SRB I gave 180 thrust going from 4 mass to 6 (60X3 since it\'s twice as wide and pie and all) Stock one is now 40 second burn time with 180 thrust, with a weight of 3. Since it is as thick but half as long as the bigger one.Changed consumption of the small 1m liquid to 3 so it is usable. Reduced weight and thrust of 2m small slightlyIncreased consumption and weight of big 2m slightly. I think by doing those things all of the parts are now usable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icefire Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The only thing I modified is LiquidEngine2, which I changed the fuel consumption to 3 for an ISP boost. I just have a personal rule not to use it in the lower atmosphere.Ohh and turning the ejection strength down to 0.2 on the decoupler so I have to rely on ullage boosters and such for any stage separation larger than one tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvizz Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I just blow up my stages with exhaustAlso, it appears the area formula is slightly more complecated than I remember. The 1m SRB should be 4x as powerful as the .5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icefire Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I felt that this parts pack was missing a vital, time honored KSP tradition of making a gigantic rocket that has all the reliability of a used car stolen from the junkyard. So I made one.It ended in an equally old tradition...Guess it needed more boosters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doomydoom Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 No, it needed more duct t struts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchie16 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I find it a bit odd that the big, powerful 1m engine has a max thrust of 300 and a burn rate of 10, for a fuel efficiency of 30, while the smaller, 'efficient' upper-stage engine has a max thrust of 100 and a burn rate of 4, for an efficiency of 25. The only advantage that I can see to the smaller engine, then, is that it is slightly smaller and slightly less massive. Meanwhile, the 'landing engine' has a burn rate of 1 and a thrust of 50, making it by far the most efficient, and therefore, in my opinion, the best suited for upper stages.Edit: Oops, people already noticed this on the last page. Well, it still bothers me, so I\'m leaving my comments here… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 20, 2011 Author Share Posted October 20, 2011 I changed the consumption to 3 for the next release Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts