About those Stock Crafts

[bsalis]

Lets be honest. Most of them are not very good are they?

I would think that the crafts bundled with the game should be excellent examples. Simple, pragmatic, functional, and above all, well designed. They should be craft that can learn from, and use as a template for your own designs. For most of them I am not seeing that.

Here is my critique of them. What are you views?

Ion-Powered Space Probe

It has RTGs, which are great. So why the batteries? It has two of the four science instruments. Why not all four? There are a couple of nice spots left for the other two. Finally, those RTGs are nowhere near enough power for the Ion engine. Even at 1/3 thrust, you will be out of juice in a minute or two.

Kerbal X

I actually like this rocket, it is simple and well proportioned. Also a good example of Asparagus staging - like a stock craft should be. Only minor criticism is that it is a bit wobbly. Some struts would be nice. Also, three winglets would have been enough.

Orbiter 1A

Huh? Seems very extravagant for a stock orbiter. What is with the Radial Engine Nacels Bodies. Using tail fins as structural mounts seems out of place too. Then there is the six legs... on an orbiter. I would think a stock orbiter would be something simple and sensible, but with all the trimmings. Such as lights, power supply, batteries, docking port, chute(s), and conventional 4-block RCS setup around the CoM.

Skycrane + Rover

We have a winner, this is actually good. Congrats to whomever made it. I have not tried it but assume it works fine - it looks like it should. It is creative but in a proper functional way. Even the struts between the crane and rover are connected the right way.

Space Station Core

It's not bad actually. However the ring of BattMan batteries is probably not needed, as well as the SAS unit. A Probe Core would be nice on such a craft.

Super-Heavy Lander

Again, like the Orbiter 1A, creativity has won out over providing a pragmatic example of a good lander. The RCS is all over the place, and there is way too much monopropellant. Tanks and engines on an angle like that is silly. Has four legs - at least it has that right. I also notice that it has a docking port and no chutes, so it is intended to be used with an orbiter. I'm thinking that for a simple example lander, have a decoupler and chute(s) so that it can be used by itself as an orbiter as well. Why is it called a Super-Heavy Lander? It is neither super nor heavy.

Two-stage Lander

This is actually pretty good. Neat simple approach for a two stage lander. Seats two, has four legs. Good so far. For a more advanced lander like this, it does make sense to use a docking port, so as to be used with a separate orbiter. Only one real issue - no RCS!

Z-MAP Satellite

Seems fine. However the initial TWR is mental. Also, why two probe cores?

Ravenspear Mk1

Woeful, just woeful. Did anyone actually test this? It is not even stable. The CoM and CoL are basically on top of each other. It flips out. The engine at the far aft is also a tail strike hazard. Why is the Telus ladder in the winglet instead of under the cockpit ladder?!

Ravenspear Mk2

This does not actually exist. Perhaps it removed itself out of utter shame.

Ravenspear Mk3

This is terrible. It flops around and could really use some struts. Just two of them would make a big difference. It cannot lift off the runway before the end. This is because the landing gear arrangement puts it nose down, so you get a downward force. The turbojets seem to indicate it is for high altitude and speed, but does not have the intakes for it. Why the RCS too, it's pointless.

Also the winglets are over the cockpit ladder, hence the yellow Telus ladder places to the aft, which does not let you get back to the cockpit! After pulling this down from the roof of the SPH, here is what it looks like...

Ravenspear Mk4

It is powerful and stable. Certainly one of the more fun stock aircraft. It could use more pitch authority though.

Rocket-powered VTOL

Seemingly a little diversion, rather than a serious craft design to be used as a template for your own designs. I tried it and it works fine. So I don't think theres much more to say.

Albatross 3

Another novelty craft, like the VTOL above. However, you can barely control this craft. The control inputs give you odd results. Rudder causes it to roll and ailerons do nothing. I did check the SPH part listing to be sure, and yes there *are* struts available. I used them, as well as move the Small Control Surfaces to the wingtips, and hey presto it actually flies reasonable well. So why is it not like this?

Aeris 3a

Finally a good aircraft. Damn good - something people new to the game could actually learn to fly with. It's stable, responsive, has good control authority on all axis. Does not flip. No tail strike hazard. Only issue is the ladder, it's the same problem as the Ravenspear Mk3.

Aeris 4a

So I saved the worst to last. Actually Ravenspear Mk1 is probably the worst, but if any craft here should be an exemplary of good design it should be the SSTO Spaceplane. For starters, the CoL is in front of the CoM. This is unforgivable. This is why many people lose control of it shortly after takeoff, occasionally with the LV-T30 still attached. Which brings me to the next issue. The engine is a tail strike hazard. Why not just use an aerospike? If you somehow do get it to orbit, you will surely lose control of it after re-entry unless you know what you are doing, and are really careful. New players toying around with stock crafts are neither of these things.

Two jets and one rocket engine is also the worst setup. Since you have to switch from jets to rockets without much of a transition unlike a three jet setup. You also have to deal with flat spins, unlike a one jet setup. For a craft of this size, one jet with a couple of LV-909s would be a more effective and safer configuration.

Furthermore, the fuel is fed inward as well, so there is nothing left for the jets to run on post-orbit unless you manually feed some back into the side tanks. Finally, the RCS is unbalanced as well.

[gompasta]

Almost all of the planes are old, and so they are not really compatible with current physics. Before we needed air intakes, they all performed fine.

[Tw1]

I disagree about the Albatross, it's my favourite of the stock planes, as it's got enough fuel to get you far. That said, I have yet to land it in one piece, and normally add a few things before I take of.

Some of the stock craft are more meant to show concepts than replace things you make for yourself, I heard somewhere.

I agree that the ion probe is a silly design though. My maths showed that RTGs and ion propulsion just aren't a good combination. You loose too much thrust, and delta V compared to solar power, unless you're really far out.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Tw1

[42undead2]

Someone did state that the rockets were not meant to be perfect. You should not have a perfect rocket from start. About the planes, I don't know.

[Albert VDS]

They aren't meant to be perfectly well thought out, well at least in my opinion.

They are included not to hand you the perfect rocket/plane/etc. to do whatever, but to give you an example and ideas on what you can do.

Perfect crafts would just take away the fun and effort of designing and testing as you could just load up the perfect stock crafts.

Now you've demonstrated yourself that they work as test crafts, to see what works and doesn't.

[RatBeer]

I agree In most of them they have gone for looks over practicality which is not the most convenient thing for new player who probably use these vehicles.

[Endeavour]

I agree with you about the probe and Z-Map for sure, as well as on the planes. It's been mentioned that the planes haven't been redesigned in quite a while, so they're due for an update soon anyways.

As for the Lander and Orbiter, I think those are meant to be examples of what is possible, because getting creative is something new players might not think of because they haven't seen anything unique before.

[dragoncannon]

I have used the skycrane/rover, and it works perfectly, however I usually ad a parachue as well for Duna landings.... It and the Kerbal X are the only stock craft worth anything. Althgough I'm not sure why the Kerbal X doesn't come with ASAS and more struts....

[Flixxbeatz]

I tried launching the Kerbal X one time. My OCD kicked in due to the core stage wobbliness and lack of struts.

[swiftgates24]

They aren't perfect because this game isn't 100% science. It's also supposed to be fun.

[dragoncannon]

... this game isn't 100% science. ...

BLASPHEMY!!!!! Go Science!

[stupid_chris]

Two things. IIRC, there's a bug that causes things without batteries to sometimes fail, so for the ion satellite, it's better to keep some. And the space station core, an SAS is probably the best things to have on a space station, so it's well placed in my opinion.

[bsalis]

Someone did state that the rockets were not meant to be perfect. You should not have a perfect rocket from start.

Perfect, no. However I would think new players will be looking at the stock crafts and expecting good designs. Designs that can be used as examples, templates, or figuring out why your craft fails where the stock craft works (ie. learning from reverse engineering).

Don't get me wrong. I love this game. However the stock crafts are not as good as I think they should be. Just trying to put that constructive criticism out there.

[Aragosnat]

The Ion Probe I can understand why the batteries where added. If you need to burn for a long time which is almost always. One will need a lot of juice. Same thing for solar panels. Batteries are needed when you are in the shadow of a planet or moon and need to burn for any length of time.

The rest. I do agree that it would be nice if they had better designs to work off of. But, there are not bad examples to try and work off of.

[regex]

I read your critiques and I think that is what was intended. A new player should load one up, play around, and eventually realize it isn't the be-all, end-all of rocket design and should be redesigned to their satisfaction.

[Whackjob]

Ion-Powered Space Probe

It has RTGs, which are great. So why the batteries? It has two of the four science instruments. Why not all four? There are a couple of nice spots left for the other two. Finally, those RTGs are nowhere near enough power for the Ion engine. Even at 1/3 thrust, you will be out of juice in a minute or two.

It's a way to save on weight, I suppose. RTGs to generate power, to fill the batteries, then you can burst the ion engine until you need to wait for recharge. You could probably get away with using 1 RTG and a couple of batteries, if you don't mind a longer recharge time.

[RocketPilot573]

I agree with this, I guess the rockets don't have to be perfect. But the planes? The Albatross is only good at taking off and flying strait, any control input causes it to lose control and sometimes even fall to pieces. And the rest really need to be more stable.

[lammatt]

I disagree

here's my thought:

the albatross is extremely easy to fly and is super stable

the Aeris 4A is an all round good plane; just slightly move the delta wing a little backward and you are good to go. the LV- engine is ok and i seldom smash the engine on the ground... unless you press the S button so hard like how a moron does

the 3A is too responsive unless you add an ASAS to hold the pitch for you.

all the ravenspears are pretty useless... you can do everything they can do with an Aeris 4A anyways. while none of the ravens can get into orbit because they are all jet-only

the VTOL is BS...plain and simple...

the 2 stage lander is a little too heavy for a 2man lander. (it's easy to maneuver and land tho')

the station core is good but need at least some RCS

the rover is good but the skycrane is kind of useless unless you land in on moons with super weak gravity... the fuel is enough for like what? 1s burn?

[ThePsuedoMonkey]

I'd have to agree with bsalis since the stock craft didn't really help me out while I was learning the game a few months ago. I did find the Albatross entertaining to fly the first time, but not being able to land the thing brings that feeling to a halt fairly quickly. By the time I got around to trying out the stock craft I had already learned enough to know that I didn't like many of them, so I ended up deleting them all from my computer once I had tried a few. I can understand not wanting them to be 100% perfect, but I think having a little less room for improvement would be much more beneficial to new players.

[Tw1]

It's a way to save on weight, I suppose. RTGs to generate power, to fill the batteries, then you can burst the ion engine until you need to wait for recharge. You could probably get away with using 1 RTG and a couple of batteries, if you don't mind a longer recharge time.

True, but you need an awful lot of charge to sustain a burn. And it's a long wait until you can make corrections. My first ion probe had a stayputnic core, and it was pretty much covered in radial batteries (they had the best mass ratio), apart from where solar panels had to go, and it still didn't burn for very long.

[AmpsterMan]

I feel bad but i delete them all as well. I just don't find them to be all that great. The Aeris 4A helped me learn what was esential to getting to orbit on a spaceplane.

[patrickcanttype]

I agree that the stock crafts should be updated. Maybe it should be a community project.

Stock crafts should give players good examples of how to build spacecraft/planes. I also wouldn't mind seeing another rocket with some SRBs to help get it off the ground.

[Giggleplex777]

I agree that the stock crafts should be updated. Maybe it should be a community project.

Stock crafts should give players good examples of how to build spacecraft/planes. I also wouldn't mind seeing another rocket with some SRBs to help get it off the ground.

I agree. It should be like a competition where the community creates crafts and a dev or mod chooses the ones they like and are a good example for new players.

[Maddmatts]

The stock ion probe may become relevant when they add more distant planets. Unless things change, Eeloo is pretty much the limit for solar-powered ion probes.

[Gojira]

The stock ion probe may become relevant when they add more distant planets. Unless things change, Eeloo is pretty much the limit for solar-powered ion probes.

Ion is still relevant because it's so efficient. Aside from that, the probe is useless because you can't even do 1/10 throttle without a recharge.