Jump to content

[1.0.2] NovaPunch 2.09. - May 6th - 1.0 Compatibility Update

Tiberion

By Tiberion
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Drone

Drone

Posted
Posted
You make it sound like they won't even fire.

Who cares anyway? It's not like the stock parts are correctly balanced in any form at the moment. And if you're not sitting there with a slide rule you'll never notice the difference between the Isp enabled engines and the older ones in this pack.

In fact, the newer Isp engines have slightly increased thrust to balance out the inefficiency while in atmos introduced with 0.16 when compared to the same ones in 0.15 (nerfed little lander engine notwithstanding). So they are 'balanced' with the older parts.

They work fine.

And if it bothers you, more the reason packs like this need to be kept updated by the nice guys like Tiberion.

I stopped playing this mod and switched to KW Rocketry becuase if the game isn't challanging it's not fun to play. There was nothing fun about doing single-stage to mun rockets using the 3m engines and fuel tanks in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildkittyv1

wildkittyv1

Posted
Posted
I stopped playing this mod and switched to KW Rocketry becuase if the game isn't challanging it's not fun to play. There was nothing fun about doing single-stage to mun rockets using the 3m engines and fuel tanks in this.

It's easy enough to edit the .cfg files. I'm actually doing edits of the NP pack and SiliskoEdition so that the tanks have the correct mass for their fuel capacities and so that the engines use ISP rather than a straight number for fuel consumption. I'm using the numbers from the stock parts and the KW engines with ISP values as a guide, but I'm actually using numbers where they might seem a little bit underpowered if anything. I'm trying to make the parts more purposeful, if anything. As for doing edits for other parts in the pack, I'm making them more functional with more appropriate stress/weight values and adding nodes to certain decouplers so they're more functional. I'm going to send a message to Nova and Tiberion after I get more work done and see if they'll allow me to release a file. There's lots of good engines and models that shouldn't go to waste simply because the authors have decided not to update or have moved on to different projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALILOOOONG

ALILOOOONG

Posted
Posted
I am keen to use this mod when it becomes available again, luckily there are plenty of other mods for a budding kerbonaut to try out!

WELCOME anyways you will find most mods are pretty caput since 0.16 one of the better ones was down under aerospace but slew's currently got it out of action and back in to production. anyway enjoy ksp and its other sister services!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberion

Tiberion

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It's easy enough to edit the .cfg files. I'm actually doing edits of the NP pack and SiliskoEdition so that the tanks have the correct mass for their fuel capacities and so that the engines use ISP rather than a straight number for fuel consumption. I'm using the numbers from the stock parts and the KW engines with ISP values as a guide, but I'm actually using numbers where they might seem a little bit underpowered if anything. I'm trying to make the parts more purposeful, if anything. As for doing edits for other parts in the pack, I'm making them more functional with more appropriate stress/weight values and adding nodes to certain decouplers so they're more functional. I'm going to send a message to Nova and Tiberion after I get more work done and see if they'll allow me to release a file. There's lots of good engines and models that shouldn't go to waste simply because the authors have decided not to update or have moved on to different projects.

Did you make a spreadsheet or anything? I would be interested in seeing your engine ISP values if they are convenient to share.

I got the tanks done 1st, they really only changes a few percentage points from their previous values to line up with the new stock scale (which makes me pretty happy, as that means I was close to reasonable.) but I have only did a litle testing with the engines, so I'd like to see what you think would work. If its a hassle, don't worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildkittyv1

wildkittyv1

Posted
Posted (edited)
Did you make a spreadsheet or anything? I would be interested in seeing your engine ISP values if they are convenient to share.

I got the tanks done 1st, they really only changes a few percentage points from their previous values to line up with the new stock scale (which makes me pretty happy, as that means I was close to reasonable.) but I have only did a litle testing with the engines, so I'd like to see what you think would work. If its a hassle, don't worry about it.

I think I have some version of excel that I could use to write up a small spreadsheet with them. If not, I think I have a google account and I would imagine that google docs supports spreadsheets. If you know of anything else I could use, let me know. I actually have a bunch of numbers written down (they're not entirely accurate as it depended on how close to the tanks depleting entirely I hit ESC to pause and interpreting the altimeter between heights, but they work as rough figures) and need to do a few more tests to get a better range of data. I used the KW rocketry parts as a basis (along with the stock ones) for setting the figures, and I attempted to make the engines somewhat purposeful so that people aren't just using the strongest one all the time - some are better in the thicker atmosphere, some are better in a vacuum, some are equally good throughout but weaker and would serve nicely as an intermediary stage for establishing LKO and stuff like that. I haven't really tested the lander engines, but if everything else works out then they should be fine. The NERVA engine and the NP Aerospike were kind of tricky and I just sort of guessed, but they seem okay for now, though the NERVA might be OP if it's used solely for injection stages. They seem to fall in line with the numbers I got from KW (tested them along with the stock ones using the same parameters as the NP engines), but even then the KW stuff feels a bit OP to me, but I'm also pretty efficient with my burns and fuel usage so it's really hard to gauge and I don't want to underpower stuff. I also did the Silisko Edition engines and tanks since Nova said he wasn't going to work on that pack anymore either.

I need to go through in a little bit and do the radial thrusters/boosters now. I've done all the engines for the main tanks, and am considering redoing the SRBs. I redid all the tank masses and engine weights so they were in line with the stock parts, using some leeway for making them heavier/lighter based on better ISP values (I think I increased NERVA by like 2.5x or something) and gimbaling. I also changed some stuff where it looked like it was perhaps a typo (mostly with the 1.75m engines) in regards to gimbaling. I'm also thinking of going through and changing the text to give the players a bit more of an idea about what each engine is meant for since ISP values aren't 100% straightforward for the average person. I went and looked up some info on wikipedia and asked on the subreddit and got a decent response before I really started messing with them.

Anyway, sorry for the little ramble, but I figured I'd be thorough since you had a hand in creating some of the parts in the pack. I can toss together a spreadsheet somehow maybe in a few hours. I want to take a break from testing for a bit, figure out how I'm going to test them in vacuum, and do some work on the radial engines. Right now I've only tested them by each engine lifting the same tank/pod up and recording altitude/velocity/time for depleting the fuel and then altitude/time at AP when firing straight up. For atmospheric testing I'll probably toss them onto something to get them to like 100km orbit with mechjeb and dump everything except for the control tank/pod and the engine. For the radial thrusters I'll probably put them in 4x symmetry and test them the same way.

But yeah, give me a few hours (It's 5:18 EST now, maybe at like 10:00 EST?) to get some stuff together and I should have something for you.

Also, I've posted what I did so far over on the subreddit, so you can take a look if you want; it should be on the front page. I hope this isn't a problem, I've left everything else in the files as is and put a disclaimer in the post. I opsted it like an hour ago and it's got 2 downloads now, but I won't put the link here until you, Nova, and whoever else okays it.

Edited by wildkittyv1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberion

Tiberion

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I use googledocs, just takes a little fiddling to get it set up to be publicly viewable and whatnot. I also have excel if you get it into XLS format.

Sounds like you went the same direction I planned on when implementing Isp values in the engines, though I tend to tune NP towards the 'relaxed side' so your final figures could certainly appeal to the hardcore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildkittyv1

wildkittyv1

Posted
Posted
I use googledocs, just takes a little fiddling to get it set up to be publicly viewable and whatnot. I also have excel if you get it into XLS format.

Sounds like you went the same direction I planned on when implementing Isp values in the engines, though I tend to tune NP towards the 'relaxed side' so your final figures could certainly appeal to the hardcore.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsGOcjQcSRf4dFo3OHZxdHpBTTZpbkNsRDZaR2NuYmc

I decided to do the spreadsheet with what info I had at the moment so you can sort of see what I'm doing, but I've still got like half the numbers from the initial run of tests to throw up; I only put up the 1M engine test results and I haven't tested the SE engines yet. Remember that the numbers are rough (mostly for altitude) because it's hard to time hitting ESC perfectly to pause as soon as the tank runs out and the altimeter is often between numbers at that speed.

I'll get around to putting the rest up after I eat dinner and get some more tests done with the radial thrusters. I'm thinking I might want to use the idea the guy who made the counter/test weights and make a bunch of tiny parts that weigh a bunch just to strap onto the test rockets so they are all tested against a set weight balanced against the engine weight. Mechjeb can give me a thrust to weight ratio, but it won't give me the numbers like I have listed

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hyratel

Hyratel

Posted
Posted

if it's not too much trouble, i had an idea that might be nice to include - there's a little SRB in the NP pack that looks like a 20lb propane tank, and as such, lent itself perfectly to being a RATO tank for larger aircraft at 40T*10s burn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildkittyv1

wildkittyv1

Posted
Posted (edited)
if it's not too much trouble, i had an idea that might be nice to include - there's a little SRB in the NP pack that looks like a 20lb propane tank, and as such, lent itself perfectly to being a RATO tank for larger aircraft at 40T*10s burn

I don't know what Tiberion's going to do, but I'm reworking the thrust and time lengths of the SRBs that are in NovaPunch right now to be more multipurpose. As an example, there are two SRBs with 600 thrust and 3 SRBs with thrusts of 350, 300, and 320. If I include the Silisko Edition SRBs, that makes for 3 SRBs with 600 thrust and adds another with 250.

I think that's just clutter and repetition with parts, as we already have stock boosters of 250 and 400 thrust, with more likely to come in the .17 update. I think the SRB you are referring to has a thrust of 80 and I was planning on keeping that (though editing the weight and time of burn to be more appropriate), but I could possibly rescale it to be slightly smaller, but I'd have to think of re-texturing it at that point as I don't want people to be confused. I could just go with matte white, but that's kind of boring.

For the time being, there are radial SRBs in the NP pack (which I'll also be tweaking) that burn at 50 thrust for 20 seconds you could easily .cfg edit to work for you. If there's a place for one of the larger SRBs to be like a 100 thrust for a long period, then I'll consider making the 80 thrust one something like 50, but I don't know if I feel it's necessary with the existence of the radial boosters.

I gotta send Nova a PM and see if there's anyone else I need a nod of approval from to link the download on the forums. There is a post on the subreddit on the frontpage with a link to the first version which contains the regular engines and tanks with edited values (ISPs for the engines instead of consumption rates - they vary between parts and the engines are setup to be more efficient in certain circumstances - and mass values for the tanks that coincide with those of the stock engines) for .16, but I want to make sure everything is okay before posting it up here, but it shouldn't be a problem. I'll put up the next version with the radial thruster and possibly some SRB and part edits tomorrow if I get the okay.

Edited by wildkittyv1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberion

Tiberion

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Its not that you need approval, you need to have a functional license to post it for download - that is what I am going through to get from Sundaypunch (and Nova and Captainslug after I get word from SP) Including me that is 4 different authors who *must* have approved a license for their work for it to be posted - hopefully we can all agree on the same license. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest butt head

Guest butt head

Posted
Posted
Can you make it for the 0.16 upgrade or is it always gona be 15.2

i you read the previous posts you would see that there are some copy right things that need to be worked o

but anyways welcome to the forums i suggest saying hello here

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...