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

[Tiberion]

Well, I went through and made some more tweaks, should release a new version today.

There will always be a threshold where a ship gets large enough that it needs struts - but what you describe doesn\'t seem big enough. Hopefully this version will help.

So far, the changes coming:

Connection tweaks for various things

Longer SSRB and tweaking of all SRB power/flight settings (for consistency)

Ares-style skins available for download

Tentatively I\'ll whip out the 2 and 3M SAS plates and a 2m RCS tank.

[Taverius]

Cool. Btw,why is it so bloody hard to attach things to the bottom of the 1.75m radial/vertical combo failure attachment point? It always takes me some 3-4 minutes before my mouse click hits that sweet spot just before the part is in red rest position and its actually placed.

[Tiberion]

I\'m not sure which part you mean...

You mean this?

Maybe you were using it backwards? It only works like pictured, not the other way

[Tiberion]

Just uploaded 0.7a and the new Ares skin.

Quick rundown of changes:

New skin

Made Space Shuttle Rocket Booster longer, better, awesomer.

Tweaked part connections

New parts: 2m RCS tanks, 2 and 3 meter SAS module

Moved RCS tanks to 2nd tab of VAB

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/46506740/KSP/NovaPunch0_7alpha.zip

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/46506740/KSP/NP_OrangeSkinv0_7alpha.zip

[MC3craze]

Just uploaded 0.7a and the new Ares skin.

Quick rundown of changes:

New skin

Made Space Shuttle Rocket Booster longer, better, awesomer.

Tweaked part connections

New parts: 2m RCS tanks, 2 and 3 meter SAS module

Moved RCS tanks to 2nd tab of VAB

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/46506740/KSP/NovaPunch0_7alpha.zip

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/46506740/KSP/NP_OrangeSkinv0_7alpha.zip

Love the booster, would appreciate a 1m mid-range engine though. Unless there already is one and I missed it.

[Taverius]

I\'m not sure which part you mean...

You mean this?

Maybe you were using it backwards? It only works like pictured, not the other way

Yeah its that one, and no, I\'m doinitright, its just bloody hard to attach certain things to the bottom of it, as of 0.6 - RCS tanks go on fine, heavy SAS and solid boosters take a lot of tries.

At least here, possibly too many mods

[Tiberion]

Yeah its that one, and no, I\'m doinitright, its just bloody hard to attach certain things to the bottom of it, as of 0.6 - RCS tanks go on fine, heavy SAS and solid boosters take a lot of tries.

At least here, possibly too many mods

Oh, I\'ll look at it and see - might need a node adjustment.

A lot of it does come down to it being the other parts\' fault - since each one conceivably has a different collider and node combo

[feanor]

If you are rebalancing, please take a look at KWchallenger solids, or perhaps even my ICBM pack solids. Stock solids, compared to stock liquids, are just awfull.

[Commander Zoom]

Probably true, but until HarvesteR changes \'em, that\'s the standard against which all others should be measured and balanced.

[feanor]

Probably true, but until HarvesteR changes \'em, that\'s the standard against which all others should be measured and balanced.

Nah, the standard should be uniform so that you can build a rocket that uses both parts. Since this pack already has done the tank weight / balancing and the same for liquid engines ( a lot parts ) i\'d just be easier to adjust the solids to the liquids in here instead of the other way around.

Basically, a lot of solids have been made by modders, and the further we\'re out, the stronger and more realistic they have become, especially kwchallengers. Harvester made a single solid that is by all measures underpowered, and there is not a single reason why that one single solid should be used as a guideline in a mod pack.

[Commander Zoom]

Basically, a lot of solids have been made by modders, and the further we\'re out, the stronger and more realistic they have become, especially kwchallengers. Harvester made a single solid that is by all measures underpowered, and there is not a single reason why that one single solid should be used as a guideline in a mod pack.

One is official. The others are mods.

What you\'re saying is that all the mods are overpowered by the standards of the official, stock SRB.

(That\'s unfortunate, IMO.)

[feanor]

One is official. The others are mods.

What you\'re saying is that all the mods are overpowered by the standards of the official, stock SRB.

(That\'s unfortunate, IMO.)

No, what i\'m saying is that the stock solid is underpowered compared to the stock liquids, mod liquids which are based on the stock ones, stock tanks, mod tanks which are based on stock tanks, and mod solids which are based on a reduced ISP / heavier weight for the same performance as the liquids of the same weight, ie reality.

Call it whatever you will, official or not, it\'s a bad thing in the original game.

I don\'t care at all for a distinction between mods and official game parts. I don\'t value a 'I made it with all stock parts\' any more then 'I made it with 2151 mod parts that are balanced to stock liquids + solids '. Not a single bit.

Ask Harvester. He said he came up with 'just some numbers' - not a carefully balanced SRB. Reason enough to change it.

So, I hope this pack balances its SRB\'s to reason instead of using the not carefully chosen numbers that make little sense.

That\'s all.

[Commander Zoom]

But until he changes it, that is the number we should be shooting for. IMO.

Otherwise, we\'re all just pulling numbers out of... thin air. :/

Personally, I use modded SRBs not because they\'re overpowered, but because I want fewer, taller ones that burn longer. I\'m all about fewer, nicer looking parts instead of massive Jenga-stacks, which I find unaesthetic.

When it comes to the numbers we should be basing those on, however, I think we should go with the ones used by the guy who wrote this program. (Imagine that.)

[Tiberion]

Actually I didn\'t move the thrust much yet - the boosters always seemed to be about the right power;

The short stacking 1m is 300, the sidemount Energia-style is 320, and the SSRB is 350 - the mini-booster is 80

The 1.75 was 1.75x the thrust, but it was too powerful and breaking things, so its rolled back to 600 even.

The main adjustments were to flight time, 40 seconds for the shorter ones, 70 for the longer ones (since they arent quite 2x as long)

I never considered balancing against the stock SRB since they really seem off

[Spoot Knight]

When it comes to the numbers we should be basing those on, however, I think we should go with the ones used by the guy who wrote this program. (Imagine that.)

With this logic, you\'d be going straight back to what you said earlier in this same post.

massive Jenga-stacks, which I find unaesthetic.

Also. If using actual data and applying a scaling system to them as just before mentioned, as so:

based on a reduced ISP / heavier weight for the same performance as the liquids of the same weight, ie reality.

It\'s really not pulling numbers out of thin air, there\'s actually being some thought put into them.

[Commander Zoom]

I think all parts, upscaled or not, should use the same numbers (or best approximation possible).

If the original numbers are IYO wrong, then IMO you should petition the program creator to fix them, officially.

Rather than making up your own and declaring them not only more to your preference, but objectively superior.

In practical terms, we\'ve got how many code/performance forks now? There\'s stock, and then there\'s NS\' version, and now...

If we\'re no longer all playing the same game, then what\'s the point?

I might as well make a 'lander' that\'s a single stage, as light as thistledown, with infinite fuel and enough thrust to put me in Kerbol orbit before Jeb can finish saying 'let\'s light this candle.'

We need some sort of reasonable baseline, and if the baseline is currently IYO not reasonable, then it needs to be fixed, not ignored.

[feanor]

But until he changes it, that is the number we should be shooting for. IMO.

Otherwise, we\'re all just pulling numbers out of... thin air. :/

No. You take liquids, slightly reduce ISP, and voila. Balanced. Not pulledo out of thin air, but balanced compared to the rest of the program.

When it comes to the numbers we should be basing those on, however, I think we should go with the ones used by the guy who wrote this program. (Imagine that.)

The very problem I have is that there is not one set of numbers that are used by the guy who wrote the program. There is a marked, very sharp diffirence in the numbers for liquids and the ones for solids; that\'s the whole point; there are 2 sets of numbers.

To give an illustration; Orbit with stock solids only. Just try it.

Now orbit with stock liquids only.

I assume you know the real-life diffirences between solids and liquids?

ISP for lower stages is around 285, compared to 339 isp for LOX/RP1.

ISP for solid upper stages can be as high as 303, compared to 359 for lox/rp1.

This is assuming ACP/ APCP fuel.

These fuels are not totally optimized; harder to handle and more dangerous solids exist with better ISP. ( with cool names like Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane - also known as china-lake compound 20 )

This clearly shows the small gap, and why we should not use the numbers by the guy who wrote the program. Use the biggest set of numbers, of liquids and liquid tanks and command pod and RCS tanks and RCS blocks, sure. But there is no reason whatsoever to fix a mistake that was made by the maker and use that, instead of dogmatically make every solid rocket hoplessly underpowered just because that was the case with the stock one in a very early version of KSP.

Yes, I just said that Harvester made a mistake with the stock solid. I have a ton of arguments for this, a few of which you\'ve already heard. I personally think it\'s impossible that they\'ll not be changed or atleast a better version introduced, likely with a big update that\'ll fix certain balancing issues ( decouplers weighing 0.4, heh? ) all at once. I see no reason whatsoever to continue using these numbers.

This is arguing from real-life rockets.

Arguing from possible KSP lore and logic is also possible. Solids are easier and are basically explosions. They make bigger booms and can\'t be turned off or controlled as easy as a liquid. Liquids require stuff like plumbing and cryogenic turbopumps, while a solid is basically a steel tube plugged on one side.

[Commander Zoom]

So is someone going to make a damn thread in KSP Development about this, or do I have to?

[Tiberion]

Don\'t make a thread, its been done. Harv KNOWS the parts aren\'t scaled exactly great, but its an ALPHA and missing many major features yet, now is NOT the time for him to thrash about on part balancing.

Mod makers are useful for this, to find out what scales and numbers work well in the engine - we\'re doing our jobs.

I can say fairly definitevely that just scaling up stock numbers will break the engine as it stands when we reach the scale of items in this pack and such - the weights and thrusts get TOO HIGH and things fall apart. Go back a few pages and try the 0.5x release - it was 100% stock scaled for tanks and engines and it was a hot mess and that was WITHOUT maintaining the ludicrous weights that the engine has.

[feanor]

Actually I didn\'t move the thrust much yet - the boosters always seemed to be about the right power;

The short stacking 1m is 300, the sidemount Energia-style is 320, and the SSRB is 350 - the mini-booster is 80

The 1.75 was 1.75x the thrust, but it was too powerful and breaking things, so its rolled back to 600 even.

The main adjustments were to flight time, 40 seconds for the shorter ones, 70 for the longer ones (since they arent quite 2x as long)

I never considered balancing against the stock SRB since they really seem off

Thrust is not the only way to improve ISP - burn time is the other! so you\'ve already fixed them. Burn times of roughly 1 minute are reasonably in scale with reality / rest of KSP. 40 sounds quite correct, upper limit should be something like 90 I think. My SRB\'s on my ICBM pack burn for 50 each, and I find them quite allright, perhaps a tiny bit too much. Might downscale to 45 or so.

So is someone going to make a damn thread in KSP Development about this, or do I have to?

The reason there is such a thing as Silisko edition is because he was annoyed by decoupler weight and diffirent values not working together aswell. Stock KSP actually pushes you to use as much single-stage to orbit as you can, instead of the realistic ( and cool! ) staging.

I\'ll see what I can do, although I think I mentioned it a few times to harvester, together with ASAS weight ( should be lighter, smaller and more expensive compared to normal SAS ) and decoupler weights. I\'ll think about writing something about solids. Too much in one post will dilute it too much, perhaps...

[Commander Zoom]

IMO, when we\'re almost at the point where we\'re going to have to pay to play, we are at or past the point where the most basic parts should be balanced. That\'s only the core of the game upon which all else rests, you know. Being able to put a rocket together, out of the box, and have it work right.

Or should .13 ship with a readme that says 'hey, these parts you just paid for are actually trash, everyone knows it, go download these instead to get a working game'?

[Tiberion]

They aren\'t trash - they just don\'t scale up to realistic rockets - they work as designed for the style of gameplay created for the core game - where tiny aliens cobble together things to launch makeshift rockets which result in explodey things. For that purpose, they\'re more than adequate.

[feanor]

IMO, when we\'re almost at the point where we\'re going to have to pay to play, we are at or past the point where the most basic parts should be balanced. That\'s only the core of the game upon which all else rests, you know. Being able to put a rocket together, out of the box, and have it work right.

Or should .13 ship with a readme that says 'hey, these parts you just paid for are actually trash, everyone knows it, go download these instead to get a working game'?

Nah. I pay for the game engine / background / map view / planets, that sort of update. I can\'t remember when I last used a stock part in any of my rockets. Perhaps a RCS thruster - so i\'m not paying for stock parts anyway!

The balance issue is not really that hard to do. I think we\'re getting closer to a good time for doing some basics, but there\'s nowhere near some sort of 'deadline' after which you can\'t change them. Even for the free edition. I suspect there\'ll be a flood of stock parts ( like docking ports, landing legs ) and things like 2m diameter tanks / engines in stock variants - they\'ll need to be there for the campaign. That\'s when you want to have a good balance in place, anywhere before that, it\'s not really needed.

Remember, it\'s still an unfinished game. Lots of time to fix stuff.

[Commander Zoom]

Either the numbers are good, and we should all be using them as our yardstick; or the numbers are bad, and we are all just building on sand, and (IMO) we are NOT at the point where people should be asked to, let alone required to pay.

(I know it\'s pretty much industry practice these days to ship unfinished and/or broken games to retail and patch them later, or rely on the community to fix them for you, but frankly, I expected better.)

[Taverius]

.... so anyway.

Yeah, 0.7, neat stuff bro!

Still getting component separation on the 2->3m decoupler, but its manageable with heavy struts now.

the 2, 3m SAS are nice, but need a little tweaking:

- they feel a little weak compared to how much effect a 1m sas has on a similarly-proportioned 1m stack, and that\'s when stacking multiples together. this will probably be easier when we can insert them in between tanks and run some garden hose fuel pipes around them, but for now I\'m eyeballing them at double/triple for 2m and triple/quadruple for 3m, and that\'s on a relatively squat well balanced rocket.

- The models are a little short. Or, the collision models are a little long. Either way, I can see the sky through them.

- The 2m model is a little narrower than actual 2m stack stuff.

See picture of Avenger I, and note the frankly terrifying see-through SAS joints. The booster-less A-I is actually unstable outside atmospheric stabilization pressures, because 1 nanoSAS on capsule nose, 1 SAS on lander pedestal (inside fairing), 3 2m sas and 2 3m SAS don\'t cut it unless the gymballing engines are running. If I use 3/4 3m SAS, that\'s where the rocket tears itself apart during mid-atmosphere wobble phase, thanks to pronounced junction flex + having all that SAS force in one spot.

Amusingly, I\'ve had a 4x3m SAS stack in testing Avenger-x rockets bend all the way to 90 degrees without structural failure ...

Anyhoo, this static instability makes the middle stage separation interesting, as it tends to spin and collide with the spent lower stage. ASAS-driven RCS doesn\'t help, as the fairing unbalances it, such that pitch and yaw also have a small but measurable lateral translation effect ...

Yes, I\'m 'cheating' by using Intrepid main boosters