.23 Tweakables

[VenganzaD]

Please by all means correct me if I am wrong.

I would have sworn with the release of tweakables we would be able to change the contents of tanks, not just the volume, and if I heard correctly sort of "stretch them out" to make them bigger or smaller.

Has this been yet to be implemented or have I been mislead?

[Markus Reese]

Think it was a misinterperatation. I don't remember reading anything like that myself, Just capacities which can assist in mass and balancing.

[Eric S]

I disagree, they stated that tweakables would solve the problem of a liquid-fuel-only atomic engine needing liquid-only fuel tanks without needing to duplicate all the different tanks, and the current implementation doesn't solve that issue. I think it's possible that this was the first pass on tweakables, and that the more complicated tweakables will come later.

It's also possible that they changed their minds on the liquid-fuel-only atomic engines, so they feel they don't need the more comprehensive tweakables.

[Brotoro]

I very much like the tweakable parachutes. Being able to set the full deployment altitude makes setting up staged deployment for heavy rockets work better. I'd used manually-staged deployment of multiple chutes before, but you always had to wait for the first chute(s) to deploy at 500 meters before you could pop out the later chutes. But with tweakables, you can set the first chute(s) to open fully at 600 meters, and the rest to open fully at 500 meters... BUT now you can pop them ALL out early on so they can help slow down the ship while in reefed (semi-deployed) state, rather than only having the first chutes available for that.

[Sof]

We already have liquid fuel only tanks for use in aeroplanes.

[VenganzaD]

We already have liquid fuel only tanks for use in aeroplanes.

While not extremely practical, I imagined something like the FL-T800s with monopropellant or Stratus's with Xenon.

[Reicht]

WORDS I think it's possible that this was the first pass on tweakables, and that the more complicated tweakables will come later.

WORDS

So in your opinion the game isn't finished yet? Huh who woulda thunk it : P

[Camelotking524]

I just want toggleable engine fairings. Its a bit of a pain docking a ship when it still has engine fairings attached to the docking port.

And yes I know they go away after you quicksave, but loading a quick save always throws me out of alignment when doing an Apollo docking with the MM.

[LethalDose]

Yeah, IMO SQUAD really dropped the ball on tweakables, at least on this update. Not only can you not change the contents of the tanks, you can't even change the size of the compartments within each tank. I started this thread after KerbalKon when they let us down explained how it was going to work.

[Jason Cox]

I agree, I thought that the original plan called for being able to change the contents of the tanks as well. I'm a little disappointed that all we got was a slider control to change the load out of the tanks.

[JiWint]

...problem of a liquid-fuel-only atomic engine needing liquid-only fuel tanks...

I hope you mean Jet Engines

-parachute snap-

I thought normal (blue and small white) chutes have semi-deployed state too...Or I maybe misunderstood your post

[Ignamious]

I'm looking forward to having an add-on that adds more tweakables. IE: Right click and add Batt charge at the cost of a reduced fuel available as a whole.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

I hope you mean Jet Engines

Nope. Real nuclear-thermal rockets don't need oxidizer (although some designs can increase their thrust at the expense of Isp by inject oxidizer into the exhaust).

[samstarman5]

I agree that tweakables could allow replacing either Ox or fuel with the other, but frankly this is turning into an overly beaten horse, discussed since the update was released. I think Squad knows about this now, and it remains in their court whether to implement this with the next update. Repeating it is just a waste of space and by now unproductive.