NovaSilisko Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 I am going to begin work on Silisko Edition 2 soon. It won\'t replace the vanilla parts as the old set did, and will not reuse models from KSP (except the mk1 pod). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Woo! Looks like we got another mod pack entering the second generation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombiphylax Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Eeeexcellent.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 First new development: Parachute, decoupler, and a pod.First landing was (mostly) nominal: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDamitt Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I\'ve been meaning to post for a while to commend you on your parts.You defiantly produce some of the best models around here from what I\'ve seen.If I had to give you some constructive advice, each window on the BACE Habitat has 116 polys.You could recess that window without loosing much if any detail with less than half those polys.Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gubru Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Woah, nice pod! Am really digging the chute, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablock Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 A totally redesigned Silisko Edition was really unexpected. Interesting.If it won\'t replace stock parts... does it mean it will be balanced for stock game? Or will it include new cfg\'s for stock parts? This is confusing.Guess we\'ll see eventually. Even if this ends up just 80% as good as the original it would still be one of the best packs out there if not the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 A totally redesigned Silisko Edition was really unexpected. Interesting.If it won\'t replace stock parts... does it mean it will be balanced for stock game? Or will it include new cfg\'s for stock parts? This is confusing.Guess we\'ll see eventually. Even if this ends up just 80% as good as the original it would still be one of the best packs out there if not the best.No, it won\'t touch the stock parts. It will be balanced the same way as the old Silisko Edition, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 No, it won\'t touch the stock parts. It will be balanced the same way as the old Silisko Edition, though.Ahh, so it\'ll coexist with the standard game, but still balanced differently?Also, have you considered making a version balanced for the mainline game? I\'m cool with whatever decision you make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 Ahh, so it\'ll coexist with the standard game, but still balanced differently?Also, have you considered making a version balanced for the mainline game? I\'m cool with whatever decision you make.Well, as you (and likely everyone else, by now ) know, I really don\'t like how the vanilla parts are balanced - so, these will be using my standard. But, people didn\'t like me replacing the default parts, so I\'m doing away with that aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesus KerBeard Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 So are you still updating BACE? I was looking forward to those telescopes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombiphylax Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Well, as you (and likely everyone else, by now ) know, I really don\'t like how the vanilla parts are balanced - so, these will be using my standard. But, people didn\'t like me replacing the default parts, so I\'m doing away with that aspect.Haha, it\'s not like KSP is that big. I have a vanilla KSP folder, KSP-2 is dedicated to your packs, KSP-3 is dedicated to C7, and KSP-4 was just created for the Ausplane and the Hope shuttle packs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Well, as you (and likely everyone else, by now ) know, I really don\'t like how the vanilla parts are balanced - so, these will be using my standard. But, people didn\'t like me replacing the default parts, so I\'m doing away with that aspect.What I\'m saying is are you going to make it compatible with other mod packs? It won\'t matter to me because I\'ll just rebalance them anyway and keep your numbers in their own installation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 What I\'m saying is are you going to make it compatible with other mod packs? It won\'t matter to me because I\'ll just rebalance them anyway and keep your numbers in their own installation.It\'s unlikely. I\'m taking a more scientific approach, this time. I\'m actually designing the internal structure, and basing fuel values off of that.For example, let\'s assume that fuel in KSP has the same density of water - the tank on the left is right around 0.75 cubic meters, which gives a weight of around 750 kg. In KSP units, that\'s 0.75 mass. Would 0.25 empty mass be too much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I think dry mass should be dependent on the apparent 'material' of the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoxtane Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I think dry mass should be dependent on the apparent 'material' of the tank.The stronger the material, the heavier the tank overall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The stronger the material, the heavier the tank overall?In a way. If the tank is pressurized its obviously going to need to be strong enough to hold the fluid in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 I\'m going for a total mass of 0.75 for fuel, and 0.15 for tank structure, resulting in 0.9 for total tank mass. In terms of fuel units, should I do 1 unit = 1 kg, or 1 unit = 10 kg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 1 unit = 1 kg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 1 unit = 1 kgOkay. I\'m worried, though. Having 750 units of fuel in a tank that weighs 0.9 mass... People thought the old Silisko Edition was unbalanced, it seems like this would be even worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I don\'t really see why-the \'fuel units\' are completely meaningless on their own, it\'s how many there are relative to the engines you make that\'ll actually affect things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Indeed, as long as the engines burn rates are balanced right, you\'ll have no problems.I mean, KW Rocketry has heavy tanks filled with tons of fuel, and correspondingly heavy fuel consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted February 4, 2012 Author Share Posted February 4, 2012 And yet, people complain about C7\'s pack being overpowered due to its high fuel capacity and low consumption engines - they\'re designed to simulate aircraft, of course they\'re not balanced for spacecraft... :x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 And yet, people complain about C7\'s pack being overpowered due to its high fuel capacity and low consumption engines - they\'re designed to simulate aircraft, of course they\'re not balanced for spacecraft... :xC7 is making the fuselages in three different configurations. One is structural, one is for atmospheric flight, and the other is for spaceflight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 People complain about everything though The real issue is when they use fuel-rich tanks with super-efficient engines from another pack. The NP tanks hold more fuel per weight than KW tanks, so when someone uses my tanks with their engines, it gets a little OP, but if I had just cut the numbers to 10% then they\'d do the opposite, use the efficient engines designed for 1fuelunit=1kg and strap them on other tanks.In the end, you can\'t worry about what people do with the parts on their own - if you can make the numbers work somewhat with other packs then cool, but its how your own parts work together thats the main thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts