Jump to content

Balancing Parts in KSP


Recommended Posts

As time has went on, I've gathered quite a few ideas on some simple part-balancing changes that I think would make parts not so underpowered or overpowered. Take a look at some ideas I have for the cockpits and probe cores in KSP, and tell me what you think. I also have suggestions for engines, fuel tanks, SAS, rover wheels, etc. but I will add those only after I get a few responses from the community.

Aircraft Cockpits

I think that the torque, mass, and impact tolerances are pretty good on the aircraft cockpits (Mk1, Mk2, and Mk3), but the drag values don't make any sense. I think they should all be set to a value of 0.2.

Mk2 Lander Can

This lander can is ridiculously heavy for its statistics. I think that a mass of 1.1 tons would make it more balanced. My reasoning behind this is that two of Mk1 lander cans are usually better in every way than a Mk2 lander can. Two Mk1 cans total 1.2 tons, so making the Mk2 lander can a bit less than that makes sense. If 1.1 tons seems a bit overpowered, the impact tolerance could be lowered to perhaps 6 m/s.

Cupola Module

The Cupola module could have two parameters changed to make it more balanced - mass and drag. It makes sense to me that the Cupola is kind of fragile and a bit heavy, but I think 4.5 tons is a bit overdone. That's even heavier than a 3-man command pod! 2.5 tons makes more sense to me. It's still pretty heavy, but not ridiculously heavy.

Probodobodyne QBE

In comparison to the OKTO2, the QBE is twice as heavy. It does have good impact tolerance, but to the honest, most of the time impact tolerance isn't that important for probe cores. Thus, since the QBE's description makes it sound like a high-tech probe, maybe it would use less electricity than the other probe cores (1.0 e/m).

Probodobodyne HECS and OKTO

Since these probe cores are basically the same as the OKTO2 probe core, I think their masses should be reduced to 0.05 and their reaction torque reduced to 0.15.

Small Remote Guidance Unit

One of the problems with this guidance unit is its low torque. It's very hard to rotate a 1.25m ship around with only this guidance unit, if this ship has any respectable size at all. I think giving it a reaction torque of 3 makes sense. The ASAS module has a reaction torque of 20. Twenty divided by 5 (since its mass is 0.5) gives 4. That means for a mass of 0.1, it would have a torque of 4. Thus, giving the Small Remote Guidance Unit a torque of 3 makes sense.

Large Remote Guidance Unit

The same problem occurs with the large guidance unit as with the small one - it has a really tiny amount of torque. Giving the Large Remote Guidance Unit a torque of 15 makes sense, and is just an extrapolation from my calculations for the small guidance unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aircraft Cockpits: I think that a lower drag are well suited for this cockpits as they are AIRCRAFT cockpits, especially for mk1 and 2.

Mk2 Lander Can: Mk2 is a bit heavy indeed but u should consider this is suited for large size landers, where the mass of the lander compared to other large components is not that much and it also have 25% more torqe than 2 mk1 toghether (also 2 small cockpit on a large lander look terribly ugly if u ask me)

Cupola Module: the price of beauty, glass, glass everywhere, glass = MASS. " The PPD-12 was developed to provide a high visibility control room for ORBITAL STATIONS" u shoudn't really use that anywhere else.

Probodobodyne QBE: i agree, but they should set the torqe to 0.1... how can u fit a effective rotation disk in a squared chasing?

Probodobodyne HECS and OKTO: OKTO2 is 1/3 their height, and u can't place things there effectly, so they're ok as they are.

Small Remote Guidance Unit + Large Remote Guidance Unit: both have low torqe because this not an cockpit-inlay reaction hybrid, but a cockpit-battery hybrid, they have triple energy storage compared to other cockpit. also, as they have a standard inline form, u can fit really easy a inlay reaction immidiatly on top or under them and solve the torqe problem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything I don't note below:

I believe cockpit drag is higher so that airplanes tend to keep their noses forward. Perhaps tail fins and engines should instead have lower drag? Really, this needs to instead be fixed with better aerodynamics :)

Regarding probe cores, any change to either the OKTO2 or all other cores is a good idea. I have found I use the Stayputnik until I unlock the OKTO, and the OKTO until I unlock the OKTO2, and the OKTO2 from then on out. Either the 2 needs a nerf or the rest need a bonus. Yours sound fine but I haven't given it much thought.

EDIT: I mistook your Remote Guidance Units for Inline Reaction Wheels. What I said below relates to IRW's, and assume I lumped RGU's in the discussion above. I guess that means I had *two* things to add :)

I never liked that the SAS modules (remote guidance units, whatever. ASAS4LIFE) all had the same torque. The only reason to use the big one is aesthetics.

I'll add one: There's one radial decoupler with ridiculously low mass, so much that I really can't think of a practical reason to use the other two.

Edited by 5thHorseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm pretty sure lower drag makes the part tend towards the front of the craft... as seen with the fairly recent changes to the drag of the nosecone so that it has some actual use and isn't completely dead weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm pretty sure lower drag makes the part tend towards the front of the craft... as seen with the fairly recent changes to the drag of the nosecone so that it has some actual use and isn't completely dead weight.

You are absolutely right. I got confused!

However I disagree with the OP in a different way. I assumed they were higher than 0.2 but they're lower, which is exactly what we need. So by being wrong twice, I was actually correct in my thinking. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the lander can's role will become more pronounced when reentry heating comes in. Some of the groundwork (part heat tolerances) is already laid, and I think there are so many features like that, resource mining, and other things that would have much more comprehensive effects on gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree that the MK2 lander can is too heavy; around 1.5 tons would be good (comparable to 2 MK1s + a reaction wheel). At the moment, the Hitchhiker is better apart from IVA.

At the moment, we have 4 basic classes of command module: capsules (basic spacecraft, anything undergoing atmospheric entry), lander cans (landers, some rovers), cockpits (planes, some rovers), and probe cores (anything unmanned). Assuming reentry heating and life support will be eventually added:

Capsules and cockpits would have built-in heat shields and life support, but be the heaviest parts. Landers would be lighter, but more fragile. The command seat would of course rely on the EVA suit's life support, and have no built-in reaction wheels.

The cupola could represent a fifth class, for space stations and other large vehicles. It could seat 3 kerbals and be lighter than a M1-2 pod, but have no life-support or reaction wheels of its own, just like the real one. A single-seat 1.25m cupola could also be included. Its role would be on large vehicles which would already have reaction wheels and advanced life support systems like water recycling.

For now though, just make the thing seat 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting thoughts everyone. And sorry for not responding for a while - I totally forgot about this thread for a while.

I think now I understand why the drag values for the aircraft cockpits are strange - to keep the plane balanced.

I agree with the Armchair Rocket Scientist that it would make sense for the Cupola to seat three Kerbals. I actually think it did a while ago, but it doesn't anymore.

Edited by Andrew Hansen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wanted to bring up the subject of the Rockomax 48-7S engine. That thing really needs to be balanced. I also don't understand why in 0.23 its thrust was increased from 20 to 30. I think its thrust should be 15 - or even 10!

I think the developers wanted the radial Rockomax engines to be inferior to the 48-7S in thrust, so instead of nerfing the radial ones, they buffed the 48-7S.

Perhaps a solution is to rebrand the radial engines. I'm more likely to use the radial engines on a larger 1.25 meter lander than on a 0.625 one, so perhaps the scale, thrust, and weight of the radial engines can be increased. At the same time, the 48-7S doesn't have to worry about being better than the radial ones anymore because they're rebranded, so the thrust on that engine can be decreased to 15 or 10 so that it works better with 0.625 meter probes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, they should increase the durability and connection strength of the large asas. Since it is the perfect size to slap in the middle of a rocket, it shouldn't be so weak that when I open my chutes, the other half of my lander rips off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. For me only one thing: Why has FL-R10 RCS Fuel Tank capacity of 50 units of monopropellant, when 1.25m the same heigth FL-R25 RCS Fuel Tank 100, or the same sized Oscar-B less then 20 unit of rocket fuel? 25 would be more correct amout, wouldn't it? And why have Mk2 and Mk2 fuselages low fuel capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, they should increase the durability and connection strength of the large asas. Since it is the perfect size to slap in the middle of a rocket, it shouldn't be so weak that when I open my chutes, the other half of my lander rips off.

I agree. Also, it should weigh more and have 40 torque instead of 20, since it's supposed to be for larger rockets.

EDIT: But the chute-ripping problem isn't so much a problem with the SAS units as it is with the parachute deployment system. For a more realistic, gradual deployment, for now you have to use a mod like RealChutes.

Edited by Andrew Hansen
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.

×
×
  • Create New...