Hitperson Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Another note: the small liquid fuel engine was almost enough to get me into orbit from a failed launch (1k alt) not once did it get close of overheating. it might need balancing a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted July 31, 2011 Author Share Posted July 31, 2011 Sunday, about your RCS Module, is there any reason why it's type is CommandPod and not SASModule? It seems to be causing Kerbals to die from the multiple Command Pod issue.It's been brought up in this thread: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=1408.0Arrr!Capt'n SkunkyIt's a command pod because that's the only module with attitude control functionality. SAS modules can't function in that way. I set the crash tolerance of the Yawmaster extremely high so it will survive falls from any height, however if you blow it up with exhaust (after jettisoning a stage) it probably won't survive that as there's no way to harden parts to exhaust damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishy Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 if its the same problems with the decouplers(specifically the ones designed to hide the engines) i'm having is that they can't support crap for weight. they buckle in on themselves since the top half of the decoupler is fake theres no physical mass to hold it and what its connected to in place. so if you put a semi heavy stage above them the whole thing collapses in on its self.if need be i can do some screen shots to show what happens.The 4x fuel burner engine also can't support much weightBtw, can you fix it so you can only attach something one way on the decoupler? Now if you put it 1cm too high it'll explode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 If you increase the weight and crash tolerence of the hollow decouplers it seems to help the stability issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirmonkey Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 ok a few other things i've found that can be annoying sometimes if your really into the building large rockets.. 1 stacking 2 of the large tanks works maybe 1 out of 10 times.. 6 out of the 10 times they become detached on the pad, the rest of the time half the ship moves and the other half from the second tank up sits stationary and the bottom half flies right through it into a big explosion.. and a large percentage of the ones that do take off, if the ship wobbles more then a couple degree's everything above the fuel take just falls off like its only being held in place due to the engine thrust.other part, the large engine cover decoupler doesn't work covering the large engine. it instantly breaks even though the ships attached it renders the ship useless on the pad.these are just things i've noticed, still love the mod and i'm not sure if its limitations due to the game/game engine that these things happen so i figured i'd bring em up anyways.grr god dangit as i'm typing this my friggin ship explodes due the fuel tank losing connection to the nose cone.. ARGGGG!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salda007 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Hey, quick Q - Did you mean to make the basic 1m no-shroud cosmetics-only decoupler 50% heavier than the stock one? The standard decoupler has 0.8 mass, yours has 1.2. Yours is prettier, but looks ain't everything, and on some builds, .4 mass can make a difference...(Love the pack! Keep up the awesome work!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Yeah that's deliberate, that decoupler is more powerful than the stock one (stock decoupler strength is 10, mine is 30). I didn't think there was much point just replicating the stock coupler exactly so I made it different enough to fill different needs. It's better for jettisoning heavy stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salda007 Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Yeah that's deliberate, that decoupler is more powerful than the stock one (stock decoupler strength is 10, mine is 30). I didn't think there was much point just replicating the stock coupler exactly so I made it different enough to fill different needs. It's better for jettisoning heavy stages.Ahh, okay; the description of the item in the pack and on the thread made it sound like it was just a re-model/skin. M'thinks I might do some .cfg tweaking into 'Standard Duty' and 'Heavy Duty' options... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 2011 You're right, I'll change the description to make it clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted August 6, 2011 Author Share Posted August 6, 2011 Because KSP doesn't play well with high mass parts, the 3 metre fuel tanks have much lower mass and fuel volume than they really should. The big orange tanks have a volume around 30 times that of the stock tanks, but any attempt to give it values in line with its physical size just makes it collapse on the pad. If I strengthen it enough to survive its dead weight then the level of thrust required to lift the huge mass off the pad just tears the rocket to pieces.So, I'm having a hard time deciding what sort of values would be suitable for the big tanks. Anyone got any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted August 6, 2011 Author Share Posted August 6, 2011 Working on some new stuff too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt'n Skunky Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 OOoo! Me likey!Are those ullage or vernier thrusters I see?Arr!Capt'n Skunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gevo Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I actually modded the fuel capacity and masses of your 3m tank and the other 2m tank to what I felt was in line with your tall 1m tank...47.25 mass24k fuel9.6 dry massand in the 2m tank21 mass5k fuel2.4 dry massit can be a pain in the ass to get them moving, and can take quite a lot of thrustwith the radial coupler to strap more engines to the fuel tanks and lift them you can get the necessary thrust to lift a 3m+2m and pod+other stuff into escape velocities, but its slow and delicate, and you can't really stack themI like the way it plays though as with your 1.08 pack your tall 1m tank is just amazing that your 3m and the other 2m feel uselesswould be nice if it played better in KSP though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted August 6, 2011 Author Share Posted August 6, 2011 OOoo! Me likey!Are those ullage or vernier thrusters I see?Arr!Capt'n SkunkyYes sir, they act like SAS units that you can attach radially.I like the way it plays though as with your 1.08 pack your tall 1m tank is just amazing that your 3m and the other 2m feel uselesswould be nice if it played better in KSP thoughYeah that's why I asked for suggestions on balancing them better. Thanks for the input! Did you not have problems with your rockets collapsing with such high masses for the tanks? Because that's always what happens when I try values that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andras Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I've been thinking about the 2m and 3m tanks and engines also. These are the numbers I've been toying with:LFT- Wt-Fuelstock 2.5 500HH77 Orange 3 600Double 5 10002m short 6 15002m full sized 7 20003m large 8 3600with the thrust and burn numbers on some of the engines adjusted so:LFE-wt-thrust-burnstock 2 200 8GG-M4 2 300 14M-50 2.5 400 18TK-31 3 600 26EX500 3 500 20EX600 4 600 30EX800 5 800 40EX1000 5 1000 502mBertha 2 750 32BigF2M 3 900 363m quad 2 1350 54BigF3M 6 1200 45(some of the weights haven't been adjusted yet)What about a 'scale' factor'? The realistic weight/fuel and thrust/burn are all divided by the same numberIstead of having a 3m tank with a capacity of 11,000 and a weight of 55, you might divide those by three, and instead of having a 3m engine with a burn of 244 and a thrust of 6100, divide those by three also.For the 2m parts, divide by 2 instead of 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 We should perform a corporate merger into Sunday Silisko's Wobbly Rocket Manufacturing & Doughnut Research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted August 6, 2011 Author Share Posted August 6, 2011 We should perform a corporate merger into Sunday Silisko's Wobbly Rocket Manufacturing & Doughnut Research.Only if I get to be CEO Thanks for those numbers Andras, I'm going to spend some time tomorrow trying to overhaul the fuel tank configs. One more teaser to keep you going until the next version (few days out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 Only if I get to be CEO Thanks for those numbers Andras, I'm going to spend some time tomorrow trying to overhaul the fuel tank configs. One more teaser to keep you going until the next version (few days out).Both of us would be CEO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gevo Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Yeah that's why I asked for suggestions on balancing them better. Thanks for the input! Did you not have problems with your rockets collapsing with such high masses for the tanks? Because that's always what happens when I try values that high.They will fly with just a couple at those weights, but when you're applying thrust you have to start at zero and ease it up until it starts moving and then back right off.Also gotta be creative on your bottom stage design so as to distribute all the weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Punch Posted August 7, 2011 Author Share Posted August 7, 2011 can't stop making partssome possibilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andras Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 I like the cluster of 7, and the paired nozzles. I'm not sure about the ones that stick out the sides because it would be harder to add external parts. A 3m plate with 4 slots would also be welcome I think.ETA- I just noticed the size differences, a 2m 2x1m plate and a 2m 3x1m plate would be nice.PS- could you upsize the lateral triple coupler so it'll work on three 2m tanks side by side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Can't let you do the 2 meter parts - those are MY territory!I already peed on them to mark the territory too so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feanor Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 can't stop making partssome possibilitiesI want them all!Finally I can make my Falcon 9, my proton, my atlas v, my gemini titan!gimme gimme gimme! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossman Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Can't let you do the 2 meter parts - those are MY territory!I already peed on them to mark the territory too so...No2m parts made by sunday punch will go better with the other parts already made by sunday punchYou could at least make some alternatives to the medium bertha 2m engineThat thing is a massive POS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 No2m parts made by sunday punch will go better with the other parts already made by sunday punchYou could at least make some alternatives to the medium bertha 2m engineThat thing is a massive POSHey I managed to make an enemy without actually trying this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts