I'm sorry, I... I just don't like ARM... :(

[Rakaydos]

Out of curiosity, has anyone run the numbers for the buffed ion engines vs the nerva? What mass makes one engine better than the other?

[cantab]

I believe the ion engines will be capable of giving more delta-V for any size ship. However, using them will involve more parts and longer burn times.

[Red Iron Crown]

Yeah, the ion is a bit difficult to calculate because it has such large electrical requirements.

I actually don't mind if the ion is a bit overpowered, it was painful to use before due to the long burn times. It's still a bit painful, but far less so.

[cantab]

Being short on power doesn't actually affect the delta-V though, it only worsens the already-probably-low TWR. And then you have to get into what people's personal tolerance for burn times is.

[raygundan]

I know you're kidding, but it feels like going against the modular, lego-like flavor of KSP to have a fuel tank integrated into an engine. Same with combining engines into a multi-engine adapter, without giving us the adapter by itself.

Think of them as user-friendly optimizations for people playing on low-end computers. Just playing around a bit, the new two-engine liquid booster cut more than 100 parts from my "old standby" heavy-lifter design, opening up some real possibilities for cool new stuff that I couldn't have done without slamming into the part-count wall.

If you prefer the look, process, feel, or performance of hand-building clusters... you still can. And both of us probably still will.

[Vaporized Steel]

I completely agree about ARM. If you stack only a few ARM tanks on top of 1 stage you can orbit and deorbited a crewed mk 1-2 pod. This is cartoon rocketry at it's best. Although then again many (Earth) first rocket stages do contain 4.5-4.7km/s of delta V. So although not that far fetched it destructs gameplay on tiny Kerbin.

I don't understand why squad has it added to the game. Besides the necessary ARM parts like the claw I don't use the rocket ARM parts but just the old parts which actually makes your play feel gamey and thus not boring.

I think it's a great idea to have the ARM pack optional.

In my opinion however I do like the asteroids themselves. Just not the parts in the ARM package. But let's face it. Squad really isn't going to categorize asteroids and ARM part grouped on the internet. But IMHO it would be much better. I can Always download a user made docking system (claw/grabbing unit) to catch any asteroids. Assuming one will definetely program one.

Also the ARM package naturally forces KSP to load all those parts into computer RAM which KSP can run very low on running alongside with so many mods. Even although with just ARM such limit is not yet reached by a long shot. But if they keep continueing adding things every update just for a select public they must eventually leave such plugins to the modding community. Or either optimize their game first to her ultimate glory and then come with dozens of stock build in packages. Hopefully they do not continue this trend of future releases. Otherwise the devs are still awesome for creating one of the best games.

Oh and btw you can just ignore the whole asteroid thing if you don't like it. Including the parts in the vab. It's not like the KSC will explode if a asteroid hits there, albeit the planet kerbin.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Vaporized Steel

[MGCJerry]

Didn't read whole thread. tl;dr...

IMO... If you paid for the game, you have the right to complain.

Personally, I love the new parts. Helps a lot with lag if you can use a handfull of SLS parts to get 90 ton into orbit vs say 200 parts to get the same into orbit... But it is fun to watch a 200+ part behemoth fall apart because of a minor staging malfunction, thank kerbal there's a LES now. Just because parts are available, doesn't mean they have to be used. I just hope an asteroid doesnt destroy one of my orbiting... experiments. I use the old and new parts alike to build all kinds of weird stuff.

Also the new update fixed all kinds of stuff and added persistent maneuver nodes. Sure they're still a pain sometimes, but they're less of a pain.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I'm loving most of the ARM pack but a few things are bugging me:

1 - The OPness of all the new parts. It fine for them to have higher thrust as they're bigger but being more efficient and lighter just damages the balance.

2 - Some of the parts could have been split into several parts. The LFB KR-1x2 could be split into a tank, and adapter and an engine while the S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster could also be split into an adapter and engine. That way they could be used for a greater variety of things.

Overall however I've really enjoyed this update.

[Dunbaratu]

Think of them as user-friendly optimizations for people playing on low-end computers. Just playing around a bit, the new two-engine liquid booster cut more than 100 parts from my "old standby" heavy-lifter design, opening up some real possibilities for cool new stuff that I couldn't have done without slamming into the part-count wall.

If you prefer the look, process, feel, or performance of hand-building clusters... you still can. And both of us probably still will.

Clustering in anything other than the bottommost stage is made highly problematic by the artificial game limitation that a craft must have a tree structure.

What putting the clusters in one part does is allow you to have a clustered stage 2 without then requiring maintaining the split all the way to the bottom of the rocket. You can't build a Saturn V clone in stock KSP without such a part because a Saturn V needs to split out to multiple engines in stage 2, then fuse back together into 1 large cylinder again for stage 1's fuel tank, then split out into multiple engines again at the bottom of stage 1. That splitting out and then fusing back together again is unsupported by KSP stock.

[Dunbaratu]

I'm loving most of the ARM pack but a few things are bugging me:

1 - The OPness of all the new parts. It fine for them to have higher thrust as they're bigger but being more efficient and lighter just damages the balance.

The balance works fine if you're playing career mode not sandbox, because you don't get access to those engines until the later part of the game. So there's plenty of reasons to use the other rockets for a while - because they're all you have.

[Red Iron Crown]

Clustering in anything other than the bottommost stage is made highly problematic by the artificial game limitation that a craft must have a tree structure.

What putting the clusters in one part does is allow you to have a clustered stage 2 without then requiring maintaining the split all the way to the bottom of the rocket. You can't build a Saturn V clone in stock KSP without such a part because a Saturn V needs to split out to multiple engines in stage 2, then fuse back together into 1 large cylinder again for stage 1's fuel tank, then split out into multiple engines again at the bottom of stage 1. That splitting out and then fusing back together again is unsupported by KSP stock.

I don't think the clustered engines have bottom attachment nodes, so they're no help for upper stages.

Lots of Saturn V clones in stock KSP, you just attach the lower stacks to the central engine of the upper stack.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The balance works fine if you're playing career mode not sandbox, because you don't get access to those engines until the later part of the game. So there's plenty of reasons to use the other rockets for a while - because they're all you have.

Erm... Mainsail compared with LFB.

LFB is more powerful, more efficient, lighter and on the same tech node. That's not balanced for career either.

[michaelhester07]

Yea i'll admit I replaced the mainsail with the LFB. Lighter, more powerful, more efficient, and doesn't threaten to overheat. I can stack another Rocomax jumbo tank on it too, its compatible.

The rest of the engines are awesome for launching huge payloads and keeping the part count low.

[Jouni]

2 - Some of the parts could have been split into several parts. The LFB KR-1x2 could be split into a tank, and adapter and an engine while the S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster could also be split into an adapter and engine. That way they could be used for a greater variety of things.

The problem with adapters is that the engines in the LFB and the engine cluster are obviously 2.5 m engines with smaller attachment plates. The KS-25 engine is roughly comparable to the Skipper in size, while the KR-1 is a bit larger.

I once tried building an SLS replica with dual Mainsails in each of the boosters, and four Skippers in the core. It worked surprisingly well after some tweaking.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I once tried building an SLS replica with dual Mainsails in each of the boosters, and four Skippers in the core. It worked surprisingly well after some tweaking.

I'm actually doing exactly the same and it works very well. Also reduces the thrust of the core stage to act more like the real SLS.

Trouble is I'm have to clip 5 or 6 of the largest SRBs into each other to make them act like the SLS ones. :/ SRBs in KSP are somewhat an amusing joke atm.

[Dingbat1967]

I agree with many of the posters here, the new parts are fairly OPed. If you compare the TWR/ISP of the mainsail versus the two engine cluster part, the latter has better overall performance and is probably outside of the "thrust curve" ratios we've seen with most parts. This being said, they do add the advantage of using less parts to accomplish the same task which helps with frame rates.

Overall, I'm just not using them, leaving them for last in my career mode progression(s).

- Dingbat

[FishInferno]

I agree that the new parts are OP, but they will probably be VERY expensive when budgets come out, reducing their OP-ness.

[Liowen]

For the career mode I will bet that once we have an actual currency concerns the new parts will get both a new home in the tech tree and be overly expensive (except maybe the claw) to be used once unlocked. For sandbox mode that is more play as you like and as such it is up to you to decide what parts you are using, saying it is just easier is a cop out for being lazy. Heck in my career mode I just sent a mission to Gilly using all the 1.25m parts while having access to the bigger parts and new parts. If you are saying that you HAVE to use them that is a lie, you do not have to use any part in this game that you do not want to use as there is no set standard to follow. The new parts make getting 200 ton things into orbit too easy, then build something that is 800 ton and try to get that into orbit. Send a full space station into orbit in one launch that you have to undock every piece once in orbit to put it together instead of multiple missions.

[tychochallenge]

with ion engines buffed up, i'm not sure why they even call it an ion drive..., they should change the name to electrical engine and add a stock ion engine the same as it was before, perhaps even weaker

[NKL]

The new engine being OP, check. Need some tweaking. However I do not like the idea to kind of "force" people to build "that way" because it's lot more efficient, not good either (pair by pair asparagus).

We have to think with the big picture in mind. Contract will be added, with fund managing.

I agree that the new parts are OP, but they will probably be VERY expensive when budgets come out, reducing their OP-ness.

edit: arf does not have read your post before posting. I feel the same about this. It seems realist to me that freshly started space companies cannot afford big -more efficient- -easier to fly- -easier to build- rocket booster.