Is the Orange Tank still your standard "yard stick"?

[Guest]

No, it actually makes it more realistic, I think, and closer to what rocket science should be about. You don't see overengineered, asparagus-staged mess on any real rocket. When Squad gets around to overhauling their placeholder aerodynamics, I imagine things are going to get a lot more streamlined. It's just that after we've finally got properly sized "large" tankage and engines to match does it become apparent just how simplified KSP is. If you take out artificial limits imposed by stock parts, the simplification quickly becomes apparent.

[Whackjob]

No, it actually makes it more realistic, I think, and closer to what rocket science should be about. You don't see overengineered, asparagus-staged mess on any real rocket. When Squad gets around to overhauling their placeholder aerodynamics, I imagine things are going to get a lot more streamlined. It's just that after we've finally got properly sized "large" tankage and engines to match does it become apparent just how simplified KSP is. If you take out artificial limits imposed by stock parts, the simplification quickly becomes apparent.

I was still able to launch my strange machines, even when I had FAR and RSS enabled. Realistic physics aren't gonna stop me.

[NecroBones]

I'd say about 70% back at the moment. Still having hardware issues with the new machine. Specifically, the bloody USB drives refuse to see mice or headsets. Not a clue why. Used my entire bag of tricks, plus a few other peoples', and so far no luck. So I'm using a lousy PS/2 mouse and keyboard.

You wouldn't happen to be using a Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H motherboard, would you? I found that not all of the USB ports are active during BIOS/boot, so moving the mouse and keyboard to different ports than the "obvious" location (move away from the PS/2 connector, for instance) solved it.

[The Error]

The orange tank is my meterstick, the new tanks are just over that size. I doubt the "How many orange tanks can X lift?" will ever go away.

[AmpsterMan]

I still use the orange and grey tanks as metersticks for a simple reason. My payloads are still in that size range. If we ever get larger payloads I'd consider a different standard.

[Pecan]

...You don't see overengineered, asparagus-staged mess on any real rocket...

BAIU

1. Is 'how a real rocket looks' the way it 'should' be in KSP?

2. If/when a 'real rocket' uses asparagus will it suddenly become ok in KSP?

3. Is asparagus the only way to make a mess of a rocket?

4. Have you really never seen an asparagus-staged rocket in KSP that looks good?

[Red Iron Crown]

Yeah, I don't get the hate for asparagus staging either. They can be made to look good and are efficient, what's not to like? How is it any less realistic than, say, onion staging or air hogging?

[ScottyDoesKnow]

BAIU

1. Is 'how a real rocket looks' the way it 'should' be in KSP?

2. If/when a 'real rocket' uses asparagus will it suddenly become ok in KSP?

3. Is asparagus the only way to make a mess of a rocket?

4. Have you really never seen an asparagus-staged rocket in KSP that looks good?

What's BAIU? And in my opinion:

1. Yes

2. Yes (but impossible without the magical fuel lines KSP has)

3. No

4. I have seen some that look good

Yeah, I don't get the hate for asparagus staging either. They can be made to look good and are efficient, what's not to like? How is it any less realistic than, say, onion staging or air hogging?

Asparagus staging and onion staging are both unrealistic, again because of KSP's fuel lines. Air hogging is also unrealistic, and I don't like it either. That's just me though, as a physics simulator game I'd prefer it if realistic designs came out on top.

Edit: And actually I do use asparagus because it's so effective, but I don't use air hogging because it almost seems like an exploit in game whereas fuel lines are there on purpose (realistic or not).

Edited April 8, 2014 by ScottyDoesKnow

[Pecan]

"BAIU" = "Because Asparagus Is Ugly". It almost seems to have become a truism for some people and is given out more frequently lately, usually without expansion, explanation or exception. All the ARM threads tend to an "SLS engines are overpowered"/"So what, asparagus is ugly" argument unfortunately.

On the questionnaire: 50%, at least you have an open mind ;-0

Answer 1 is "No, what it 'should' be is whatever each person wants it to be. If we're restricted to 'real rockets' we might as well use Orbiter"

Answer 2 is "Actually, there's already a prototype for that". (Saw it on the interweb so it must be true ^^. Can't find it now but honest, truely, cross my heart)

And I think 'onion' is already a fact, it is only using WWII (earlier?) aircraft 'drop tank' technology, after all. Apart from anything else isn't the Falcon Heavy using it?

Totally agree your edit by the way. Personally I'm only taking physics/logic complaints about "possible" seriously, assuming Kerbals have overcome (some) of the purely technical limitations that we still face. Clipping engines inside each other is also right out!

Edited April 8, 2014 by Pecan

[ScottyDoesKnow]

Answer 1 is "No, what it 'should' be is whatever each person wants it to be. If we're restricted to 'real rockets' we might as well use Orbiter"

Answer 2 is "Actually, there's already a prototype for that". (Saw it on the interweb so it must be true ^^. Can't find it now but honest, truely, cross my heart)

For 1, that's why I made sure to preface with 'in my opinion'. Gameplay has to come first, but I'd hope you can make it more realistic without making it less fun.

For 2, there are definitely cross-feed technologies out there. But since there are no limits on fuel lines it can be taken to ridiculous lengths. For example, in my signature is a 1200t launcher from 0.23. The fuel lines at the outside are piping a full orange tank of fuel in a matter of seconds.

For onion, it's the same thing. You can have 2, 3, 4 layers all piping towards the central engine, which can't be done in reality. In a final balanced game you could have different sizes of fuel transfer mechanism with different throughputs (and costs, weights, etc...). This would balance it out a bit while leaving the small fuel lines useful for small ships (things like drop tanks).

[Pecan]

Yes, as I've agreed with you/cantab before, some sort of (mass) penalty for high-throughput lines would make it more plausible. We don't disagree too much really but I'm getting bored with the knee-jerk 'BAIU' statements from so many people and I'm going to start calling it - until I get bored in about 2 days.

[Godot]

Never has been.

I always use tons as my measuring unit, even thoug I sometimes I have used orange tanks to simulate payload.

Although Fuel in spacestations usually has been delivered in orange tanks in the past, here I prefer to refer to it in tank fillings of the spaceship that gets supplied by the station (for example a munar ferry in case of a spacestation orbiting mun)

[cantab]

I kind of like the idea that there is a trade-off between the performance and the appearance of a rocket. For maximal performance, you often have to use different engines, different fuel tanks, and different staging than you would naturally choose, making the rocket look worse.

I don't think that's a good trade-off, tbh. I'm fine with having to make small performance compromises for aesthetics, for example I routinely use the RGU's and the multi-couplers, but I'd rather not have to give up masses of power that way.

[Jouni]

I don't think that's a good trade-off, tbh. I'm fine with having to make small performance compromises for aesthetics, for example I routinely use the RGU's and the multi-couplers, but I'd rather not have to give up masses of power that way.

I rarely see any meaningful performance differences between using any engine of the right kind and the best engine of its kind. The Poodle is a good engine for moderate-sized upper stages and medium ships that don't go interplanetary. I used the Mark 55 engine a lot, but now I'm starting to find it ugly. The Skipper is a good engine for both lower stages and upper stages, depending on the size of the rocket.

Surely there are small differences in the TWR and the delta-v of the ship, depending on the choice of the engines. Most of the time, the mission is still either a clear success or a clear failure, regardless of the engine choices. It's very rare to end up in a situation, where the outcome of a mission is a clear case with one choice of engines, and either the opposite case or a borderline case with another choice of similar engines.

Launchers are pretty much the only case, where I can find significant performance differences between aesthetic and utilitarian designs. Still, while asparagus staging is more fuel efficient than more realistic rockets, fuel is almost worthless at launchpad. Rockets using realistic designs also tend to be simpler and use less parts than asparagus-staged rockets, so I'm not even sure which of them has the better performance.

[Madrias]

Orange Jumbos are always the yardstick I've used.

[Dispatcher]

... In a way it dumbs down the game in my opinion.

I haven't started a career mode game with the ARM update, so I'm hoping that the new parts are largely (pun intended) doled out high up in the tech tree. I've been using sandbox mode to try out these new parts. For me, its now a trivial thing to get into orbit with a decent payload. Without them, I've considered getting a reasonable payload into orbit a challenge.

[NERVAfan]

Yeah, the existence of drop tanks (the Shuttle ET was one -- though not with its own engine like a KSP asparagus-stage) and crossfeed (the Falcon Heavy is planned to use it) isn't inherently unrealistic.

I think the point is that the 'classic' KSP 7 core asparagus rockets would in real life have too many parts (pumps etc.) likely to fail to be at all reliable, not that real world physics actually prohibits it from working... there'd probably be some drag penalty, yes, but according to my (limited) understanding the bigger the rocket the less it cares about drag (assuming the same shape).

[PTNLemay]

I haven't started a career mode game with the ARM update, so I'm hoping that the new parts are largely (pun intended) doled out high up in the tech tree.

Pretty much... It reminds me of the first time I saw the tech tree and my heart sank when I saw how far up the nuclear and the Main Sail were located. I mean it's fun because it's a great challenge, but... DAMN. No flying skyscraper on the first day. lol