[0.24.x] Stock ReBalance v1.4 | 11/09/14

[Quiana]

Stupid_chris, I was working on a similar rebalance mod. You've already got all the engines down, but maybe you can find some use for some of the other ideas that I had. Everything with an * already has ModuleManager .cfgs that I can send over (just PM me). Anyway here are some tweaks that would help balance the game and make give use to parts that previously didn't have any:

*SNIP GREAT IDEAS*

I'm in agreement here with these. He brings up very valid points, along with mentioning the comms dishes. Right now there's really no reason (stock wise) to use anything but the one. I was formerly using RT2, but since it's currently busted until .24, I'm out on that front. I also noticed a mod resurfaced called "AntennaRange" which has some similar ideas, by streamlining that dishes have an effective range where their efficiency is much higher. They're also balanced out in power use/speed, so the large dish makes great work of anything in the solar system, whereas the Omni comms would be effective around kerbin/mun/minimus. Something to consider perhaps.

On the RTG front though, we'd have some fun balancing. As it is, the RTG itself is a fairly poor power source stock-wise to begin with. We really need a new stock part (who knows what Squad plans for that) that is not a panel in reality. Solar panel balancing would at least make RTGs get used more and fuel creative ways to reduce power consumption instead of just slapping on everything electrical and a few panels and calling it a day.

[technogeeky]

There is something which is tweak-decision-agnostic which may help your cause... Add one or two more pictures showing the engine chart *after* you have made your tweaks (instead of just before). If you can make it clear what transform you did on the unbalanced points in the new chart, that would be even better.

This way, we can see at a glance that you are regularizing the engines (or not). We do not have to take your word for it with the existing unbalanced charts (we can see the data) but we have to take your word for the balanced configuration.

[stupid_chris]

There is something which is tweak-decision-agnostic which may help your cause... Add one or two more pictures showing the engine chart *after* you have made your tweaks (instead of just before). If you can make it clear what transform you did on the unbalanced points in the new chart, that would be even better.

This way, we can see at a glance that you are regularizing the engines (or not). We do not have to take your word for it with the existing unbalanced charts (we can see the data) but we have to take your word for the balanced configuration.

Pretty sure I already have this

[stupid_chris]

Alright, made a few small updates to the tweaks, which I think fit better as a general matter.

Changelog:

April 6th 2014
v1.1
-Minor engine rebalance thorough
-Mainsail is now a "super skipper", meaning it's thrust has been lowered a little, but ISP upped a bit
-Shielded dockingport now has 0.1 of drag
-Cupola has 0.2 of drag

So now for the verbose changes:

• The LFB has been tweaked from 6t, 1600kN, and 290-345 ISP to 6.5t, 1800kN, and 270-335 ISP.
  
• The KR-2L has been tweaked from 9.5t, 1800kn, and 250 - 365 ISP to 9.75t, 200kN, and 250-360 ISP.
  
• The SLS Quad has been tweaked from 10t, 3250kN, and 260-335 ISP to 13t, 4000kN, and 260-325 ISP.
  
• The Mainsail has been tweaked from 6t, 1500kN, 280-330 ISP to 5.5t, 1250kNm and 285-340 ISP. It's basically now a "super skipper".
  
• The Mk. 55 has been brought back to 0.9t, it's thrust left at 150kN, and it's ISP went from 310-370 to 310-360.
  
• The 24-77/48-7S's has been brought down from 290-350 to 290-340
  
• The LV-1/LV-1R's ISP has been changed from 250-380 to 280-350
  
• The shielded dockingport's drag has been lowered from 0.25 to 0.1
  
• The cupola's drag has been lowered from 0.4 to 0.2

This should be good for now, I'll speak to CaptRobau for more tweaks

[Woopert]

Fantastic job on this!

[Arrowmaster]

This project and OCD Fixes Pack want to make different changes to rebalance the same parts. I like your changes better though and the other project doesn't seem to have a forum thread. Would you consider merging the non conflicting changes into this project?

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

[*]The cupola has been weighed down to 3.5t (it's still a lot of glass panels), and it's drag has been lowered to 0.2

Still seems a bit big:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupola_%28ISS_module%29

The real Cupola is only 1.88 tons. It appears to be a tiny bit bigger than KSP's cupola (2.95 m vs. 2.5 m), but it doesn't have reaction wheels, a hatch, or life support equipment like ours.

Perhaps an intermediate value of 2.5 tons? Or take away its monoprop and reaction wheels and reduce the mass even further to 1.5-2 tons?

I don't think it would really affect balance much; even with those mass reductions, the Cupola is heavy enough that its main uses would be on rovers (which often don't need reaction wheels or RCS), and stations (which most likely have other modules to provide attitude control)... which is the point of it anyway.

[regex]

Still seems a bit big:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupola_%28ISS_module%29

The real Cupola is only 1.88 tons. It appears to be a tiny bit bigger than KSP's cupola (2.95 m vs. 2.5 m), but it doesn't have reaction wheels, a hatch, or life support equipment like ours.

Perhaps an intermediate value of 2.5 tons? Or take away its monoprop and reaction wheels and reduce the mass even further to 1.5-2 tons?

I don't think it would really affect balance much; even with those mass reductions, the Cupola is heavy enough that its main uses would be on rovers (which often don't need reaction wheels or RCS), and stations (which most likely have other modules to provide attitude control)... which is the point of it anyway.

It being lighter is actually more in line with reality; a polling of command pods on Wikipedia (Orion, Apollo, Soyuz return capsule) gives masses between 2.5 and 8 tons, with Apollo being a bit more than 5. With the 3 Kerbal pod being some 3.5 tons, it's pretty fair to say 2.5~3 tons is quite heavy enough. 2.5 would be more than reasonable IMO, even with all the additions (which I don't think should be removed).

Edited April 6, 2014 by regex

[Streetwind]

This project and OCD Fixes Pack want to make different changes to rebalance the same parts. I like your changes better though and the other project doesn't seem to have a forum thread. Would you consider merging the non conflicting changes into this project?

So long as not both of the mods use the :Final tag in their config declarations, ModuleManager will merge non-conflicting changes automatically. That is, it will load first one, then the other; if one is declared :Final it will be guaranteed to be loaded last. If both are, then stuff will probably break. Of course, as a downloadable resource, the most sane approach would be for neither of them to use the :Final tag at all, because that's generally meant for manual player's tweaks.

Obviously this means that while non-conflicting things will be merged, conflicts will be overwritten. In other words, two changes of thrust on the same engine will only result in the one that loads last to persist. Additional conflict potential comes from the ModuleManager syntax, which lets you get away with doing the same thing in different ways. How two config files that use different styles merge is anyone's guess...

[maccollo]

I would have increased the total thrust of the quad to 5000. Then it can just barely lift with this much on top of it, which feels a bit better, especially when I begin to stack cores sideways. Also the upper stage to lower stage size ratio feels a bit more appropriate.

But maybe the proportions become to unlike the SLS.

Edited April 7, 2014 by maccollo

[Ruedii]

Could you try doing a 3D plot of thrust, weight/mass and ISP?

Also make sure to place both ASL and Vacuum ISP.

This would give a clearer picture.

Additionally, ones that have clear advantages and/or disadvantage should have that noted. For instance, ones that cannot be place as a second stage, or the case of the RAPIER which can substitute air for oxygen.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Ruedii
More details.

[m4v]

Great stuff - I think all reaction wheels should be reduced in power to be more in line with real life.

I second this, but not because of IRL, because as they are now they outclass RCS for attitude control.

With reaction wheels, you splat one anywhere into whatever ship you have and presto, 20kNm of torque in all 3 axes, with unlimited fuel to boot. Getting the same with RCS is impossible, in a 2.5m lander with 4 RCS you will get 5kNm of torque, 10kNm if you add 8 RCS, so you have twice the mass of a reaction wheel but half its torque, without counting the monoprop mass. Reaction wheels not only outclass RCS, their magnitudes are overkill, specially of the 1.25m variety, with 20kNm if you rotate longitudinally you hit the angular cap almost instantly.

Ever since the reaction wheels got buffed, I haven't used RCS in anything that doesn't have to dock. RCS requires thoughtful placement and fuel that you have to carry, my opinion is that they should have more utility than just during the occasions you have to dock.

Edited April 7, 2014 by m4v

[stupid_chris]

Alright, pretty massive update incoming, changelog below:

April 7th 2014
v1.2
-Node fixes to all spaceplane parts
-Solar panels curve now obay an inverse square law
-Mass rebalance on some parts
-Adapters, all nose cones, as well as some structural parts now contain fuel
-Unification of alternator charging rate on all engines
-Unification of reaction wheel electric charge consumption on all pods/probes
-Probes rebalanced to differentiate on stats
-Antennas rebalanced on transmission speed/cost
-All parts that have no physical significance now have a mass of zero to appear as such in the VAB
-The hydraulic structural pylon now uses ModuleDecouple
-Node size fixes on parts that needed it
-Clampotron Jr. rescaled to fit better on pod and 0.625m parts
-1.25m nose cone rescaled to fit better on 1.25m parts
-Normal sized rover wheels rebalanced in size/electricity consumption
-Typos fixed
-Fuel gauge now appears on LV-1 and Ion engine
-Other various fixes

And now the complete list of changes. Even some that were already there might have been updated, so read through it all to see what's new, but a lot of the stuff is brand new.

• The NASA LFB now has a mass of 6.5t (10.5t with the tank) a thrust of 1800kN and an ISP of 270-335, as well as an alternator
  
• The KR-2L now has a mas of 9.75t, a thrust of 2000kN, and an ISP of 250-360
  
• The SLS quad engine now has a mass of 13t, a thrust of 4000kN and an ISP 0f 260-325
  
• The LES now has a decoupler
  
• All nose cones, most adapters, and some other structural parts now contain fuel.
  
• The SAS units have been rebalanced so that the old SAS part is the lightest and "weakest" reaction wheel, and that the 2.5m unit is the heaviest and most performant. The old 1.25m ASAS sits between both.
  
• The cupola has been weighed down to 3t (it's still a lot of glass panels), and it's drag has been lowered to 0.2
  
• The Poodle has been rebalanced: mass of 1.75t, thrust of 160kN, ISP of 270-410. Higher ISP, lower TWR, but much lower engine mass fraction.
  
• The 48-7S now has a mass of 0.15t and an ISP of 290-340
  
• The 24-77 now has a mass of 0.1t and an ISP of 290-340
  
• The LV-1 and LV-1R now have an ISP of 280-350
  
• The Mk. 55 radial engine now has a thrust of 150kN, and an ISP of 310-370. Basically it's an all-around engine that can both help lifting stuff from the ground, or tow things around in orbit, and now has an alternator.
  
• The LV-1 and Ion engine now show the "fuel gauge".
  
• R.A.P.I.E.R. was given an alternator.
  
• The shielded docking port's drag has been reduced to 0.1
  
• All alternator output has been unified to 0.008EC/kN (12EC/s at 1500kN)
  
• All probe/pod reaction wheel EC consumption has been normalized to 0.1EC/torque
  
• All SAS units reaction wheel EC consumption has been normalized to 0.01EC/torque
  
• Electric charge and mass thorought the probe cores has been unified to have some sort of progression
  
• The rover body is now a probe core, it's EC capacity has been bumped to 500, and it has a very weak reaction wheel
  
• Monpropellant amount bumped in the two lander cans
  
• Mass of the Mk2 lander can reduced to 1.25t
  
• EC within lander cans reduced, and augmented into normal pods
  
• Mass of the Mk1 cockpit reduced to 1t to match the Mk2 cockpit
  
• 1.25m nose cone rescaled to fit onto 1.25m tanks (and not the pod)
  
• Clampotron Jr. rescaled to fit better on the Mk1 pod (still looks good on 0.625m tanks)
  
• Important parts with no physical significance now have it back and have a sensible mass (looking at you Z-100 battery)
  
• Mass rebalance on some various structural parts
  
• All parts with no physical significance now hav a mass of zero to show correct CoM in the editor (ladders, landing gear, lights, struts, etc)
  
• Solar panels charge curve rebalance to give an inverse sqaure law (-> CaptRobau)
  
• OX solar panels (no case) cannot be retracted anymore (-> CaptRobau)
  
• Ruggedized wheel and inflated wheel have rebalanced mass/EC consumption to have different niches (-> CaptRobau)
  
• Antennas transmission speed/cost/mass rebalanced to have some form of progression (-> CaptRobau)
  
• Parachutes all have a deployment sound (only the Mk16 had one)(at least for those who aren't using RealChute )
  
• Micronode/station hub have symmetry enabled (-> CaptRobau)
  
• The weird hydraulic structural pylon now uses the decoupler module and has a staging icon that isn't blank
  
• Node fixes and CoM rebalancement on all plane parts (-> CaptRobau)
  
• The materials bay's radial attach node is now at the back of it, not on the side
  
• Typos on aerodynamics parts fixed (-> CaptRobau)

To those talking about the reaction wheels: PM me with some proposed changes and I'll see about it

[mdapol]

Just curious if you're taking part cost and Tech Required in your rebalancing. Since money will soon become important in 0.24, cost will start to be a factor in choosing one part over another. Also, I can see that two similar parts, say Reaction Wheels, might have the same torque yet one is lighter than the other. The reason: the lighter one is available at a higher tech node so it's more advanced. Tech Required should play some part of the balancing, at least for career mode. Anyway, just curious.

Edit: BTW, great work. I plan to use this when I restart career mode in 0.24

[Arrowmaster]

[*]OX solar panels (no case) cannot be retracted anymore (-> CaptRobau)

Don't like this change. I'm removing it locally. I think I'll remove the antenna changes too.

[stupid_chris]

Just curious if you're taking part cost and Tech Required in your rebalancing. Since money will soon become important in 0.24, cost will start to be a factor in choosing one part over another. Also, I can see that two similar parts, say Reaction Wheels, might have the same torque yet one is lighter than the other. The reason: the lighter one is available at a higher tech node so it's more advanced. Tech Required should play some part of the balancing, at least for career mode. Anyway, just curious.

Edit: BTW, great work. I plan to use this when I restart career mode in 0.24

That is not my logic at all. I'm not balancing so that some part become better than others. It's all about tradeoffs. The parts are balanced to all have their own utility. So at the end of the day, you don't pick up "the best" part, you pick up the part that fits your needs the most. Each one has it's niche, it all depends on your preference. Do you want a stronger reaction wheel but that will eat more of your electricity, but you'll get to turn fast, or do you want to save electricity and have a small efficient reaction wheel, but take much longer to turn? Do you want a heavy, but efficient probe core, or a lighter one that will eat through your electricity much faster? It's what I'd want the user to ask himself as he plays, not "which part is the best". This way every part has it's use, and none gets left behind as the game proceeds.

So no, cost is not taken into account.

Don't like this change. I'm removing it locally.

This was made to have some reason to use the covered solar panels, because as is, they're just heavier. So if you end up needing to go through an atmosphere at high speed, you'll use the retractable one that are heavier. It's a tradeoff. But it's to you to chose indeed

[Arrowmaster]

I already use the covered one for going through atmo and the noncovered for stuff thats protected in fairings. Not being able to retract them is too big of a change for me so its gone from my local copy. It would be better if there was a way to make them break in atmo if not sheilded no matter if they were deployed or not.

[stupid_chris]

I already use the covered one for going through atmo and the noncovered for stuff thats protected in fairings. Not being able to retract them is too big of a change for me so its gone from my local copy. It would be better if there was a way to make them break in atmo if not sheilded no matter if they were deployed or not.

Not without a new PartModule.

I'm not sure what it changes for you if you already use the covered ones for what goes back into the atmo then

[Comrade Jenkens]

Are you going to balance the SRBs at any point? Their stats are all over the place and they are so underpowered that there is never any reason to use them.

[Darkona]

Chris I'm here just to say thank you, those are really nice fixes/balances, and STOP BREAKING BOTTLES YOU EVIL-SOULLED FLIGHTLESS BIRD

[8749236]

I personally believe the complexity of the engine, tech limitation and etc are the best balance measure to the parts instead of tweaking them around =S..

[stupid_chris]

Are you going to balance the SRBs at any point? Their stats are all over the place and they are so underpowered that there is never any reason to use them.

I'd like to. I don't know enough about SRBs in a general matter right now to do it.

But there is a reason to do it, don't go away believing they're useless right now. SRBs are just big TWR boosters. Nearly got the dV you need to get to orbit but not enough TWR? Slap some SRBs on that big boy. They won't give you much extra dV, but they'll boost your TWR while your main core lightens up, and when they're ready to go, the core can do the rest alone

As far as I know this is, and should be, their only use.

But I'm open to balancing them, I don't know how good/bad they are right now at doing that.

Chris I'm here just to say thank you, those are really nice fixes/balances, and STOP BREAKING BOTTLES YOU EVIL-SOULLED FLIGHTLESS BIRD

Well no problem.

And nah. Eheheh.

I personally believe the complexity of the engine, tech limitation and etc are the best balance measure to the parts instead of tweaking them around =S..

Well we have differing opinions then I think parts should be balanced to each have their own role, not to deprecate each other as you go along. This way you encourage creativity and diversity, and you don't end up with always the same obvious choices when it comes to creating a launcher. You actually have to think what would fit the best, and by creating different combinations, you can have different types of craft, but that are not awfully better or worse than each other.

[Hyomoto]

Are you going to balance the SRBs at any point? Their stats are all over the place and they are so underpowered that there is never any reason to use them.

Woah, what? What? What? I'm sure they could have some tweaks done, but I use SRB's all the time. In fact, I've started trying to make ships that are mostly SRB's because they are the cheapest, lightest parts you can use for lift-off! This is my latest Minmus transport vessel. You can land on Minmus and return to Kerbin with half a tank on a bad trip. A talented pilot could probably land on the Mun as well. Go on, build me an equivalent liquid rocket. Let's see how it compares in weight, cost and part counts.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Hyomoto

[Black-Talon]

Well done Chris. Many times I've tried to come up with my own rebalancing tweaks. From what I've seen so far you've done a good job of what I always strived for... not making it easier (I always errored on making it harder) to achieve, fixing little mistakes, diversifying the part options, and standardizing the available parts to at least make sense when compared to all the options to do the same task. I've learned the hard way how hard it is to do, nice work.

My only suggestion (and I'm saying this without having tried it yet), would be that you consider breaking up the updates into categories or type such that it's easier for someone to remove the type of changes they don't appreciate. Something like a separate config file which groups up all the changes of a particular type:

1. Cosmetic - improves look

2. Tweaks - changes functionality but arguably doesn't change game play

3. Balance I - changes balance of parts (without exceeding limits of stock parts)

- would mostly contain nerfs to out of balance parts

4. Balance II - changes balance of parts to make sense but may exceed stock limits

- increased mass but also increased ISP to values above any similar stock engine might go here

[stupid_chris]

Well done Chris. Many times I've tried to come up with my own rebalancing tweaks. From what I've seen so far you've done a good job of what I always strived for... not making it easier (I always errored on making it harder) to achieve, fixing little mistakes, diversifying the part options, and standardizing the available parts to at least make sense when compared to all the options to do the same task. I've learned the hard way how hard it is to do, nice work.

My only suggestion (and I'm saying this without having tried it yet), would be that you consider breaking up the updates into categories or type such that it's easier for someone to remove the type of changes they don't appreciate. Something like a separate config file which groups up all the changes of a particular type:

1. Cosmetic - improves look

2. Tweaks - changes functionality but arguably doesn't change game play

3. Balance I - changes balance of parts (without exceeding limits of stock parts)

- would mostly contain nerfs to out of balance parts

4. Balance II - changes balance of parts to make sense but may exceed stock limits

- increased mass but also increased ISP to values above any similar stock engine might go here

Well I have already layed down some division in the configs. As of right now, I think there is one config for the engine tweaks, one for the node tweaks, one for the typos, one for zeroing the mass of non physically significant parts, one for pods/probes, one for the elctrical parts (panels, wheels, etc), one for the adapters/nose cones, and one for, well, what's left I'm feeling this is good enough for now and will simplify the job of anyone wishing to do some personal tweaking, but I could try to rework the separation if it doesn't feel user friendly enough.