Jump to content

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

stupid_chris

By stupid_chris
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

stupid_chris

stupid_chris

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Chris, this might be outside the scope of this mod, but I've found issues with the solar panels. The larger (and higher tech level) panels actually generate less power per m2 of area.

http://www.kingtiger.co.uk/kingtiger/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Stock-panel-efficiancy.png

If we took the power values for the 4 medium sized panels and used that to set the OX-STAT and Giganator they would have the following values:

OX-SAT

chargeRate = 0.4

Gigantor

chargeRate = 30

how did you calculate their area in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rakaydos

Rakaydos

Posted
Posted

Any comment on having a low thrust high efficency Radial in the LV 1R? Having something sitting on the 600 ISP range that's easier to fit than the 800 ISP LV-N and doesnt have the powermanagement issues of the Ion would give a smooth transition all the way up and down the curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurielD

TurielD

Posted
Posted

There are two of your changes that I have disabled because of other mods I run. A: the solar panel folding thing - I use KSP interstellar and with its heat management system I need to be able to retract panels sometimes. B: the antenna changes - Remotetech is a fragile beastie as it is, I don't want to insert any code in to the game that might influence its running.

Further I've raised the S3-KS 25x4 I-ASL to 295. To my mind it is designed to be an extremely heavy lifting first stage, and should be optimized for atmosphere, so going from 320/360 to 260/325 went against that intention a little too far. Though, it must be said I haven't used the 3.75m parts much yet.

I also see you've marked the LV-N as unbalanced, though you haven't changed those yet. I hope you don't because I'm not convinced it is. Its terrible TWR is the main thing, but it's also plain huge - something making it a pain to use which isn't easily included in the graph; this compensates just fine for the high ISP to my mind. Similarly, the Rapier shows as a tad under the curve, but I certainly wouldn't call it underpowered as it includes the 2000 I-ASL thruster on a single node.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stupid_chris

stupid_chris

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Any comment on having a low thrust high efficency Radial in the LV 1R? Having something sitting on the 600 ISP range that's easier to fit than the 800 ISP LV-N and doesnt have the powermanagement issues of the Ion would give a smooth transition all the way up and down the curve.

I'd rather not. The chemical engine who fired with the highest engine was tripropellant and had a ISP around ~525s. I don't think it is necessary on the LV-1. It's so light and the payloads it usually messes with are so light you really don't need to have that ISP to get the deltaV you need. And miniaturized engines have different curves than normal engines. If you look at the graph, you'll see that all smal engines are on the low side of the graph, and purposedly.I think they're fine as they are right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stupid_chris

stupid_chris

Posted
  • Author
Posted
There are two of your changes that I have disabled because of other mods I run. A: the solar panel folding thing - I use KSP interstellar and with its heat management system I need to be able to retract panels sometimes. B: the antenna changes - Remotetech is a fragile beastie as it is, I don't want to insert any code in to the game that might influence its running.

Further I've raised the S3-KS 25x4 I-ASL to 295. To my mind it is designed to be an extremely heavy lifting first stage, and should be optimized for atmosphere, so going from 320/360 to 260/325 went against that intention a little too far. Though, it must be said I haven't used the 3.75m parts much yet.

I also see you've marked the LV-N as unbalanced, though you haven't changed those yet. I hope you don't because I'm not convinced it is. Its terrible TWR is the main thing, but it's also plain huge - something making it a pain to use which isn't easily included in the graph; this compensates just fine for the high ISP to my mind. Similarly, the Rapier shows as a tad under the curve, but I certainly wouldn't call it underpowered as it includes the 2000 I-ASL thruster on a single node.

The ASL ISP of an engine is barely relevant really. At 5km, you are already 50% over to the vacuum ISP. Having it at 260 makes perfect sense in my opinion

The LV-N is not a chemical engine, so yes, it's unbalanced acording to that curve. And no it's not going to change because it is /not/ a chemical engine. Same for the rapier. It carries a jet engines, and doesn't belong on that curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Kingtiger

Paul Kingtiger

Posted
Posted
how did you calculate their area in the first place?

Created a screenshot on the pad with a panel and part of a known size (2.5m fuel tank).

By measuring the number of pixels of the diameter of the 2.5m tank I can count the number of pixels of the length / width of the panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
m4v

m4v

Posted
Posted

But the area of solar panels is inconsequential, the area can be big or small and the game won't be affected in any way. It would be best to compare their masses with the EC generated and see if it needs tweaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Kingtiger

Paul Kingtiger

Posted
Posted
But the area of solar panels is inconsequential, the area can be big or small and the game won't be affected in any way. It would be best to compare their masses with the EC generated and see if it needs tweaking.

The area of panel denotes how much sunlight it can collect and so how much electricity it can generate. Which is not to say the mass doesn't also need balancing, but mass shouldn't be an indicator how how much power the cell generates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stupid_chris

stupid_chris

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The area of panel denotes how much sunlight it can collect and so how much electricity it can generate. Which is not to say the mass doesn't also need balancing, but mass shouldn't be an indicator how how much power the cell generates.

In a real life perspective, yes. But in a gameplay perspective, since the end user cannot control how large his solar panel is, all he'll do is look at it and think "okay so I could carry this large solar panel and generate x amount of electricity for y weight, but if I carry ten of those small solar panels, I'll generate also x amount of electricity for half the weight". I'm guessing I should most likely balance them by weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rakaydos

Rakaydos

Posted
Posted (edited)
So? 600 Isp is 600 Isp. Ain't never gonna be chemical.

(not even in the realm of FOOF or ClF5)

I was going to call it a Vasmir. Totally not realistic for the vasmir, but then neither are the other space engines.

So for a 1.5 TWR, and a weight of .4, thrust should be .6, right? Or if I can make them unreasonably heavy for their size, .75 mass for 1 thrust.

Edited by Rakaydos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
m4v

m4v

Posted
Posted
I was going to call it a Vasmir. Totally not realistic for the vasmir, but then neither are the other space engines.

So for a 1.5 TWR, and a weight of .4, thrust should be .6, right? Or if I can make them unreasonably heavy for their size, .75 mass for 1 thrust.

No, TWR is thrust over weight, so you need to factor in gravity, 9.81 since all is referenced to kerbin: TWR = thrust / (mass * 9.81)

so with a thrust of 4, mass would be like ~0.27

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stupid_chris

stupid_chris

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I wasnt aware other types of propellant HAD curves. I thought it was a single datapoint each for the Ion and the RCS thruster.

If you DID plot the Ion on the curve, would it be under or over powered?

Different propellants have different specific impulses with the same engines. And the ion would probably be overpowered too :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
m4v

m4v

Posted
Posted
How can one Xenon engine have a curve? it's only a single point!

Don't be inane, there's only a single point because there's only one engine. It will follow a different curve because it isn't a chemical rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rakaydos

Rakaydos

Posted
Posted

Why does being a non chemical rocket mean it can no longer be looked at as a legitimate engine?

I understand that Solid engines do their own thing, but ignoring half the deep space engines in the game is hardly the way to balance the other half.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...