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

[Hyomoto]

You have to be kidding. I doesn't mean it isn't 'legitimate', it means it is a different engine with different standards. The same reason the SRB's aren't on the same line as the liquid fuel rockets.

[stupid_chris]

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.

As said above, it's not a question about the legitimacy of the engine, it's simply what you're looking at.

Comparing a nuclear rocket with an ion engine and a chemical engine would be the same as comparing apples with oranges and pineapples. You're looking at very different things. Yes they're all fruits, yes they all taste sweet, but you can't compare how fast they'll grow over their lifetime because they're not the same fruit.

The thing is that right now there aren't many ion engines, there's only one in the game, so yes it's a single point right now, but it doesn't follow the curve I proposed for chemical engines because it isn't one.

ISP is not directly dependant of thrust and such. ISP is dependant, among other things, of the shape of your nozzle and of the used propellant. Technically speaking, simply changing the propellant used on the LV-T30 for example would change it's ISP, and this is exactly what RealFuels does.

So chemical engines with chemical engines, nuclear engines with nuclear engines, ion engines with ion engines, and solid rocket boosters with solid rocket boosters. Ions and nuclear engines are doing their own things as much as the solids are. You can't try to fit them on there, it won't match, simply because it isn't the same thing.

[Rakaydos]

Why does calling an engine an "ion engine" or "Nerva engine" matter? The idea behind balancing the engines, I thought, was to make a continium, with high efficency low TWR like the ion and nuke on one end, and high TWR low efficency, like the LES and Sepratron on the other.

This isnt Orbiter, we arnt simulating bell nozzle physics. Having a simple curve, the different powers of engines mixed on the curve, with engines on the extremes having additional disadvantages (solid fuel for the high TWR, electricity and awkard size for the Ion and NERV) would balance all the engines without arbitrary (in ksp at least) separation into "types" of engines.

[mdapol]

As said above, it's not a question about the legitimacy of the engine, it's simply what you're looking at.

Comparing a nuclear rocket with an ion engine and a chemical engine would be the same as comparing apples with oranges and pineapples. You're looking at very different things. Yes they're all fruits, yes they all taste sweet, but you can't compare how fast they'll grow over their lifetime because they're not the same fruit.

The thing is that right now there aren't many ion engines, there's only one in the game, so yes it's a single point right now, but it doesn't follow the curve I proposed for chemical engines because it isn't one.

ISP is not directly dependant of thrust and such. ISP is dependant, among other things, of the shape of your nozzle and of the used propellant. Technically speaking, simply changing the propellant used on the LV-T30 for example would change it's ISP, and this is exactly what RealFuels does.

So chemical engines with chemical engines, nuclear engines with nuclear engines, ion engines with ion engines, and solid rocket boosters with solid rocket boosters. Ions and nuclear engines are doing their own things as much as the solids are. You can't try to fit them on there, it won't match, simply because it isn't the same thing.

Are you planning on looking at the engines from Near Future Propulsion Pack eventually?

[stupid_chris]

Why does calling an engine an "ion engine" or "Nerva engine" matter? The idea behind balancing the engines, I thought, was to make a continium, with high efficency low TWR like the ion and nuke on one end, and high TWR low efficency, like the LES and Sepratron on the other.

This isnt Orbiter, we arnt simulating bell nozzle physics. Having a simple curve, the different powers of engines mixed on the curve, with engines on the extremes having additional disadvantages (solid fuel for the high TWR, electricity and awkard size for the Ion and NERV) would balance all the engines without arbitrary (in ksp at least) separation into "types" of engines.

I don't share that philosophy. This is about balancing things, yes, but I won't balance the mass of the pods with the mass of the batteries for the same reason I won't balance the stats of the chemical engines with the stats of the ion engine: they're not the same thing.

Are you planning on looking at the engines from Near Future Propulsion Pack eventually?

For now this is mostly about stock, and I doubt I'll be touching mod engines.

[Ratzap]

Thanks for this work, I tried it out today with a little trepidation but the 2 flights I had going completed no problem although I did notice the charge use had changed. The orange engine changes barely made any difference to them.

[Hotblack Desiato]

I like the idea of rebalancing the stock-engines.

regarding solid rocket boosters, I think we should look at the real world SRBs. they offer an insane amount of thrust, but with the drawback, that their fuel is really heavy (at least 3 times the density of liquid fuel) and that once turned on, they just burn till the fuel is gone. and there should be something else: since 0.23, they can be tweaked in order to burn faster or slower, take that away and give SRBs a setting for the fuel geometry. short boosters can be just filled, longer boosters need a hole in the middle, so it burns from inside to outside (which in case of a circular hole gives a gradient from low thrust to very high thrust, or in case of a star shaped hole, a more or less constant level of thrust).

the high fuel weight basically limits SRBs to wonderful first stages, but it's a very bad idea to use them as second stages.

[stupid_chris]

I like the idea of rebalancing the stock-engines.

regarding solid rocket boosters, I think we should look at the real world SRBs. they offer an insane amount of thrust, but with the drawback, that their fuel is really heavy (at least 3 times the density of liquid fuel) and that once turned on, they just burn till the fuel is gone. and there should be something else: since 0.23, they can be tweaked in order to burn faster or slower, take that away and give SRBs a setting for the fuel geometry. short boosters can be just filled, longer boosters need a hole in the middle, so it burns from inside to outside (which in case of a circular hole gives a gradient from low thrust to very high thrust, or in case of a star shaped hole, a more or less constant level of thrust).

the high fuel weight basically limits SRBs to wonderful first stages, but it's a very bad idea to use them as second stages.

Actually SRBs are very flexible on that side. Depending on how you store the fuel, how much air there is in the booster, how large the rings are, you can tune the thrust of the booster very specifically. Dislike what people think, they're not big bricks of thrust that burn out very rapidly. Some SRBs are made to have very long burns with decent amounts of thrust, other to give very strong and short bursts of thrust.

In my opinion, the SRBs are pretty evenly balanced. I wouldn't touch them all that much.

[NathanKell]

but with the drawback, that their fuel is really heavy (at least 3 times the density of liquid fuel)

This is a plus, not a minus. Denser fuel = lower tank dry mass and lower drag. This is why, for instance, kerolox first stages compete closely with hydrolox despite having a far lower specific impulse.

[Mesons]

I love the boost on the radial engines. This might make a Tylo lander possible that doesn't look utterly insane.

Insane? I managed to land and re-orbit Tylo with a fairly small craft in 0.22 (so I don't have the .craft file now, I don't think). I'll make a mock-up of the design tomorrow when I get the chance, and while I'll admit the design phase was a challenge, I wouldn't call my lander insane. Every Eve ascender I've seen, however...

My strategy was to make a compact lander that could barely reach Kerbin orbit, then attach a booster that could barely get that lander to Kerbin orbit intact and full of fuel, to mock the dV needed to slow the craft down and land.

[Stargate525]

I don't share that philosophy. This is about balancing things, yes, but I won't balance the mass of the pods with the mass of the batteries for the same reason I won't balance the stats of the chemical engines with the stats of the ion engine: they're not the same thing.

He does have a bit of a point, though. They are, at the end of the day, just 'things which make other things move.' I get the analogy of the batteries and the pods, but I do have a suspicion that you would, in fact, tweak down a hypothetical stock pod that came with 3000 charge.

Different curves, yes. Different things, sure. But if those curves ever intersect, you do have a cross-balancing issue where a chemical/nuclear/ion does a better job at a task that one of the other two are designed for. A nuclear engine that makes a better second-stage lifter engine than the skipper, or a chemical rocket that's (somehow) better than the ion at long-haul dV.

If nothing else, I'd be interested to see your idea of the curve for nukes and ions.

[KerbMav]

What changes would I have to make to the engine cfg file to cover HotRockets?

Something like if Module1 exists change Module1, if Module2 exists change Module2 for sure, but what would the code look like?

Also, I think I would have to rename the folders/files? Like: HotRockets, zStockRebalance, zzFAR, zzzMyTweaks?

Do mods not expect to find themselves in a specific folder? Should I rather add a config to Rebalance the engines after HotRockets is done with them?

[stupid_chris]

He does have a bit of a point, though. They are, at the end of the day, just 'things which make other things move.' I get the analogy of the batteries and the pods, but I do have a suspicion that you would, in fact, tweak down a hypothetical stock pod that came with 3000 charge.

Different curves, yes. Different things, sure. But if those curves ever intersect, you do have a cross-balancing issue where a chemical/nuclear/ion does a better job at a task that one of the other two are designed for. A nuclear engine that makes a better second-stage lifter engine than the skipper, or a chemical rocket that's (somehow) better than the ion at long-haul dV.

If nothing else, I'd be interested to see your idea of the curve for nukes and ions.

I'm categoric on that I will not balance ions with nuclears and with chemicals. Yes, at the end of the day one will be better than another. Nukes are better than pretty much all other engines in deep space, but it doesn't render everything else useless. The goal is that everything has it's own niche, and right now, with the balancing I've done, I believe they do.

What changes would I have to make to the engine cfg file to cover HotRockets?

Something like if Module1 exists change Module1, if Module2 exists change Module2 for sure, but what would the code look like?

Also, I think I would have to rename the folders/files? Like: HotRockets, zStockRebalance, zzFAR, zzzMyTweaks?

Do mods not expect to find themselves in a specific folder? Should I rather add a config to Rebalance the engines after HotRockets is done with them?

I believe HotRockets changes the names of the modules, so actually my tweaks would have to go first. I believe this can be done with ModuleManager 2, but I'd rather have a quick chat with nazari first.

[John FX]

For solar panels, can I suggest that they both (covered and bare) retain the ability to retract but that the covered one has a MUCH higher impact threshold?

I use both panels the same way but if I want a tough panel I put a cover on it. I am always dissapointed that the covered panels are as flimsy as the uncovered ones.

Currently, whichever panel I use the panels fall off with the slightest knock, even when retracted.

I`m not sure if it is even possible but the ideal solution would be to have a very tough panel when retracted for the covered panels and normal impact tolerance for uncovered (retracted) panels and all opened panels

Currently I am using the smallest decoupler to eject my ALSEP on the munar surface but I can`t have panels, even covered, because the impact breaks all the panels off.

For me, the tradeoff for the cover should be strength. IMHO the cover should make it less able to retract.

[Joonatan1998]

I did read the changelog and the thread, but no one seems to have said anything about decouplers.

The ejection forces of different decoupler types seem completely random.

0.5m: 15 -ok, it is very small (separator is also 15, but a bit heavier)

1m: 250 -seems very powerfull (separator is also 250, but a bit heavier)

2m: 250 -same force but 8 times the weight?? (separator has 600, that seems more balanced)

3m: 100 -??? 2 times heavier than Rockomax decoupler, less than half ejection force. (There is no separator at all)

The radial decouplers also seem strange.

[stupid_chris]

For solar panels, can I suggest that they both (covered and bare) retain the ability to retract but that the covered one has a MUCH higher impact threshold?

I use both panels the same way but if I want a tough panel I put a cover on it. I am always dissapointed that the covered panels are as flimsy as the uncovered ones.

Currently, whichever panel I use the panels fall off with the slightest knock, even when retracted.

I`m not sure if it is even possible but the ideal solution would be to have a very tough panel when retracted for the covered panels and normal impact tolerance for uncovered (retracted) panels and all opened panels

Currently I am using the smallest decoupler to eject my ALSEP on the munar surface but I can`t have panels, even covered, because the impact breaks all the panels off.

For me, the tradeoff for the cover should be strength. IMHO the cover should make it less able to retract.

No, varying stenght depending on retracted/deployed cannot be done.

I can try to boost the strength of the covered panels, but I really like the idea of the not retractable.

I did read the changelog and the thread, but no one seems to have said anything about decouplers.

The ejection forces of different decoupler types seem completely random.

0.5m: 15 -ok, it is very small (separator is also 15, but a bit heavier)

1m: 250 -seems very powerfull (separator is also 250, but a bit heavier)

2m: 250 -same force but 8 times the weight?? (separator has 600, that seems more balanced)

3m: 100 -??? 2 times heavier than Rockomax decoupler, less than half ejection force. (There is no separator at all)

The radial decouplers also seem strange.

I don't think the edjection force plays a particularly important role... I can try uniforming it, but still won't change much.

[NathanKell]

You really, really don't want uniform ejection force. That means, if you set it to 200, that your tiny probe gets a 200kN kick (buhbye!)...and also your 60 ton SLS payload does, and nearly doesn't move.

[AmpsterMan]

Chris, I think you may have made the second download of mods for me. Congratulatioms, you have joined Kerbal engineerr as a must-have mod xD

[stupid_chris]

You really, really don't want uniform ejection force. That means, if you set it to 200, that your tiny probe gets a 200kN kick (buhbye!)...and also your 60 ton SLS payload does, and nearly doesn't move.

I meant uniforming edjection force with separator mass

Chris, I think you may have made the second download of mods for me. Congratulatioms, you have joined Kerbal engineerr as a must-have mod xD

Achievement get \o/

[TMS]

You really, really don't want uniform ejection force. That means, if you set it to 200, that your tiny probe gets a 200kN kick (buhbye!)...and also your 60 ton SLS payload does, and nearly doesn't move.

Yup, besides which, you want your radial decouplers to kick out with a different force to your inline decouplers.

[JackGruff]

Maybe you could have a look at the parachutes? The radial one has less mass but drags the same as the regular one when deployed.

The masses for the ASAS module large, inline reaction wheel and inline advanced stabilizer also don't make sense given their torque/abilities.

[stupid_chris]

Maybe you could have a look at the parachutes? The radial one has less mass but drags the same as the regular one when deployed.

The masses for the ASAS module large, inline reaction wheel and inline advanced stabilizer also don't make sense given their torque/abilities.

I've pretty much already done that ._.

[Viandox]

Hello,

i'm not adept of hyper-realism, but...

i noticed that irl all services engines have very low isp, because they are using monopropellant (315 for apollo, 330 for fregat stage, 290 for soyouz).

very high isp of the launcher upper stage engine are not used once in space because O2 and H2 are not storable for long time.

so, i suggest the use of monopropellant for services engine (for small ship & lander).

High isp for launchers, but add a power generator, producing around no power, but consumming all oxydizer in about 24h.

so you have to use the fuel for launch and first orbit injection, and then use monopropellant...

this does not apply to ION & nuclear engines, designed for interplanetary travel.

that would lead to a very different rocket design.

thanks.

[undercoveryankee]

Maybe you could have a look at the parachutes? The radial one has less mass but drags the same as the regular one when deployed.t

The "drag" value of a stock parachute is a drag coefficient. Since stock aerodynamics uses mass as a proxy for area, the drag force from a parachute already goes as (drag coefficient * mass), so a heavier parachute with the same Cd produces proportionally more drag force.

[stupid_chris]

Hello,

i'm not adept of hyper-realism, but...

i noticed that irl all services engines have very low isp, because they are using monopropellant (315 for apollo, 330 for fregat stage, 290 for soyouz).

very high isp of the launcher upper stage engine are not used once in space because O2 and H2 are not storable for long time.

so, i suggest the use of monopropellant for services engine (for small ship & lander).

High isp for launchers, but add a power generator, producing around no power, but consumming all oxydizer in about 24h.

so you have to use the fuel for launch and first orbit injection, and then use monopropellant...

this does not apply to ION & nuclear engines, designed for interplanetary travel.

that would lead to a very different rocket design.

thanks.

As I've said before, this is not either about realism. MFT already handles propellants and varying engine weight/ISP according to it, and I'd rather leave it to this mod