0.23.5 complaining?

[Ziff]

I truely refuse to complain about the new engines allthough I feel very confused about them.

They make the Mainsails and Skippers totally obsolete because they have way higher thrust and a great ISP.

What is being said now about the new 3M parts is the same exact thing that was said about the 2M parts when they came out. The argument basically boils down to "Now I can do (x) with only 200 parts instead of 1100! It's too easy now!"

While this makes sense when you only play sandbox; it will be very different when you play a career mode and have to work up the tech tree while also paying for your parts.

I would also like to point out that it is a mistake to calculate an engines TWR ratio by itself without any fuel tanks. It doesn't give you any real meaning , because ultimately engines are used to move mass and require fuel tanks to do so. TWR only tells you one small part of the equation and can easily seem unbalanced when taken out of context such as you have. Allow me to explain.

Using only a single Mk1 Capsule with the largest capacity of each size fuel tank we end up with this instead:

(Edit: According to KER, Based on Kerbin, because I just can't be bothered with the math right now.)

Mk1 + FL-T800

LV-T30 TWR: 3.33 DV:3390

LV-T45 TWR: 2.98 DV:3190

Mk1 + Jumbo 64

Skipper TWR: 1.62 DV:5255

Mainsail TWR: 3.57 DV:4449

Mk1 + Kerbodyne S3-14400

KR-2L TWR: 2.85 DV:6111

KS-25x4 TWR: 3.52 DV:5309

Now tell me, when you look at it from this perspective do the new tanks seem WAY OP, or do they seem to be more in line with a progression of better engines? I do see how you can come to the belief that it makes the previous engines 'obsolete' but this isn't really the case at all. Just like the 2M parts didn't make the smaller 1M parts obsolete, they gave them different uses.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Ziff

[EtherDragon]

I don't complain about the new stuff, I think it's all great. But I agree with others that the tree and some parts needs some balancing adjustments.

1. Heavier Rocketry now gives you both the LFB 1x2 and the Mainsail in the same tech node. But the LFB 1x2 is better in every way than the Mainsail - better Isp, better thrust, same form factor. Since a Mainsail is usually used as the lower stage "main engine" it can completely be replaced by the LFB 1x2.

2. Very Heavy Rocketry gives you almost all of the other size-3 parts.

Suggestion: I think there should be another node between Heavier and Very Heavy (on the same level as the LVN). Move the LFB 1x2, quarter and half-size-3 fuel tanks, and the KR-2L engine. Then the KS-25x4 and largest size-3 fuel tank can remain in Very Heavy Rocketry.

Other than that, the engine progression is good.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

What is being said now about the new 3M parts is the same exact thing that was said about the 2M parts when they came out. The argument basically boils down to "Now I can do (x) with only 200 parts instead of 1100! It's too easy now!"

While this makes sense when you only play sandbox; it will be very different when you play a career mode and have to work up the tech tree while also paying for your parts.

I would also like to point out that it is a mistake to calculate an engines TWR ratio by itself without any fuel tanks. It doesn't give you any real meaning , because ultimately engines are used to move mass and require fuel tanks to do so. TWR only tells you one small part of the equation and can easily seem unbalanced when taken out of context such as you have. Allow me to explain.

Using only a single Mk1 Capsule with the largest capacity of each size fuel tank we end up with this instead:

(Edit: According to KER, Based on Kerbin, because I just can't be bothered with the math right now.)

Mk1 + FL-T800

LV-T30 TWR: 3.33 DV:3390

LV-T45 TWR: 2.98 DV:3190

Mk1 + Jumbo 64

Skipper TWR: 1.62 DV:5255

Mainsail TWR: 3.57 DV:4449

Mk1 + Kerbodyne S3-14400

KR-2L TWR: 2.85 DV:6111

KS-25x4 TWR: 3.52 DV:5309

Now tell me, when you look at it from this perspective do the new tanks seem WAY OP, or do they seem to be more in line with a progression of better engines? I do see how you can come to the belief that it makes the previous engines 'obsolete' but this isn't really the case at all. Just like the 2M parts didn't make the smaller 1M parts obsolete, they gave them different uses.

Hey Ziff,

I am sorry to tell you, that you have to think outside the box.

You can in fact attach every Engine to every Fueltank and this is where the Engines very own TWR comes in handy.

It is not just about to put a huge engine onto a huge fueltank. You can also put a LV-T45 onto one of the new Fueltanks.

Actually my concern is not about the TWR of the new Parts but about their ISP which gives you the opportunity to get to every Planet without any hassle.

Further on, it will take away the pressure that Forces you to learn new things like Asparagus-staging, Rendezvous-ing and Docking.

Edited April 5, 2014 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Liowen]

I don't complain about the new stuff, I think it's all great. But I agree with others that the tree and some parts needs some balancing adjustments.

1. Heavier Rocketry now gives you both the LFB 1x2 and the Mainsail in the same tech node. But the LFB 1x2 is better in every way than the Mainsail - better Isp, better thrust, same form factor. Since a Mainsail is usually used as the lower stage "main engine" it can completely be replaced by the LFB 1x2.

2. Very Heavy Rocketry gives you almost all of the other size-3 parts.

Suggestion: I think there should be another node between Heavier and Very Heavy (on the same level as the LVN). Move the LFB 1x2, quarter and half-size-3 fuel tanks, and the KR-2L engine. Then the KS-25x4 and largest size-3 fuel tank can remain in Very Heavy Rocketry.

Other than that, the engine progression is good.

I have a feeling that the tech tree will be looked at for .24, as this is only a halfway point of putting in the parts to see how they function for people. Once .24 comes out the techtree might look, as well as act, very differently than what we have right now; and yes there will be even more complaints about that also.

At least this is how I am seeing it playing, I could be wrong though .

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I have a feeling that the tech tree will be looked at for .24, as this is only a halfway point of putting in the parts to see how they function for people. Once .24 comes out the techtree might look, as well as act, very differently than what we have right now; and yes there will be even more complaints about that also.

At least this is how I am seeing it playing, I could be wrong though .

I can only hope so Liowen.

And they should make the SLS-Parts ridiculous expensive if they have already the Money Value implemented.

[jwenting]

Originally, the mainsail and skipper were designed to be heavy first-stage engines. Now with the addition of the SLS engines, they could take the role of larger transfer stages. If only they didn't have such a low ISP. It really needs to be tweaked.

uh no. They still have that role, just for rockets smaller than the largest you can now build.

Just as the LVT30 and LVT45 still have a place as engines for the initial stages for 1.25m rockets.

[Stargate525]

I love how critique is complaining, suggestions are 'thinking you can do better,' and the go-to counter-argument for everything seems to be 'well don't use it, then.'

It's not that they're more powerful, it's that they're more powerful, lighter, AND more efficient. They've turned everything else into Poodles.

[Sethnizzle]

I can just imagine the engineers of the Mercury-Redstone yelling and complaining at the engineers of the Mercury-Atlas that their engines are too OP. And later everyone dumping all over the engineers of the SaturnV (and much much later the SLS). If complainers like [some] of you guys were in charge, we would have never made it to the Mun...

[Comrade Jenkens]

The problem with the SLS parts isn't the fact that they allow you to put things into orbit with less parts. That's a good thing.

The argument is different than with the 2.5m parts due to the fact the 2.5m engines match the 1.25m engines with their ISP but have greater thrust so are good on larger rockets. The 3.75m parts give even greater thrust, which is good, but also have very high ISP which is unbalanced.

[Red Iron Crown]

I can just imagine the engineers of the Mercury-Redstone yelling and complaining at the engineers of the Mercury-Atlas that their engines are too OP. And later everyone dumping all over the engineers of the SaturnV (and much much later the SLS). If complainers like [some] of you guys were in charge, we would have never made it to the Mun...

There is a very, very large difference between a real space program and a game about them where the goal is fun.

[problemecium]

^ No, we would just have made it to the MOON (nice spelling) by asparagussing 300 Redstones together and leaving a trail of space debris the whole way there and back ;P

[Sethnizzle]

^ No, we would just have made it to the MOON (nice spelling) by asparagussing 300 Redstones together and leaving a trail of space debris the whole way there and back ;P

HAHA, That would be a site to see. lol. Thanks for that image (also my spelling was intentional, my attempt at a little humor).

There is a very, very large difference between a real space program and a game about them where the goal is fun.

The game is fun, so mission accomplished. The point I was trying to make is that the new parts are the result of forward progress. They make complete sense in the career setting. If you want to argue that they don't make sense in sandbox mode, then you'd better get rid of the Mk1 Capsule, small battery pack and small solar panels, pretty much all the .625m parts, ect. Because, why would you use anything but the best parts in Sandbox mode anyways.

[Red Iron Crown]

If you want to argue that they don't make sense in sandbox mode, then you'd better get rid of the Mk1 Capsule, small battery pack and small solar panels, pretty much all the .625m parts, ect.

All those parts have their uses in sandbox.

Because, why would you use anything but the best parts in Sandbox mode anyways.

Because, until now, there were very few parts that were clearly "the best", simply outclassing everything comparable. That's the whole point people are trying to make when they say they want the engines balanced, they want other choices to make sense sometimes.

[Superfluous J]

Because, until now, there were very few parts that were clearly "the best", simply outclassing everything comparable.

I disagree to a point. I don't remember the last time I used anything other than an LV-N or 48-7S in space. They're clearly better than all other engines. I also almost exclusively use the lander can because it's the lightest "capsule" that holds a Kerbal. It's clearly better than most anything else out there with the exception that if you want to bring a lot of guys, you need to bring a lot of lander cans. But then you can use the 4-man hab module so long as you also have one can for control, or a probe core. Speaking of probe cores, there is almost never a reason to use any one but the OKTO2.

I need to playtest a bit more, but I haven't yet seen a reason to use these engines instead of the LV-N on big stuff and putting one on a tiny probe instead of the 48-7S is laughable. All they do is replace the Mainsail and Skipper, making the first 5 minutes of my missions less of a lagfest.

Edited April 5, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[karolus10]

Actually there is nothing to worry about new parts balance as stock parts aren't yet balanced in the first place... enjoy stock OP parts or don't use them if you feel unchallenged .

[Red Iron Crown]

I disagree to a point. I don't remember the last time I used anything other than an LV-N or 48-7S in space. They're clearly better than all other engines. I also almost exclusively use the lander can because it's the lightest "capsule" that holds a Kerbal. It's clearly better than most anything else out there with the exception that if you want to bring a lot of guys, you need to bring a lot of lander cans. But then you can use the 4-man hab module so long as you also have one can for control, or a probe core. Speaking of probe cores, there is almost never a reason to use any one but the OKTO2.

The LV-N is balanced in the sense that its TWR is atrociously low, it's certainly not an all purpose engine that's good at both lifting and orbital maneuvers. The 48-7S is a good example; it's the engine that was considered by many to be the most overpowered until this release, yet there were still situations in which another comparable engine made sense. As for capsules and probe cores, the differences are small enough that they can be ignored if you need different attachment points or some other consideration. I don't think parts need to be perfectly balanced, just not egregiously unbalanced.

Another overpowered stock part is the command seat, if you go by the numbers it is the only rational choice for manned missions.

[Jouni]

I just used the Skipper and the Poodle in my Apollo-style Mun landing (with ion engines), because they were the best stock engines that met the design criteria. The Skipper was used in the upper stage/transfer stage, while the Poodle was used in the command module. Surely I could have got marginally more delta-v with clusters of smaller engines, but those clusters would not have fit inline in the stack.

In my 0.23 sandboxes, I used the 24-77 much more often than the 48-7S. The 24-77 attaches nicely to the fuel tank, while the 48-7S needs ugly hacks and fuel lines, as the bottom of the fuel tank is usually reserved for something else.

[Ziff]

Hey Ziff,

I am sorry to tell you, that you have to think outside the box.

You can in fact attach every Engine to every Fueltank and this is where the Engines very own TWR comes in handy.

It is not just about to put a huge engine onto a huge fueltank. You can also put a LV-T45 onto one of the new Fueltanks.

Actually my concern is not about the TWR of the new Parts but about their ISP which gives you the opportunity to get to every Planet without any hassle.

Further on, it will take away the pressure that Forces you to learn new things like Asparagus-staging, Rendezvous-ing and Docking.

Hey, MalfunctionM1Ke, I am sorry to tell you that you are making the exact same useless arguments that people made when the 2m parts came out. You could previously get to any planet without a hassle with 1m parts. 2m parts allowed us to get larger things to those same planets with less of a hassle. The new 3m parts are in line with that same progression. Maybe you just aren't thinking big enough? You can, by all means, launch the same old landers with less of the newer parts. OR, you can build larger landers and habitats then you ever could have before, and get them to planets without needing 1200 parts to do it.

You can play KSP either way, but don't think because you aren't using the new parts to their maximum that it somehow makes them OP. I can SSTO a FL-T800 with an LV-909 and a control chair. Does that make them OP?

Edit:

Further on, it will take away the pressure that Forces you to learn new things like Asparagus-staging, Rendezvous-ing and Docking.

Career mode will (hopefully) be the pressure that forces people to learn those things when the combination of unlocking the tech tree and part costs are both factored in.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Ziff

[SkyRender]

I wonder if the people complaining also feel that the Merlin 1D is unbalanced compared to the Merlin 1C since it gets better TWR and ISP both, and that SpaceX should stop using 1D engines and go back to the 1C version to keep things balanced.

(I figured a bit of absurdity was just what this topic (and all of the other 0.23.5 "unbalanced" topics) needed.)

[Rakaydos]

I wonder if the people complaining also feel that the Merlin 1D is unbalanced compared to the Merlin 1C since it gets better TWR and ISP both, and that SpaceX should stop using 1D engines and go back to the 1C version to keep things balanced.

(I figured a bit of absurdity was just what this topic (and all of the other 0.23.5 "unbalanced" topics) needed.)

That depends. Will I have to page past the Merlin 1, Merlin 1A, Melrin 1B, and Merlin 1C in order to get to the REAL engine?

In stock 23.0, a Turbojet/Ion SSTO to laythe and back was an achievement... but you wernt going to be landing it on the mun. Moho lander, Tylo lander, Eve return vehical, kerbol escape probe... all these things have different engineering requirements.

Now the answer to to throw an SLS engine on it. Kerbin ascent sure, that's what it's meant for. But there is n reason to get rid of it once you're in orbit, and the lack of a bottom atta node is only encouraging asparagussed monstrocities.

[SkyRender]

That depends. Will I have to page past the Merlin 1, Merlin 1A, Melrin 1B, and Merlin 1C in order to get to the REAL engine?

In stock 23.0, a Turbojet/Ion SSTO to laythe and back was an achievement... but you wernt going to be landing it on the mun. Moho lander, Tylo lander, Eve return vehical, kerbol escape probe... all these things have different engineering requirements.

Now the answer to to throw an SLS engine on it. Kerbin ascent sure, that's what it's meant for. But there is n reason to get rid of it once you're in orbit, and the lack of a bottom atta node is only encouraging asparagussed monstrocities.

Let me see if I have this clear. Your issue is that people can accomplish tasks more easily now than they could before? So effectively what you're taking issue with is that it was harder in the past and is easier now, therefore people can do the same things you did in the past without that kind of trouble you had and it makes you upset? Have I got about the right measure of this, or is there something else you're trying to say here?

[rkman]

I wonder if the people complaining also feel that the Merlin 1D is unbalanced compared to the Merlin 1C since it gets better TWR and ISP both,

Depends on how much better.

60% more thrust and 15% higher Isp and almost the same mass? (Mainsail vs KR-2L)

I don't think so.

[SkyRender]

Depends on how much better.

60% more thrust and 15% higher Isp and almost the same mass? (Mainsail vs KR-2L)

I don't think so.

Merlin 1C

480kN TWR (96:1)

275 Atmo/305 Vac ISP

Merlin 1D

620kN TWR (150:1)

282 Atmo/311 Vac ISP

Doing the math, the Merlin 1D is smaller than the 1C, but gets a lot more thrust and slightly better ISP. Basically just what you're complaining about here. I guess we should stop using the Merlin 1D immediately, then. Silly SpaceX, trying to make progress!

[WhiteWeasel]

...(I figured a bit of absurdity was just what this topic (and all of the other 0.23.5 "unbalanced" topics) needed.)

Holy crap, The KSP forums since ARM got released looks the starcraft II forums every time a blizzard puts a patch out.

[LethalDose]

Balance should be one of the last steps in game development. When the game is "scope complete" and all of the game features are implemented, then the devs should start evaluating part balance, because that's the only time they'll have the tools in place to actually balance the parts. I've got more thoughts on this, but I'm keeping any theses out of these forum posts.

Occasionally, "the game is in development" actually is avalid response to these issues. This is one of those times.