Theory vs. Practice: The ARM parts.

[magnemoe]

The point I was making is that I've found the simplicity of build and reduced part-count using ARM parts becomes worth considering for payloads as low as 10t. With fewer, more powerful, parts I am also no longer using asparagus staging as a matter of course, which again makes builds simpler and reduces build-count. The new launch vehicles are also cheaper, in as much as cost has any relevance at the moment. Maintaining a launch TWR of 1.6 - 2 and deltaV of 4,600 - 4,800m/s the only downside is their reduced payload ratio; in this specific case down from 16.49% for a somewhat optimised asparagus build to 11.34%. As 10% rocket payload ratio is to be expected as a rule of thumb that's "acceptable", if not inspiring. Launchers for heavier payloads have better ratios.

Before the introduction of ARM parts I found 'simple' builds - such as just sticking a mainsail under everything - were so inadequate that parts had to be multiplied and supplemented (moar boosters!) just to get decent performance, obviating any benefits. Broadly, the 'practice', which has changed and which I am addressing, is that 'simple' is now, often, also right, thus I have shunned more complex builds that I would have adopted before. You are right, of course, in that I am still interested in efficiency and performance and, to that extent, my play style has not changed.

None of this is a complaint about anything. It is simply a practical observation, such as this thread was intended for. Not polemic.

Far more so then the 18 ton launcher is an SSTO who can return to pad.

Has an 120 ton too,

no cross feed or staging except for dropping payload.

With an huge crane and an refueler rover I could dock an new payload, refuel and launch again

Note that SSTO with return to pad become more and more efficient as the size goes up, this was true even before ARM, however with arm they become practical, the stronger joints you can also put interplanetary ship on top of launcher not build launcher around it.

[RocketBlam]

Balancing compared to what? There are no competitors in the game. There's no such thing as "OP".

Besides that, the game isn't even finished yet. Don't get married to the game as it was in .23, when the final version may be nothing like that.

[Red Iron Crown]

Balancing compared to what? There are no competitors in the game. There's no such thing as "OP".

Balanced compared to other parts. An engine with a thrust of 10000KN, Isp of 10000s and a mass of 0.1t would be OP because there would never be a reason to use anything else.

Besides that, the game isn't even finished yet. Don't get married to the game as it was in .23, when the final version may be nothing like that.

Of course. That's the whole reason we discuss how things are balanced, to give feedback to the devs on how things are currently working.

[RocketBlam]

Balanced compared to other parts. An engine with a thrust of 10000KN, Isp of 10000s and a mass of 0.1t would be OP because there would never be a reason to use anything else.

Of course. That's the whole reason we discuss how things are balanced, to give feedback to the devs on how things are currently working.

Then I hope you're not suggesting that they stick with things the way they are in .23.

I know it's a little disconcerting, but the new parts are not that big a deal. I still use the old parts all the time.

[Red Iron Crown]

Then I hope you're not suggesting that they stick with things the way they are in .23.

I know it's a little disconcerting, but the new parts are not that big a deal. I still use the old parts all the time.

I don't believe I suggested anything. Just that balance is a real thing, and it's possible for parts to be OP.

Good for you on not caring about the new parts' balance, but it matters to some other players.

[EdFred]

I think this whole "overpowered" and "these new engines aren't fair" is, well, dumb.

In the real world is there only one class of car engine made? No. Do some higher powered car engines get better mileage than lower powered ones? Yes. Can you carry more in some cars than others for less fuel? Yes. Does the same go for airplanes, and boats, and trains, and everything else out there? Yes.

So what is the problem with the new engines?

[Rakaydos]

So what is the problem with the new engines?

If there's no reason for the Mk 55 (or other lesser engines) to exist, why do I need to scroll past them to get to the RCS fuel and fuel lines? Just take them out and be done with it.

[EdFred]

There are reasons for them. I've used every engine in the game for specific purposes and reasons - and still do, even after the 3.75 series came out.

[NASAFanboy]

Why should we balance them?

Wouldn't it be easier to have Squad link us to the ARM Balance Mod on their page every update instead?

I think the ARM engines are fine, there is no need whatsoever to nerf th.

Nor so I see the point in this so called concept of "balancing". They don't need to be balanced, if anything, the rest of the engines need to be buffed. I'd rather have my vehicles look like rockets than a disgusting horror of struts and mainsails.

[Jouni]

After playing with the ARM engines for a month and a half, I've found that the Skipper has become my default engine. It's reasonably efficient and reasonably powerful, making it useful as a lower stage engine for small payloads, which account for the majority of my launches. For medium payloads, it's useful as an upper stage engine, as it fits inline in a "normal" rocket stack.

The LFB would be more efficient and powerful as a first stage engine, but it's too powerful for most purposes. I would either have to throttle down during the ascent, which is a sign of bad rocket design, or use more struts to stabilize the payload.

[Rakaydos]

Nor so I see the point in this so called concept of "balancing". They don't need to be balanced, if anything, the rest of the engines need to be buffed. I'd rather have my vehicles look like rockets than a disgusting horror of struts and mainsails.

Actually, the stock rebalance mod makes big rockets look -more- like rockets. The 3m engines lost quite a bit of ISP but gained thrust, meaning they can lift a taller stack but have to stage at some point. And it also puts fuel in adapters and aerodynamic nosecones so you have reason to put them on even without FAR.

[Pwnstarr]

Time warp is OP. so is asparagus staging. And kerbal G-force resistance. And lack of of consumables (air food water) depletion. And lack of thermal modeling. And lack of true aerodynamics.

[Red Iron Crown]

Time warp is OP. so is asparagus staging. And kerbal G-force resistance. And lack of of consumables (air food water) depletion. And lack of thermal modeling. And lack of true aerodynamics.

I think asparagus staging is the only legitimate case of OP in your list.

[Hannu]

Balance is not only delta v thing. Let's think other test. I want to get 200 t fuel tanker on 300 km orbit (to be sent to some other planet). If I use old 2,5 m parts, my craft have maybe about 800 parts, mostly struts, and it need few hours and 20 test launches to build it, even I have some experience from such a ships. Building of that experience took hundreds of hours. When I tested new 3,75 m parts for that purpose I found that that is trivial task. I just assembled a rocket, put maybe 20 struts and went to orbit in second try. That took maybe 10 minutes. In my opinion that was not what I want from game but of course I understand, that for example those who want to build huge space stations and feels hundreds of struts annoying are now happy. But I think that I mostly continue to use old parts in my constructions.

[magnemoe]

Balance is not only delta v thing. Let's think other test. I want to get 200 t fuel tanker on 300 km orbit (to be sent to some other planet). If I use old 2,5 m parts, my craft have maybe about 800 parts, mostly struts, and it need few hours and 20 test launches to build it, even I have some experience from such a ships. Building of that experience took hundreds of hours. When I tested new 3,75 m parts for that purpose I found that that is trivial task. I just assembled a rocket, put maybe 20 struts and went to orbit in second try. That took maybe 10 minutes. In my opinion that was not what I want from game but of course I understand, that for example those who want to build huge space stations and feels hundreds of struts annoying are now happy. But I think that I mostly continue to use old parts in my constructions.

This is an SSTO with 120 ton payload.

Putting 12 of the new SRB on it and it become an two stage reuseable launcher with 200 ton payload.

Perhaps more important, in 0.23 it was no big issue launching 100 ton into orbit, problem was that an 100 ton Jool mission tend to use an pretty long ship and with the old joins the only way to do this was to build the launcher around the ship, with 0.235 I can just put it on top as joins are stronger.

[DJEN]

Is this thread going anywhere?

If it's not, than this thread should go away into the abyssal pit of dead, blocked threads.

If it is, try to keep the debates as civil as possible, so as to not anger the moderators.

[SpaceGremlin]

This is an SSTO with 120 ton payload.

http://i.imgur.com/E2Q6jmN.png

Putting 12 of the new SRB on it and it become an two stage reuseable launcher with 200 ton payload.

Perhaps more important, in 0.23 it was no big issue launching 100 ton into orbit, problem was that an 100 ton Jool mission tend to use an pretty long ship and with the old joins the only way to do this was to build the launcher around the ship, with 0.235 I can just put it on top as joins are stronger.

You do realize that the rocket you posted has about the same diameter of a real life Saturn 5 and about 2/3 of its thrust? That is a monster rocket even by real life standards so I see nothing wrong with its lifting capacity. Hopefully the inclusion of budgets somewhat disincentivizes bundling 7 KS-25's together for routine missions.

[Hannu]

You do realize that the rocket you posted has about the same diameter of a real life Saturn 5 and about 2/3 of its thrust? That is a monster rocket even by real life standards so I see nothing wrong with its lifting capacity.

I do not criticize lifting capacity but easiness of building. I can make it in 10 minutes by using new parts but it take hours with Mainsails, 18 t fuel tanks and hundreds of struts. And because it can lift whatever reasonable spaceship into orbit it make things easy, which means boring for me. But I admit that my complaining is useless. I just do not use these parts and somebody who want to play different ways uses them. Freedom of choice and many possibilities are best thing in sandbox type games.

[KerbMav]

I just do not use these parts and somebody who want to play different ways uses them. Freedom of choice and many possibilities are best thing in sandbox type games.

Case closed, next!

[corvustech]

I've never seen so many people upset that and endgame part is as powerful as an...endgame part. At least on the research tree.

It's like any other OW game: you start squishy, get stronger and more skilled, and finally the challenge falls away some and you crank up difficulty or mod your game to keep it fun. I have a fallout 3 character that has all skills maxed but head rp and mods mean I still play it. Even Wing Commander Privateer was like that. It's all in what you do with the game once it's inherent conflict is resolved.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think the discussion was about the idea of endgame parts being in the game at all. Being that it is a sandbox-style game that doesn't have an "end".

[magnemoe]

You do realize that the rocket you posted has about the same diameter of a real life Saturn 5 and about 2/3 of its thrust? That is a monster rocket even by real life standards so I see nothing wrong with its lifting capacity. Hopefully the inclusion of budgets somewhat disincentivizes bundling 7 KS-25's together for routine missions.

yes, I know its an very powerful launcher, I also know that all real world rocket SSTO concepts are huge.

However I also has an single 24x4 and 3.75 meter tanks SSTO with 18 ton cargo capability.

Note that both are fully reusable SSTO, you could theoretically refuel them and load new cargo however the cargo handling crane would be hard to make.

[Pecan]

...It's like any other OW game...

What's an "OW game"? (all google gives me is spelling games ^^)

[NecroBones]

What's an "OW game"? (all google gives me is spelling games ^^)

Open World, I'm guessing? That's the only thing that's coming to mind.

[Red Iron Crown]

"Open World"

Edit: Ninja skeletons now...