The unofficially official 0.24-Kerbapalooza Thread - Now extra #HYPETRAIN!

[Jouni]

BTW: I don't know if you noticed, but as expected: Prices of some of the items were changed.

Here is what's shown on the video:

We can also see that 80% of part costs gets recovered.

Some of the numbers don't make sense. The price of an FL-T200 fuel tank is 425, and we get 266.56 back when we recover the fuel tank. We also get 0.8 per unit of fuel, so the recovery of a full fuel tank will be worth 426.56, assuming that the price of oxidizer is the same as the price of liquid fuel.

Apparently we'll get a game, where engines are cheap and fuel is very expensive. If the price of the LV-T30 engine remains at 850, the engine will burn 2-3 times its worth of fuel in every launch. That's quite far from the SpaceX-like numbers, where 0.3% of launch costs are fuel.

[magnemoe]

Procedural is not random. There are two separate terms. Random missions were never mentioned to be included in KSP.

Procedural missions would never give you things like "establish a Jool colony before your first technology is unlocked" because they are procedural - algorithm can read where you have been and what you have done.

We know about it for quite a while, hehe, you should have visited forum more often

Where did you see any other currencies or any trades?

I know its not the same, the Muns craters are procedural, basically random with an fixed seed so it will never change.

It will not work that way for contracts, so I thought more like leveled lists, you get new contracts based on reputation, Landing a probe on Eve would be in much of the same difficulty as a manned landing on Mun.

You might have assignments like measure temperature and pressure in Eve ocean.

You will not randomly get an Eve sample return mission.

The other option is just to have a long list of missions and hand them out filtered by reputation, still times need to be adjusted. More so as you have transfer windows and the alarm clock is not stock.

[Apollo91]

I'll have to watch the video again, it looked like everything was returning 100% when I watched it.

[Xavven]

We can also see that 80% of part costs gets recovered.

Some of the numbers don't make sense. The price of an FL-T200 fuel tank is 425, and we get 266.56 back when we recover the fuel tank. We also get 0.8 per unit of fuel, so the recovery of a full fuel tank will be worth 426.56, assuming that the price of oxidizer is the same as the price of liquid fuel.

Apparently we'll get a game, where engines are cheap and fuel is very expensive. If the price of the LV-T30 engine remains at 850, the engine will burn 2-3 times its worth of fuel in every launch. That's quite far from the SpaceX-like numbers, where 0.3% of launch costs are fuel.

I read somewhere that the turbopump is one of the most expensive parts of the rocket. Maybe more expensive than the engine. I guess that should technically make the fuel tank, but not its fuel, the most expensive part?

[magnemoe]

We can also see that 80% of part costs gets recovered.

Some of the numbers don't make sense. The price of an FL-T200 fuel tank is 425, and we get 266.56 back when we recover the fuel tank. We also get 0.8 per unit of fuel, so the recovery of a full fuel tank will be worth 426.56, assuming that the price of oxidizer is the same as the price of liquid fuel.

Apparently we'll get a game, where engines are cheap and fuel is very expensive. If the price of the LV-T30 engine remains at 850, the engine will burn 2-3 times its worth of fuel in every launch. That's quite far from the SpaceX-like numbers, where 0.3% of launch costs are fuel.

Yes, I did not like this much, rather increase the engine costs a lot. Far more realistic, it would also push you in the direction of reusable upper stages with SRB and drop tanks.

But with kethane you might start to sell fuel back

[Sandworm]

Apparently we'll get a game, where engines are cheap and fuel is very expensive. If the price of the LV-T30 engine remains at 850, the engine will burn 2-3 times its worth of fuel in every launch. That's quite far from the SpaceX-like numbers, where 0.3% of launch costs are fuel.

Yes, It is illogical. Fuels should be basicallly free in comparison to the hardware in which they burn. But that path leads to low TWR rockets that look similar to realworld space systems and we don't want that.

[AngusJimiKeith]

I read somewhere that the turbopump is one of the most expensive parts of the rocket. Maybe more expensive than the engine. I guess that should technically make the fuel tank, but not its fuel, the most expensive part?

The turbopump is usually a part of the engine, though some engines don't use turbopumps at all. Pump-driven engines would be the most expensive parts on a rocket for sure. (Not including payload)

Regardless....fuel is dirt cheap compared to components. I hope they tweak the cost of fuel down, because it just seems like too much.

[Xavven]

The turbopump is usually a part of the engine, though some engines don't use turbopumps at all. Pump-driven engines would be the most expensive parts on a rocket for sure. (Not including payload)

Regardless....fuel is dirt cheap compared to components. I hope they tweak the cost of fuel down, because it just seems like too much.

Cool! Thanks for the clarification as I'm still learning.

[Apollo91]

We can also see that 80% of part costs gets recovered.

Some of the numbers don't make sense. The price of an FL-T200 fuel tank is 425, and we get 266.56 back when we recover the fuel tank. We also get 0.8 per unit of fuel, so the recovery of a full fuel tank will be worth 426.56, assuming that the price of oxidizer is the same as the price of liquid fuel.

Apparently we'll get a game, where engines are cheap and fuel is very expensive. If the price of the LV-T30 engine remains at 850, the engine will burn 2-3 times its worth of fuel in every launch. That's quite far from the SpaceX-like numbers, where 0.3% of launch costs are fuel.

Actually, I just ran the numbers and it's even worse. The FLT 200 costs 425, holds 90 fuel and 110 oxidizer. From the video we know that each unit of fuel is valued at .8, and each unit of oxidizer is valued at 0.18. This means that each fuel tank costs (425-{(90*0.8)+(110*0.18)})= 149.6 empty, with 275.4 funds ate up in fuel. Since the tank is returned for 266.56, and the fuel in the tank is worth 275.4 on its own, that means a full tank will return about 541.6 funds. I thought maybe that the price of fuel wasn't included in the price of the tank; but upon adding all the costs of the individual parts together I did get the 3147 funds the rocket said it cost in the VAB, so fueling isn't an extra expense. Most likely this will get fixed when this gets pointed out, and the devs will make the return 80% of the EMPTY value of the tank. Indeed, the cost in the VAB should be the empty cost as well, and the fueling cost should be separate; after all tweakables mean that that tank won't always be full so why should I pay for a full load of fuel?

This all means that the 3 FLT200 tanks that were on that ship were carrying 826.2 value in fuel - about what the engine cost, yes. But the total rocket cost 3147, of which 826.2 is just about 26.2% or so. Yeah, that's a lot higher than SpaceX, but considering the fact that both tanks and engines in KSP are overweight in comparison to their real-world counterparts and not as effective, that's pretty much to be expected.

The really interesting thing about this is that the 80% return on recovered vessel parts will finally, finally, give practical gameplay value to those returnable-spaceplane-with-screwy-engineered-refueling-truck guys. It's about time the devs threw them a bone considering how hard they work to make those crazy contraptions\infrastructure work, especially in stock . Might have to build something along those lines myself, now...

[Apollo91]

Also, keep in mind that the LVT-30 is a starter engine. Later engines, the ARM engines especially, might be a lot more expensive; but the fuel is going to stay the same price. Also, the update hasn't dropped yet - for a reason! They might very well be hotly debating this very thing over pizza later today.

[Sky_walker]

Yes, It is illogical. Fuels should be basicallly free in comparison to the hardware in which they burn. But that path leads to low TWR rockets that look similar to realworld space systems and we don't want that.

o_O having fuel cheap and rockets expensive affects thrust to weight ratio? There must be some obscure logic behind it that I don't see.

Prices of the items got nothing to deal with their properties in KSP.

[Sandworm]

When fuel is cheap and engines are expensive, the most cost-efficient vehicles are those that use the fewest and smallest engines possible --> low TWR. The falcon9 heavy's TWR is 1.22. The SaturnV's was 1.15. Shuttle's was slightly higher at 1.5 but efficiency was never shuttle's primary design concern.

Realworld rockets are designed to barely get off the pad.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Sandworm
Had to do the math.

[Red Iron Crown]

o_O having fuel cheap and rockets expensive affects thrust to weight ratio? There must be some obscure logic behind it that I don't see.

Prices of the items got nothing to deal with their properties in KSP.

If engines are very expensive and fuel is cheap, one would tend to use just enough engine to get the rocket off the ground as more would be a waste of money. Sure, you would use more dV to get to orbit, but fuel is cheap so that's less significant than the additional engine cost to raise TWR.

Edit: Ninja'd!

[Jouni]

Also, keep in mind that the LVT-30 is a starter engine. Later engines, the ARM engines especially, might be a lot more expensive; but the fuel is going to stay the same price. Also, the update hasn't dropped yet - for a reason! They might very well be hotly debating this very thing over pizza later today.

The LV-T30 is one of the best launch engines. It's a bit small, but it has a reasonable TWR, and it beats pretty much everything in efficiency. If later engines have worse thrust-to-cost ratios, people will just keep using the LV-T30.

I missed the 0.18 price for oxidizer. That settles the inconsistency: the cost of an empty FL-T200 fuel tank is 333.2, and we get 266.56 back by recovering it. It also makes the empty fuel tanks the most expensive part of a launch vehicle. Given that a typical first stage using the LV-T30 engine has 2-3 FL-T800 fuel tanks, we'll have to pay 850 for the engine, 2665.6-3998.4 for the fuel tanks, and 734.4-1101.6 for the fuel. Jet boosters are starting to look really promising.

[cpast]

We can also see that 80% of part costs gets recovered.

Some of the numbers don't make sense. The price of an FL-T200 fuel tank is 425, and we get 266.56 back when we recover the fuel tank. We also get 0.8 per unit of fuel, so the recovery of a full fuel tank will be worth 426.56, assuming that the price of oxidizer is the same as the price of liquid fuel.

It is not. The price of oxidizer is 0.18/unit. Fuel is only 21.6% of the price of the FL-T200. We get 358.36 back from recovering a full one.

Apparently we'll get a game, where engines are cheap and fuel is very expensive. If the price of the LV-T30 engine remains at 850, the engine will burn 2-3 times its worth of fuel in every launch. That's quite far from the SpaceX-like numbers, where 0.3% of launch costs are fuel.

Again, oxidizer is quite cheap (at 0.18/unit); the total price of 1 unit of LF and the associated amount of oxidizer is $1.02.

Actually, I just ran the numbers and it's even worse. The FLT 200 costs 425, holds 90 fuel and 110 oxidizer. From the video we know that each unit of fuel is valued at .8, and each unit of oxidizer is valued at 0.18. This means that each fuel tank costs (425-{(90*0.8)+(110*0.18)})= 149.6 empty, with 275.4 funds ate up in fuel.

You mathed wrong. 90*0.8 + 110*.18 = 91.8. The tank is 333.20 empty.

Edited July 12, 2014 by cpast

[r4pt0r]

snippity snippity: Also, the update hasn't dropped yet - for a reason! They might very well be hotly debating this very thing over pizza later today.

this is a good point. isnt experimentals where they test whats balanced(and bug testing too of course)? if they see something at this stage, its a matter of tweaking config files, not rewriting code. they might do that yet.

[TrooperCooper]

Maybe oil is much less common on Kerbin than on Earth, and thus fuel becomes a lot more expensive.

Just trying to find an excuse I guess.

[Trentendegreth]

if your asking me, I'm going to adopt the wait and see approach. For all we know we may get the money per contract to offset the cost of fuel. At first blush it may seem like a lot but we have no metric to go by other than a short introductory video.

[Aethon]

Ahhh. I'm going buggy out here at Moose lake. Scratchin' my scratches and crackin' my crackers. I did so well not getting excited, then we went back to experimentals, and now we're so close. I.. I'm loosin' it. I know I threatened this earlier, and I hate to do it, my nuclear option but- as a weekend Dev motivational tool, I used the BBC's Vogon poetry generator ...

Harv I wrote you a poem .

I advise all non devs to LOOK AWAY

See, see the enormous sky,

Marvel at its big puse, depths.

Tell me, HarvesteR do you

Wonder why the banth ignores you?

Why its foobly stare

makes you feel discombobulated.

I can tell you, it is

Worried by your Brogruntalactic facial growth-

That looks like

A bad capon.

What's more, it knows

Your Balzacs' potting shed

Smells of wiener.

Everything under the big enormous sky

Asks why, why the fast is so slow?

You only charm cheese droppings.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Aethon

[Whackjob]

I don't think the cost of fuel matters much one way or the other. If it's too cheap, someone will make a mod to make the game harder. If it's very expensive, there will be a mod to make it cheap. Either way, everyone will get what they want.

[Trentendegreth]

I don't think the cost of fuel matters much one way or the other. If it's too cheap, someone will make a mod to make the game harder. If it's very expensive, there will be a mod to make it cheap. Either way, everyone will get what they want.

That pretty much sums up my thinking, .cfg tweaks for the win!!!

but really, so long as I'm getting half again cost of my rocket then ill be happy, if not then ill look at my end and redesign, if that doesn't fix it then ill worry about how much whatnot costs, until then Ill wait and see.

[Sandworm]

I don't think the cost of fuel matters much one way or the other. If it's too cheap, someone will make a mod to make the game harder. If it's very expensive, there will be a mod to make it cheap. Either way, everyone will get what they want.

Except that fuels are the one commonality amongst all mods. That's why you don't see many mods changing the density of fuels. Make them cheaper and all rockets are suddenly cheaper. So then to restore balance you have to alter all the part mods to balance against contracts. Or you have to change the stock+modded contracts. It would be much easier if Squad simply adopted a realistic fuels/parts cost ratio.

[cpast]

For the Space Shuttle ET (the only thing I can think of on actual rockets which is just a fuel tank and structural support; normally, fuel tank sections aren't separate components on rockets, so it's hard to get pricing data), it seems to be around $50-55 million per tank, and less than $1 million for the propellant (it's only $1.3 million for all the propellant on the Shuttle, including RCS and OMS fuel).

Even so, I don't think expensive fuel is an issue. Cheap fuel encourages wasting fuel to save other parts; expensive fuel favors efficient, minimal-weight missions. Maybe if fuel tanks had the price shifted (so tweaking fuel in a tank didn't change your price as much), but fuel plus tanks should be expensive, IMO.

Edited July 12, 2014 by cpast

[Robotengineer]

I'm more interested in mod compatibility, and also the restructured tech tree. I wonder how mods like Kethane and EPL will deal with currency. Also, do we know what the currency is called?

[cpast]

Also, do we know what the currency is called?

From the video, the UI seems to use the term "Funds".