When are we making 5 meter parts?

[Red Iron Crown]

this forum always makes me feel like an idiot.

I hear you. I started that challenge when I was still developing my entry for it, and some high skill people swept in and made my entry look so amateurish that I was too embarrassed to submit it. It's all good, though, I learn tricks from them even though I'll likely never be as good as they are. And I still have fun playing even if there are people much better than me at it.

[Killerdude8]

I'd prefer Squad finishes the 3.75M Lineup before bumping up another notch.

[Special Agent Sigvan]

I would be happy with an adjustable fuel tank with editable size.

[regex]

5m parts would be great. Or procedural fuel tanks, that would be better.

[0Kev]

I would enjoy stock 5M parts, but they are totally not needed to accomplish anything in KSP. Before that, we need proper 64 bit support, a lot more depth and difficulty (and/or variations in difficulty) for career mode, among many other things.

In real life, it takes almost 8km/s of DeltaV to reach low Earth orbit, and every planetary body is much further and much larger - so it's very important to have huge rockets.

In KSP, people have taken a single kerbal to every land-able body in the Kerbol system on a single launch with no refueling, brought the kerbal back home, BEFORE 3.75m parts.

[BudgetHedgehog]

5m parts wouldn't be overpowered in the same way that the 2m parts aren't - as long as you have a suitable payload, they're fine. Yeah, a Skipper/Jumbo/OKTO probe can easily SSTO but I wouldn't call the Skipper OP. Put an appropriate payload on top of the lifter and it's fine. The problem comes when people use the larger parts INSTEAD of smaller parts. Of course they're oing to be better, they're designed for more heavy-duty lifting.

But I digress - why did we need 3m parts? To put 2m payloads into orbit. Why do we need 5m parts? To put 3m payloads into orbit But I agree, the 3m part list should be expanded (at the very least, a docking port, SAS module, probe core, command pod and a non-stupid size RCS tank) before any 5m parts are included.

[Vanamonde]

This discussion of the game's development has been moved to the development discussion sub-forum.

[Laie]

I'd much prefer if I could finally build slim and tall rockets without them breaking in two at the first gust of wind, rather than having to expand sideways. Doesn't mean that I'd mind wider parts in the end... but an incentive to build aerodynamic rockets and the ability to do so are more urgent in my opinion.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Laie

[Clockwork_werewolf]

why did we need 3m parts? To put 2m payloads into orbit. Why do we need 5m parts? To put 3m payloads into orbit

This, all of this.

The question is where does this stop? After 3.75 was launched I saw a lot of new players not understanding that they need to go sideways as well as up. Because of the new 3.75 parts they just had so much power that understanding wasn't needed like it was before. This happened because size isn't arbitrary, it is based off the smallest object you can fit one Kerbal in. If you were very good you could get a Kerbal to any planet with just the 2.5 meter parts in one launch. If you were not so good (like me) you could get a Kerbal to any planet in 2-5 launches. Right now I can launch 100 tons into orbit with a reusable SSTO launcher. If you added 5 meter parts you could launch a vehicle that could visit every planet in the solar system in one launch. Above contest entries make me think this is not a ridiculous idea and I've even seem a 15 ton EVE lander so I mean EVERY planet.

In the real world we need such large rockets because of how big the earth is compared to kerbin and due to life support needs. In the Kerbal world 3.75 can already be argued to be too big. I do like the new parts though as a part reduction and they seem to fit well even if they do need a power or ISP reduction.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The question is where does this stop?

Well as 5m corresponds quite well to the Saturn Vs 10m then it should probably stop there.

Right now I can launch 100 tons into orbit with a reusable SSTO launcher.

This is due to the efficiency of the new parts rather than their thrust. At the moment they can act as both lifting engines and deep space engines which imo is OP.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

Well as 5m corresponds quite well to the Saturn Vs 10m then it should probably stop there.

I like this answer because it does actually give a stopping point. I will ask why 5 meter and not 3.75 corresponds well to Saturn's 10m? This is is not a dig I just want to see the working about delta-v, atmosphere, size compared to other sizes, ISP and suchlike.

This is due to the efficiency of the new parts rather than their thrust. At the moment they can act as both lifting engines and deep space engines which imo is OP.

To quote myself "I do like the new parts though as a part reduction and they seem to fit well even if they do need a power or ISP reduction."

It's also worth noting that you can make a 30 ton SSTO lifter with the old 2.5 meter parts. I started building a Duna craft out of 30 ton parts until I got board and 3.75 came out. Point being even with reduction I would still expect to get 60 ton SSTO launches with reduced power 3.75m parts. Pi*R^2, Pi*1.25^2=4.909 (to 3sf), Pi*1.875=11.045 (to 3sf). So I would expect at least double the 30 ton lift hence 60 ton SSTO lifter. With the 5 meter Pi*2.5^2=19.635 (3sf) you would again expect 106 ton SSTO's even with reduced engine power let alone if they were in line with the present 3.75 power.

[Jouni]

In the real world we need such large rockets because of how big the earth is compared to kerbin and due to life support needs. In the Kerbal world 3.75 can already be argued to be too big. I do like the new parts though as a part reduction and they seem to fit well even if they do need a power or ISP reduction.

Real rockets have wide cores, because it's cheaper and more efficient to make the rocket wide than to use a lot of boosters. You could build a 7-core version of the Falcon or the Delta IV, but it probably wouldn't make much sense. Combining the seven boosters into a single core would make the rocket stronger, lighter, and cheaper, and probably also improve its aerodynamic performance. Along with the fact that staging is risky and expensive, that pretty much explains why we rarely see more than two large boosters or four small boosters in real rockets.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I will ask why 5 meter and not 3.75 corresponds well to Saturn's 10m

I personally (others may not agree) that size wise 5m part correspond quite well to the 10m lower stages. As the 3.75m parts correspond directly to the SLS parts which IRL are 8m this fits roughly with the pattern. Technically it would correspond to closer to 4.5m but for simplicity's sake 5 works.

[guest91111]

I would love to see 5m parts, even though they would probably completely annihilate the physics engine

[Kegereneku]

If I remember right the gap between 1.75 and 2.5 was mostly due to the introduction of Kerbals and the bigger 3-kerman capsules.

The introduction of 3.75 parts was a little over the top because it basically only serve to launch things.

So rather than bigger parts I think we should fill gap, like :

- High-thrust 0.625 engines and fuel-tank

- Utility parts for 3.75 (joint, maybe an habitat)

- Low thrust 3.75 engines (the balance will be horrible I know)

That's just personal pick of course.

[Comrade Jenkens]

If I remember right the gap between 1.75 and 2.5 was mostly due to the introduction of Kerbals and the bigger 3-kerman capsules.

The introduction of 3.75 parts was a little over the top because it basically only serve to launch things.

So rather than bigger parts I think we should fill gap, like :

- High-thrust 0.625 engines and fuel-tank

- Utility parts for 3.75 (joint, maybe an habitat)

- Low thrust 3.75 engines (the balance will be horrible I know)

That's just personal pick of course.

As I said earlier I would like to see 5m parts but I also think all of your points are much higher priority and they need to come first.

[Rizendell]

I want to make a delta IV rocket, and those are all 5 meter parts. I would like stock 5 meter parts to be added to the tree to help extend it and give me a reason to do more science than just the mun and minmus.

[Comrade Jenkens]

I want to make a delta IV rocket, and those are all 5 meter parts. I would like stock 5 meter parts to be added to the tree to help extend it and give me a reason to do more science than just the mun and minmus.

The ksp rocket scale is roughly half that of real life. That means that the 2.5m parts in KSP are most appropriate for the Delta IV.

[Whirligig Girl]

As much as I want 5 meter parts, they're not happening any time soon. And yes, this is something Maxmaps has said, when I asked him on Squadcast. But, if you want stockalike Parts for 5 meter, here.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Sky_walker]

I'd prefer Squad finishes the 3.75M Lineup before bumping up another notch.

This.

(10char)

[Tex_NL]

If you want actual working 5m parts instead of just concept art get [thread=51037]KW Rocketry[/thread].

[Taquarinha]

What on earth do you NEED 5m parts for? What can you not launch into space with the new 3.75m parts? You can make an SSTO that launches 100 tons with the new 3.75 parts, how can you need more power?

Because we can launch 200 ton payloads into LKO with 2.5m parts. BUT LOOKS RIDICULOUS AND MAKES NO SENSE. What we want is the ability to build rockets that do their job and we can show screenshots of them to our friends that doesn't play KSP and they will say it's awesome to.

[Taquarinha]

I did my manned Moho-mission (Lander+Return) with 7 1.25m Tanks and Nukes and no fancy stuff like homann trajectories or any form of planning. No problem at all. Still, personally i'd like to see 5m parts, if just for insanities sake. There is no 'to big' in Kerbal Space Program.

I used the KW Rocketry 5m parts to launch my interplanetary transfer vehicle of 110tons and that doesn't appeared insane to me.

[makinyashikino]

10 metre parts when???

[NecroBones]

5m parts would be good but there are still many gaps to be filled with the 3.75m parts. And there is a ton of other stuff I'd rather see first.

But finally being able to make a nice and smooth stock Saturn V is something that I really look forward to.

Agree with this.

I would love to see 5m fuel tanks, with adapters to use multiples of the existing engines, personally (that is, I don't think 5m engines are necessary). But I think it would be better to fill in the gaps at 3.75m first, and flesh out other areas as well. To me, 5m is relatively low priority.