[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [16.1][28.05.2024][Mars Expedition WIP]

[TheKSPBeginner]

On March 20, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Beale said:

• -snip-

-snip

Is it done? If it is, can I have it (plus Zenit and Energia) for 1.3, please?

Edited April 18, 2018 by TheKSPBeginner
polite

[tjsnh]

On 4/16/2018 at 3:44 PM, Beale said:

Energia Balance

This is a problem that needs to be taken on - the current 5m parts are huge, and very heavy. In turn, the RD-0120 parts are very powerful to compensate.
Would it be better to keep it as it is? Or scale mass and fuel amounts by 75% or 50% ?

 

For my 10cents, reducing engine efficiency is the 'silver bullet' for balance. If a booster stack seems OP, make the engine(s) more thirsty.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by tjsnh

[Barzon]

Are the D2 parts still in this mod?
 

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Barzon Kerman said:

Are the D2 parts still in this mod?

Ye

[Barzon]

Merci beucoup @CobaltWolf !

[CobaltWolf]

23 minutes ago, Barzon Kerman said:

Merci beucoup @CobaltWolf !

(it's not)

Edited April 19, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[Barzon]

Edited April 19, 2018 by Barzon Kerman

[TheKSPBeginner]

the proton rocket flips

[TheRedTom]

29 minutes ago, TheKSPBeginner said:

the proton rocket flips

Like this? Admirable dedication to realism @Beale

 

[Beale]

On 4/17/2018 at 12:19 AM, debaker02 said:

I think you should balance like bdb, then when you scale the system to 2.5 it all flies ok.

David

On 4/17/2018 at 3:33 AM, kremonia said:

Already done this via simple and generic Module Manager config. It has now about 75 supplies per 1 crew member on board and 1 kerbal month per crew member it is definitely  too much. So let me know what you as a mod maintainer prefer: realism or kerbalism.

On 4/17/2018 at 7:07 AM, Derb said:

As in reduce the values to 75/50% of stockalike scaling? I would say no - should be scaled consistently with all your other parts. It would feel very off to have normal scaling for smaller parts and impotent 5m, especially with other stock balanced 5m part mods also installed. Why use Beale's Energia tanks when SpaceY/KW/NF 5m tanks are twice the fuel for the same size? Because they are real pretty of course. But beautiful, not as useful tanks would just make people angry I'd think.

On 4/17/2018 at 8:10 AM, hraban said:

Scale your Mod to 75%

On 4/17/2018 at 8:57 AM, Pulsar said:

Balance it like BDB and using LH2 would be nice as well. It gonna work great on 2.5x scale.

This may open up for some LH2 upper stage. KVD-1 anyone? 

On 4/17/2018 at 11:49 AM, DJ Reonic said:

I would suggest balancing the energia relative to your other rockets. All of your rockets work well in a 2.5x system, as do BDB, Commonwealth, reDIRECT, and the Shuttles (with the 2.5x config). I hardly play with stock scale anymore.

On 4/17/2018 at 11:55 AM, StarStreak2109 said:

I second!

On 4/18/2018 at 2:07 PM, tjsnh said:

For my 10cents, reducing engine efficiency is the 'silver bullet' for balance. If a booster stack seems OP, make the engine(s) more thirsty.

 

Many thanks for the feedback guys!

Sorry, I was quite unclear, not a general question on balancing the mod, as it will remain as it currently is optimised for 2.5x and balanced against the stock parts - this is more specific to the Energia.
Of course, as we all know, the Energia was fueled by low-density Liquid Hydrogen, when transferrring to KSP, we use liquid fuel, with a high density.

The problem now, the KSP Energia is waaaay heavier than a same scale rocket with LH2 fuel,  it is a challenge to even give it > 1 TWR.

As some of you have pointed out, LH2 by optional MM patch can possibly a solution.

The 75% scaling on fuel / mass would not exactly be a 'nerf' as the dry / wet mass ratio would be the same as a stock tank, it would just be physically larger. (Re: why use these when other 5m would hold more fuel, well they would be heavier also).

I hope I do not sound ready for combat  I really appreciate the feedback, and don't intend to bounce off all the points raised, just a bit more info and context from my side.

On 4/19/2018 at 12:50 PM, Barzon Kerman said:

Are the D2 parts still in this mod?
 

I am surprised anyone would remember them! They were removed maybe 3-4 years ago!  

To be honest, it was really bad interpretation, I think somebody else could make a really good stockalike Apollo D2!

Edited April 20, 2018 by Beale

[RaiderMan]

On 4/19/2018 at 7:50 AM, Barzon Kerman said:

Are the D2 parts still in this mod?
 

 

2 minutes ago, Beale said:

I am surprised anyone would remember them! They were removed maybe 3-4 years ago!  

I may be only in the game for 6-7 months but I do have some wisdom to offer..hey, dont knock the classics man.

[debaker02]

Hmmm then I would go to lh2 via configs.  That way if you do not want the crp, it would work stock

[Beale]

[TheKSPBeginner]

6 hours ago, TheRedTom said:

Like this? Admirable dedication to realism @Beale

 

a little bit slower, when it does grav turn

[Derb]

2 hours ago, Beale said:

That is 1960s futurism as all get-out. Did NASA provide any reason beyond using their own design in rejecting this?

[Tyko]

3 hours ago, Beale said:

The 75% scaling on fuel / mass would not exactly be a 'nerf' as the dry / wet mass ratio would be the same as a stock tank, it would just be physically larger. (Re: why use these when other 5m would hold more fuel, well they would be heavier also).

Thanks makes sense...wow, tough call. @benjee10 is wrestling with the same issue on ReDirect mod replicating Jupiter and Orion.

To date I've been against adding LH2, but both of your mods are challenged with trying to use scale tank sizes while dealing with denser LF. Even at 2.5x LFO stock balanced engines work well and offer a nice challenge. I'm just concerned that adding ISP 400+ engines is going to make the game too easy and force me to move to 3.2x 

Either way you go I'll still enjoy your app. Perhaps, you could offer both options to players and make it configurable via @linuxgurugamer's Patch Manager? Just an idea 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Tyko

[Beale]

1 hour ago, Derb said:

That is 1960s futurism as all get-out. Did NASA provide any reason beyond using their own design in rejecting this?

You can read a bit more here.

 

GitHub

 

[CobaltWolf]

2 hours ago, Derb said:

That is 1960s futurism as all get-out. Did NASA provide any reason beyond using their own design in rejecting this?

41 minutes ago, Beale said:

You can read a bit more here.

Careful though... Mark Wade is very much a 'the grass is greener' type writer. Remember the North American design wound up being much heavier and more complicated than was originally proposed. The problem with 'What Ifs', especially in aerospace, is the legacy they leave consists entirely of marketing documents trying to sell the idea in the first place.

[Dedpewlio]

Cool mod! 

[debaker02]

15 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

 The problem with 'What Ifs', especially in aerospace, is the legacy they leave consists entirely of marketing documents trying to sell the idea in the first place.

Yeah and unless the team that proposed it already builds stuff like it...... Let's just say even money it works.....

[Beale]

[Tyko]

3 hours ago, Beale said:

I built the craft above and think I found a problem. The AK-22 monopropellant motors are tied to throttle and there isn't an option to turn that off. As a result, when I throttle up the LFO engines in the nosecone they are fighting the AK-22 which are firing in the opposite direction.

Also, noted that none of those saddle tanks will hold LFO, so the ship as designed only has about 313dv for the LFO engines. Is this the way it's supposed to be? I guess for orbital operations 313dv is quite a bit. There's also tons of DV for monopropellant, but not much power to accelerate forward.

This may have all be by design in the RL version, just wasn't sure how to use this craft in KSP

[Derb]

3 minutes ago, Tyko said:

I built the craft above and think I found a problem. The AK-22 monopropellant motors are tied to throttle and there isn't an option to turn that off. As a result, when I throttle up the LFO engines in the nosecone they are fighting the AK-22 which are firing in the opposite direction.

Also, noted that none of those saddle tanks will hold LFO, so the ship as designed only has about 313dv for the LFO engines. Is this the way it's supposed to be? I guess for orbital operations 313dv is quite a bit. There's also tons of DV for monopropellant, but not much power to accelerate forward.

This may have all be by design in the RL version, just wasn't sure how to use this craft in KSP

I believe the LFO engines are for re-entry of the capsule, after separation from the cargo block. The monopropellant engines are for the orbital operations. The docking port is 'forward' although the craft is launched facing the other direction, with the crew in the re-entry capsule (for emergency abort).

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, Derb said:

I believe the LFO engines are for re-entry of the capsule, after separation from the cargo block. The monopropellant engines are for the orbital operations. The docking port is 'forward' although the craft is launched facing the other direction, with the crew in the re-entry capsule (for emergency abort).

Got it! LOL...that worked...what a whacky design   

Why carry LFO engines and tanks at all when you could just de-orbit using Monoprop instead and save a ton of weight?

Edited April 22, 2018 by Tyko

[Derb]

27 minutes ago, Tyko said:

Got it! LOL...that worked...what a whacky design   

Why carry LFO engines and tanks at all when you could just de-orbit using Monoprop instead and save a ton of weight?

The other section with the monoprop engines can can be left attached to a station.