Don't completely discard mass of physics-insignificant parts

[Eric S]

I can only think of two things that would bother me if they lost massless status, both because they're normally placed non-symmetrically. Ladders and aircraft wheels, and maybe some of the smaller experiments.

[AlamoVampire]

I can only think of two things that would bother me if they lost massless status, both because they're normally placed non-symmetrically. Ladders and aircraft wheels, and maybe some of the smaller experiments.

thats the other thing that is a problem if things that are currently massless become mass enabled. How many of you would suddenly need USELESS ladders on the exact other side of the vessel now? how many more parts would you need to add, clogging up processing power that will induce lag in some players? no, things that carry now mass now NEED TO REMAIN SUCH.

[RidingTheFlow]

I'd wish people read the OP and not just the title...

I didn't propose to make all parts physics-significant

I proposed to add mass value of these parts to whole mass of either parent part(already physics-significant) or the whole craft(as "phantom mass"), just to make sure that delta-V and TWR are appropriately affected.

Surely, many of these parts are tiny, but they still could have appropriately tiny mass, no reason to have it at zero.

[AlamoVampire]

I'd wish people read the OP and not just the title...

I didn't propose to make all parts physics-significant

I proposed to add mass value of these parts to whole mass of either parent part(already physics-significant) or the whole craft(as "phantom mass"), just to make sure that delta-V and TWR are appropriately affected.

Surely, many of these parts are tiny, but they still could have appropriately tiny mass, no reason to have it at zero.

look, adding mass, even w/out a physics calculation for THAT part, STILL increases the PHYSICS CALCULATIONS for the ENTIRE VESSEL. Lets say, you make say STRUTS weigh .1 tons, ladders weigh say half a ton for the largest one, but have NO physics for those parts. You have STILL upped the weight of the vessel, which means you need MORE DV to lift it to orbit, to the mun or eeloo or where ever. THAT is going to FORCE physics calculations to deal with the now added mass of fuel, additional boosters, additional motors and so on. It is a LOSE LOSE proposition, it really is.

Let me show you an example of what I mean. Here is my Kerbal Orbital Sciences Complex <a FULL space station sitting on the launch pad in picture one>

NOW, here it is, shortly after reaching orbital position:

I had JUST decoupled the station from the lift BRACING ONLY. Tell me oh kind OP what do you see? thats right, about 100+ STRUTS!! that thing weighed 1402.670 TONS on the pad and contained 486 parts, and I launched it with ALL tanks on it EMPTY save for the RCS tanks, because quite frankly how else was I going to turn it in space? As it sits in orbit, it is 93.44 TONS and now has only 176 parts.

NOW, imagine if, things were as you suggest... HOW much heavier is that station on the pad? Well, considering it had about 100 struts on the station and launcher, id wager a LOT heavier.

Lets boil it down more.

Lets say, for instance, in real life, you want to punt something to LEO for some reason, and lets say, you want to use the famed Atlas V:

Do you know the cost per POUND to punt an object into just LOW EARTH ORBIT <at LEAST 99 MILES UP, to 2,000 MILES UP>? About 13 THOUSAND DOLLARS US. PER. POUND LIFTED. Using the ATLAS V. SO, using our Atlas V as a bench mark, lets see what the price would have been for my station JUST to punt it to orbit. JUST THE STATION as a payload: $2,463,452,160. THATS just to punt 93.44 TONS OF STATION into LEO of 99 MILES if the ATLAS V could carry it. That is its weight with MASS LESS PARTS. BTW, that COST? It is PAYLOAD ONLY, no fuel, no rocket motor, no anything ATLAS V. JUST PURE STATION, I shudder to think on the cost of the rocket ITSELF or the FUEL EVEN.

Now, imagine adding weight to things like ladders, or lights or anything else NOT mass enabled. Imagine the cost, no REALLY THINK ABOUT IT. COSTS WILL BE A THING IN THIS GAME. IF they do it where it costs us PER POUND LIFTED, this will KILL many players careers off and drive them back into sandbox to avoid it. Which will kill off Career mode in a bad way. Things are FINE the way they are with massed objects having mass and mass free objects being virtually weightless.

Again, even if the suggested new mass having objects have NO PHYSICS everything ELSE DOES, and that MASS adds UP.

Edited June 20, 2014 by AlamoVampire

[RidingTheFlow]

You demonstrate exactly why having many of struts should make craft heavier. Station like yours shouldn't be able to get to orbit in one piece in first place, structures like this are assembled in orbit. Btw I doubt it will be much mass change in already super-heavy designs like these anyway.

I don't agree why it will kill the career. I didn't use nonsense crafts like these, I didn't use more than ten struts per launch even for super-heavy 1000t lifters and my career was perfectly fine.

Every time something is "nerfed" there is massive outcry from people who say "things were perfect before, now ruined, please don't nerf anything, things are good as they are now", I've seen this so many times...

[RidingTheFlow]

I had JUST decoupled the station from the lift BRACING ONLY. Tell me oh kind OP what do you see? thats right, about 100+ STRUTS!! that thing weighed 1402.670 TONS on the pad and contained 486 parts, and I launched it with ALL tanks on it EMPTY save for the RCS tanks, because quite frankly how else was I going to turn it in space? As it sits in orbit, it is 93.44 TONS and now has only 176 parts.

NOW, imagine if, things were as you suggest... HOW much heavier is that station on the pad? Well, considering it had about 100 struts on the station and launcher, id wager a LOT heavier.

Ran the numbers for you. 100 struts will weigh 5 tons.

This will change mass from 1402.670 tons to 1407.670 tons. This is 0.3% increase.

Why the rage?

[Sky_walker]

I had JUST decoupled the station from the lift BRACING ONLY. Tell me oh kind OP what do you see? thats right, about 100+ STRUTS!! that thing weighed 1402.670 TONS on the pad and contained 486 parts, and I launched it with ALL tanks on it EMPTY save for the RCS tanks, because quite frankly how else was I going to turn it in space? As it sits in orbit, it is 93.44 TONS and now has only 176 parts.

Your monster is a perfect proof why we shouldn't have massless parts as well as new areodynamics engine.

You never, ever, ever should be able to lift something like that to orbit in a one go.

[AlamoVampire]

1. Added mass can shift center of mass which needs more parts to balance which adds more MASS. Which costs more but it would seem dear op you glossed by the costs incurred by weight.

To the other guy saying my station is a monster that shouldnt be 1 launch capable why the hate? Why must i be limited or even WHACKJOB be limited in big things because you think it shouldnt be possible.

[Sky_walker]

To the other guy saying my station is a monster that shouldnt be 1 launch capable why the hate? Why must i be limited or even WHACKJOB be limited in big things because you think it shouldnt be possible.

Hate?

lol

Why so defensive?

I'm just saying truth. KSP is game aspiring for some degree of realism, and the fact that you can launch something like that is comparable to this:

It's not what I THINK, it's what BASIC COMMON SENSE tells me. Your monster is something you never ever should be able to launch in space.

[Justin Kerbice]

First, to many people, massless should be avoided as it's not a proper word and it's confusing, those physically insignificant parts have their own mass, try put some on a separator and drop them, do they stay in the air ? No !

1. Added mass can shift center of mass which needs more parts to balance which adds more MASS. Which costs more but it would seem dear op you glossed by the costs incurred by weight.

Don't forget KSP is a game, as opposite to real life, we can't (mostly) merge parts together, or include them inside another, whereas IRL, it's possible to put some batteries'cells inside an empty space in a tank (random example, don't think it's very safe to do that , especially if those batteries suffer the same issues as 787 ones), they can also be specifically designed for one single rocket to be sure all is well balanced.

[RidingTheFlow]

You don't need center of mass always be perfectly in geometric center... As long as it stays inside thrust vectoring cone it will be fine and SAS will keep rocket straight, even without reaction wheels running. A lot of designs like space shuttles flying with off-center CoM by design.

And, again, please run the numbers before you complain. How much do you think 0.005t ladder (1.25m off-center) will shift center of mass for 5t lander? It will be so miniscule, that you won't be able to see it with your naked eye. And for most of lander designs it won't change anything anyway, because with my first proposal it will just increase weight of lander a bit.

Limiting launch of nonsense things is good thing because it promotes orbital construction. Being able to launch anything with just slapping on enough struts reduces game depth.

Edited June 20, 2014 by RidingTheFlow

[Superfluous J]

Just so I'm understanding you AlamoVampire. Your argument for keeping massless parts is that giving them mass will increase the mass of your ship?

That's exactly what we WANT. We WANT to have to care about that extra mass that you don't want to care about.

I personally want to even care about the balancing of the off center parts. Like I would here in the Real World.

[AlamoVampire]

Sky you have confirmed my suspicion that you want players to be limited to what we can launch. That would make marvels that Sir Whackjob makes impossible or Kerbin Cup impossible.

You people miss a very BIG key point: COST. My station in my example by itself is 93.44 tons which is a 2 BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG to launch. When we get costs implemented WEIGHT WILL COST YOU MONEY TO LAUNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look it also boils down to this: if you force smaller launches you force more launches which forces in career mode when cost becomes a thing forces higher prices. Higher prices can potentially force a dramatic scale back in higher profile missions or potential contracts. A slippery slope.

Edited June 20, 2014 by AlamoVampire

[RidingTheFlow]

... too many caps and exclamation marks.

As I already calculated above, added small weight from struts won't significantly affect either cost or weight for your launch. This discussion is moot.

[Sky_walker]

Sky you have confirmed my suspicion that you want players to be limited to what we can launch.

Erm... suspicion? Why suspicion? It's a fact. And why it needs to be about "me"?

Haven't you noticed that you are ALREADY limited in what you can launch? It's what devs want. Otherwise all planets would be gravity-less balls floating in space.

Besides - as I mentioned elsewhere - if devs would ever implement areodynamics that do-not-suck-hard than they should give people an option through the console to switch back to the current mode (as someone else said: through the console because it's essentially a cheat).

That would make marvels that Sir Whackjob makes impossible or Kerbin Cup impossible.

Nope. Just build stuff on an orbit instead of sending everything in one go.

That's the point - engage in the game, stop being a carebear. Some things simply should be build on an orbit. Kerbal marvels would be there, only in a different form, while at the same time we'd squish all of the nonsense like one you got right there on your screenshot.

You people miss a very BIG key point: COST.

It's meaningless. It's like arguing that your station sux cause you got no science points from it while you wasted tons of time and effort building it. Keep in mind that not everyone play campaign and problem isn't in in-game points (be it science or currency) but rather physics and areodynamics.

As I already calculated above, added small weight from struts won't significantly affect either cost or weight for your launch. This discussion is moot.

+1

Edited June 20, 2014 by Sky_walker

[RidingTheFlow]

I am not sure why you keep bringing up Atlas V or where you getting your cost values from. You keep bringing real-world analogies, but then you say you don't want to be limited by real world.

Current KSP has no financing, so I don't see why you assuming you won't be able to afford it when there will be one. You don't even know how much your design will cost when there will be one (we can speculate that part cost will stay the same as it now, but it wasn't promised).

Even with your numbers, adding 131.82 million to 2,46 billion is just 5% increase. Nothing I would cry foul over (and more than fair price to pay for lifting the whole assembled awkwardly-shaped space station in one go).

Edited June 20, 2014 by RidingTheFlow

[AlamoVampire]

I am not sure why you keep bringing up Atlas V or where you getting your cost values from. You keep bringing real-world analogies, but then you say you don't want to be limited by real world.

Current KSP has no financing, so I don't see why you assuming you won't be able to afford it when there will be one. You don't even know how much your design will cost when there will be one (we can speculate that part cost will stay the same as it now, but it wasn't promised).

Even with your numbers, adding 131.82 million to 2,46 billion is just 5% increase. Nothing I would cry foul over (and more than fair price to pay for lifting the whole assembled space station in one go).

The prices are simple find. Now pay attentions. Costs will be added to KSP at some point soon (.24 or .25) or squad has suggested. So price matters. I use real world prices because i dont know what squad will charge once its added. Btw thanks for proving the point of massless parts for us. Its a game. Adding mass is adding real world limitations.

131.82 million is a significant increase and guess what it could be worse when costs are added.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Discussion about comparison to real life is completely irrelevant as this is a game.

Discussion about aerodynamics is irrelevant as this topic is about physicsSignificant parts.

You're making this discussion for more heated than necessary. Yeah, so it might've increased your weight by 5 tons but honestly, it doesn't matter in KSP. If you're launching something that massive, 5 tons isn't going to make a difference. Not in cost or TWR or dV, nothing. Unless you're running with zero margin of error, you can get into space with 4400km/s of dV or 4370km/s. Do me a favour - load up that craft and add 5 tons of fuel into the empty tanks. See how little the stats change and then come back with your misplaced rage.

I am not certain if you are trying to troll or not but do get this through what is looking to be a thick skull.

That was uncalled for and I have reported this unnecessary insult.

EDIT:

I use real world prices because i dont know what squad will charge once its added.

If you don't know, why are you complaining? You might end up having the budget to launch this thing 5 times over.

Edited June 20, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Red Iron Crown]

Not a fan of massless parts. I understand the physicslessness apparently has a performance benefit, but being able to add functional parts for no mass penalty feels cheaty and open to exploitation.

I find the argument that making these parts have mass would result in duplication of parts in symmetry weak. All it takes is some imagination in balancing light parts on one side with different light parts on the other; IMO this should be part of the challenge of designing spacecraft.

[NWM]

I like the argue of some forum member: 1451 vs. 1450 tons in a huge rocket.

Let see an ion engined probe, made of massless OX-STAT panels, struts and Z-400 batteries instead of solar-arrays(0.35/p), Z-1k-s(0.05/p). How much mass can be saved? - (20-50%!) How does it influence the TWR and the ÃŽâ€v? I whisper you: immensely! (TWR: 2x, ÃŽâ€v:3+x)

[cpast]

Not a fan of massless parts. I understand the physicslessness apparently has a performance benefit, but being able to add functional parts for no mass penalty feels cheaty and open to exploitation.

I find the argument that making these parts have mass would result in duplication of parts in symmetry weak. All it takes is some imagination in balancing light parts on one side with different light parts on the other; IMO this should be part of the challenge of designing spacecraft.

Indeed. Even if I *want* to balance parts, that can itself result in an unbalanced design if one side has physics-less parts and the other has physics-ful parts.

[RidingTheFlow]

I like the argue of some forum member: 1451 vs. 1450 tons in a huge rocket.

Let see an ion engined probe, made of massless OX-STAT panels, struts and Z-400 batteries instead of solar-arrays(0.35/p), Z-1k-s(0.05/p). How much mass can be saved? - (20-50%!) How does it influence the TWR and the ÃŽâ€v? I whisper you: immensely! (TWR: 2x, ÃŽâ€v:3+x)

Yes, and it should not be this way, because it makes ion engine overpowered (especially now, when its been beefed already) and tiny rocket engines pretty much pointless. While in fact ion engine highest ISP always intended to be offset by its super-low TWR (and that considering added weight of needed power infrastructure, not just fuel).

I understand that probes made of air are awesome, but its not really intended behaviour... It just like one of many these things we used to have before in earlier versions and then no more as they got fixed, even when people complained that they weren't bugs and now their old tricks don't work anymore.

Edited June 20, 2014 by RidingTheFlow

[MR4Y]

KSP is a game. Not a realistic simulator. Even games that go as far as being as realistic as they can be tone things down for the sake of gameplay and performance.

If KSP simulated everything, the game could only be played with a cluster.

[AlamoVampire]

Obsessed and we may not have a 10 BILLION DOLLAR budget and may have only a million.

[cpast]

Obsessed and we may not have a 10 BILLION DOLLAR budget and may have only a million.

In which case you will be restricted as to what you can do within your budget. I completely fail to see a problem with being restricted by budget. That's what it's for. If struts have mass, you'll need more powerful rockets to lift ridiculous craft that rely on the magical struts (not much more powerful rockets, since struts aren't very heavy and the rockets that need lots of struts already weigh a lot in the first place). This will cost a bit more. That doesn't change much (since struts are light), but it encourages you to design rockets that are inherently more stable and don't require as many struts; why is that a problem in the slightest?