Balance the MP tank's dry mass ratios

[Random Tank]

The Monopropellant tanks dry mass ratios are totally out of wack... some are 7.5, some 5, some even less... I suggest (and have done so in my game) that the dry mass ratio be generalised like they are with the LFO tanks.

I have changed mine to all be 9:1 mass ratio (the same as LFO tanks, apart from the 3.75); whether this is too high or not i don't know, but it thought that because the MP engines and thrusters are quite inefficient they should get a decent amount of their lighter fuel in a tank (4kg/unit instead of LFO's 5kg), and also the amount of fuel in a tank compared to size doesn't fit right... Here is the numbers I used:

0.625m Tank: 60 units of MP, 0.03t tank weight, 0.27t total

1.25m Tank: 200 units of MP, 0.1t tank weight, 0.9t total

2.5m Tank: 800 units of MP, 0.4t tank weight, 3.6t total

Small Radial Tank: 40 units of MP, 0.02t tank weight, 0.18t total

Large Radial Tank: 160 units of MP, 0.08t tank weight, 0.72t total

Just my 2 sense

[NWM]

At first 0.625 version should be contain less fuel ~ about 25 units - adjusting to its size!

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd like more consistency in the mass ratios of MP tanks, too. Maybe not as high as the LFO tanks, but maybe in the range of 7:1 or 8:1. If the mass ratio is too good, the o-10 may become overpowered due to its masslessness.

[wasmic]

I'd like more consistency in the mass ratios of MP tanks, too. Maybe not as high as the LFO tanks, but maybe in the range of 7:1 or 8:1. If the mass ratio is too good, the o-10 may become overpowered due to its masslessness.

A better solution would be to make the o-10 massive and have the MonoProp tanks have a ratio of 1:12 or so. That would be more realistic and would make MonoPropellant fill a new niche as a fuel.

[Random Tank]

At first 0.625 version should be contain less fuel ~ about 25 units - adjusting to its size!

Well, the 0.625 MP tank is roughly the same height as the 1.25, so I thought just over 3x capacity was fine due to the width change; but as the 2.5m is wider and taller than 1.25m, it has 4 times the fuel. Appreciate the thought though!

A better solution would be to make the o-10 massive and have the MonoProp tanks have a ratio of 1:12 or so. That would be more realistic and would make MonoPropellant fill a new niche as a fuel.

Agreed, the O-10 should have physics, I've made that so in my save game and it's still a very effective engine. If they wanted a massless RCS engine, they should just make it just a throttleable Linear RCS Thruster, as they're really low powered anyway. As said in my first post though, I'm not sure what dry mass ratio it should be, but a nice high one would be good for countering the engine's low ISP... I'm pretty happy with the capacities though!

[prophet_01]

Yeah I'm not that happy with the masslessness either. It's not good to do that with an engine balance-wise.

However I don't think all rcs tanks should have the same ratio. Spherical side mounted tanks should be slightly better considering the shape. Once drag gets a thing it might need rebalancing anyway to make side mounted parts usefull

Edited September 24, 2014 by prophet_01

[Renegrade]

I personally gave them a wider spread in my own Horrible Nerf, homing in on around 4:1 through 7.5:1 (using the 2.5m tank as the top model).

Basically like this:

Radials:

Roundified - 4:1

Cylindrified - 5:1

Inlines:

FL-R10 - 5:1

FL-R25 - 6:1. Also increased fuel to 120 (0.48t) units. (this used to be one of the worst, inexplicably)

FL-R1 - 7.5:1

However I don't think all rcs tanks should have the same ratio. Spherical side mounted tanks should be slightly better considering the shape. Once drag gets a thing it might need rebalancing anyway to make side mounted parts usefull

While the shape is better from a realism viewpoint, the convenience of the radially attached tanks really calls for them to be worse from a balance perspective. Working an inline tank into a craft can really throw off a craft design, whereas it's usually fairly easy to attach a pair or quad of roundifieds somewhere. Also, we may never get that improved aero model.. it's "we'll consider that after we've done literally everything else" at this stage.

You could view it as the inline ones are actually just spherical tanks added to existing parts of the ship in nooks and crannies (like in an actual spacecraft), and that the visible part of it is just a portion of the hull that contains life support/fuel/batteries/the usual and just happens to be painted funny.

Unfortunately KSP doesn't let us make the inside of a capsule/service module without mods :/ That would have been a nice secret, especially if the resulting module was only 1 effective part.

Anyhow with that in mind, I made the external ones worse than the equivalent internal ones, and scaled their efficiency along an 'economy of scale' model.