18t <> 18t

[Kerbart]

I think the take-away from this thread should be that SQUAD needs to show more significant digits in the tonnage display.

Well that and apparently Kerbals take excessive dumps, of course.

[Superfluous J]

Then we would have exactly the same issue with 18.05-tonne rockets.

No, because they would show up in the little display as weighting 18.1 tons and it'd be instantly obvious why they are invalid.

I'd be happy if they just always rounded up on the display. If your craft weighs 18.0000000000000001 tons, say it weights 18.1 and be done with it.

[Yemo]

Just give two digits instead of 1 and let us set the tanks fuels in smaller increments.

[Beowolf]

Even if he was pooping out a solid block of iridium...

And I was impressed by a mere goose laying golden eggs! Silly me.

[Jason Patterson]

I had a ship that KER said was something between 17.9 tons and 18.0 tons. KSP wouldn't launch it.

I took a tiny bit of fuel out of the highest tank and was good, but it was annoying.

I wonder if KER is only counting the mass of parts with physics and the game is counting the mass of everything. I know that the masses in my KER don't agree with the game by a substantial amount usually.

[Motokid600]

I lol'ed so hard ... Thank you. Jebs gotta make boom boom merry Christmas.

[Duban]

Drop 1 liter of mono-propellant.

[Superfluous J]

Drop 1 liter of mono-propellant.

Can't. That's the first thing I empty from my ships.

(when I remember)

[Sirrobert]

Can't. That's the first thing I empty from my ships.

(if I remember)

More like 'if' I remember

[Red Iron Crown]

I wonder if KER is only counting the mass of parts with physics and the game is counting the mass of everything. I know that the masses in my KER don't agree with the game by a substantial amount usually.

That is exactly what's happening. The launchpad limit is based on the stock mass readout in the VAB/SPH and includes the mass of massless parts; KER ignores the mass of massless parts so that it can calculate dV and TWR accurately.

This is easy to test, spam a bunch of massless parts on the vessel in the VAB and note its mass; put the vessel on the pad, go to map mode and check the vessel mass in the info tab and you'll see a smaller value. (For amusement, try making a stack of many 3.75m decouplers and comparing the masses.)

[Pixel of Life]

Jesus you guys can't take a joke.

Rocket science is SRS BSNS! No fun allowed!

[cantab]

Indeed. It's probably right that the launchpad considers the nominal masses of physicless parts, since it blunts their abusability somewhat, but I guess it might confuse KER users.

[TJCares]

but how do you make something more than 18 tons?

[Red Iron Crown]

but how do you make something more than 18 tons?

Upgrade the launch pad by right clicking on the building in the Space Center scene and spending money on it.

Welcome to the forums!

Edited January 18, 2015 by Red Iron Crown
See next page for why.

[Captain Sierra]

Upgrade the VAB by right clicking on the building in the Space Center scene and spending money on it.

Welcome to the forums!

VAB effects part count. Launchpad effects launch mass. I assume thats what you're meaning to say?

[Red Iron Crown]

VAB effects part count. Launchpad effects launch mass. I assume thats what you're meaning to say?

It totally was, thanks for the catch. I'll edit the post, but please leave your quote as a reminder of my occasional stupidity.

[T-Bouw]

The whole concept of "massless parts" feels very UNscientific to me.

And the way it is implemented is apparently not consistent.

Then again this is a semi-realistic game!

[cantab]

It's thought to be a poor man's optimisation - making a part physicsless reduces its load on the game engine. Small ancillary parts like the science instruments have a negligible mass on typical-sized ships anyway so can be made physicsless with little concern, though even that can make small probes more capable than they should be. However there are some parts that I don't feel Squad thought through when sticking the physicsless tag on them, like the 0-10 engine (which gains an excessive TWR) and the Kerbodyne decoupler (which was flat-out buggy in .23.5).

[Renegrade]

However there are some parts that I don't feel Squad thought through when sticking the physicsless tag on them, like the 0-10 engine (which gains an excessive TWR) and the Kerbodyne decoupler (which was flat-out buggy in .23.5).

Don't forget the ox-stat single panel. While it doesn't hurt too much to throw a handful of these on to a heavy mission to keep the juice flowing, it can get rather silly when you can make completely massless arrays by attaching these to branches of cubic octagonals in huge numbers..

[NecroBones]

However there are some parts that I don't feel Squad thought through when sticking the physicsless tag on them, like the 0-10 engine (which gains an excessive TWR) and the Kerbodyne decoupler (which was flat-out buggy in .23.5).

Agreed, those two just shouldn't be massless.

I'm OK with the small science parts, radial batteries, OX-STAT solar panels and the like being massless, but not the largest decoupler in the game or throttle-controlled engines.

[Red Iron Crown]

The O-10 being massless is less troublesome than it first appears, the poor mass ratio of almost all the MP tanks offsets its high TWR to a large degree. I consider it less OP than the 48-7S.

[NecroBones]

You know that's an interesting point I hadn't considered. But that's true, the 48-7S is a bit ridiculous, which I have exploited to great success in many missions.

[Renegrade]

Agreed, those two just shouldn't be massless.

I'm OK with the small science parts, radial batteries, OX-STAT solar panels and the like being massless, but not the largest decoupler in the game or throttle-controlled engines.

I'm NOT okay with the ox-stats and radial batteries being massless. That leads to *cough* massive abuses in terms of ion craft. Basically, combining ox-stats with trees of cubic octags can give you as much solar power as you want with no mass penalty.

I wouldn't mind if they didn't have to be balanced (ie, the mass was assigned directly to the CoM in some manner), but I cannot abide by infinite massless power.

(Part of the problem is that the panels are poorly balanced even without masslessness. The ox-stat is significantly better than the tracking panels in terms of power/cost or power/mass, and they are in turn better than the gigantor, which is basically garbage)

[Motokid600]

I think the 0-10 needs to be redone all together. It is by far the ugliest part I've ever seen in KSP.

[Superfluous J]

I'm NOT okay with the ox-stats and radial batteries being massless. That leads to *cough* massive abuses in terms of ion craft. Basically, combining ox-stats with trees of cubic octags can give you as much solar power as you want with no mass penalty.

I wouldn't mind if they didn't have to be balanced (ie, the mass was assigned directly to the CoM in some manner), but I cannot abide by infinite massless power.

You CAN just not abuse the parts. Instead of putting them on cubic octagonals you could instead put them on I-beams or the trusses that are larger than the cubic octagonals. That'll also make the other solar panels not look so bad in comparison.

I have a personal rule that - unless I'm trying to abuse the game for some contest or another - I never connect 2 cubic octagonals together. They are there merely to provide a mount point for parts that won't otherwise radially attach.

I agree though that the Gigantor needs to be balanced. Luckily for both of us, they're starting that process now. I hope in the future a Gigantor will be slightly cheaper and mass slightly less than a comparable concoction of I-beams and 1x6's would mass and cost. Likewise, the 1x6s and 2x3s should mass and cost a little less than the number of OX-Stats they're replacing mass and cost. Or at least cost, if they simply cannot get away with giving them mass.