The Great Part Rebalancing!

[BagelRabbit]

Hello!

As many of you guys know, KSP now has a whole load of parts that are in need of some significant rebalancing. Here's my attempt to catalog these parts, so that some of them may be potentially changed in 0.91.

Please note that these suggestions are just personal opinions, but some changes clearly need to be made. In my opinion, these rebalances would make a much better game.

I'm going to do this in a lovely, cutesy sort of way.

Rebalances of MASS will be indicated in RED.

Rebalances of IMPACT TOLERANCE will be indicated in ORANGE.

Rebalances of SAS TORQUE will be indicated in YELLOW.

Rebalances of ELECTRIC CHARGE will be indicated in GREEN.

Rebalances of LIQUID FUEL/OXIDIZER will be indicated in BLUE.

Rebalances of MONOPROPELLANT will be indicated in PURPLE.

Rebalances of SPECIFIC IMPULSE will be indicated in BROWN.

Rebalances of THRUST will be indicated in 'NAVY BLUE.'

Rebalances of COST will be indicated in GRAY.

An explanation of why I think the part is incorrectly balanced will be included.

I'll go through the sections one by one, from the Command Pod section to the Science Section.

PODS:

[table=width: 1500, class: grid]

[tr]

[td]PART[/td]

[td]REBALANCE NEEDED[/td]

[td]REASON[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mk1 Cockpit[/td]

[td]Impact Tolerance, Monopropellant[/td]

[td]If anything hit the ground at 45 m/s, any Kerbals inside wouldn't make it. And what sort of fighter jet has monopropellant in the cockpit?[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mk1 Inline Cockpit[/td]

[td]Impact Tolerance, Monopropellant[/td]

[td]Much the same as the previous cockpit. I would also mention that this part needs a drag reduction - its drag is a measly 0.88.[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mk1-2 Command Pod[/td]

[td]Impact Tolerance[/td]

[td]This otherwise excellent pod once again suffers from incredibly high impact tolerance.[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mk2 Cockpit[/td]

[td]Mass, Impact Tolerance[/td]

[td]The Mk2 Cockpit has less mass than even a Mk2 Lander-Can, incredibly high impact tolerance, and even a significant Lift Rating. In other words, it's relatively OP.[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mk2 Inline Cockpit[/td]

[td]Mass, Impact Tolerance[/td]

[td]It's pretty much the exact same as the previous Mk2 cockpit in almost every way.[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mk3 Cockpit[/td]

[td]Mass, Impact Tolerance, SAS Torque, Electric Charge, Monopropellant[/td]

[td]The singularly most overpowered cockpit of the lot, this thing has a mass lower than the Mk1-2 command pod, a 60 m/s impact tolerance, more torque than the large Reaction Wheel, more than twice the Electric Charge of any other pod, and a cool 100 units of Monopropellant. Gad![/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Probodobodyne Okto2[/td]

[td]Electric Charge[/td]

[td]As opposed to the other bits and bobs, this one actually has too fast of Electric Charge consumption for the measly amount of work that it does.[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Probodobodyne QBE[/td]

[td]Impact Tolerance, Electric Charge[/td]

[td]The Probodobodyne QBE is the lightest unit, but it somehow manages to have a 30 m/s impact tolerance. Oh, and its batteries will also last less than a minute without power.[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

FUEL TANKS:

[table=width: 1500, class: grid]

[tr]

[td]Everything in the Mk3 series[/td]

[td]Impact Tolerance, Liquid Fuel/Oxidizer, Monopropellant[/td]

[td]The Mk3 series of fuel tanks can be slammed into the ground at 50 m/s and remain intact, unlike any fuel tanks IRL. In addition, they have a bit too much fuel or monopropellant for their mass.[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Everything in the Mk2 series[/td]

[td]Impact Tolerance, Cost[/td]

[td]These are pretty much like their Mk3 companions, only they're a bit better in the fuel/monopropellant-to-mass ratio. Some of them may have a tad too much lift, as well, but I'm not covering that. Oh, and did I mention that they are bargain-bin cheap?[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

ENGINES:

(Oh boy.)

[COMING SOON!] I have no time.

COMMAND AND CONTROL:

[COMING SOON!] I have no time.

STRUCTURAL:

[COMING SOON!] I have no time.

AERODYNAMICS:

[COMING SOON!] I have no time.

UTILITY:

[COMING SOON!] I have no time.

SCIENCE:

[COMING SOON!] I have no time.

~~~

In spite of the extremely limited amount of work I've gotten done, I hope that I'll be able to expand on this in the very near future.

In the meantime, let me know what you think...!

-Upsilon

[klgraham1013]

I've got a quick one.

Wings - Let's give them fuel already.

[BagelRabbit]

I've got a quick one.

Wings - Let's give them fuel already.

H'm. That wouldn't be rebalancing parts, but adding new capabilities to existing parts. Rebalancing parts involves tweaking parameters that have already been set up, and thus it is quite easy to do.

You're right, though - the wings should probably come with a little fuel.

[kerbiloid]

Btw, fuel tanks inside the wings were already implemented by some mods.

FuelWings

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97139-0-25-FuelWings-Customize-fuel-quantities-in-your-stock-B9-wings-!-v2-1-11-24

WetWings

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/100593-0-25-Wet-Wings-cramming-fuel-into-every-last-corner-of-your-craft!

Unmanned command pods (HECS, OCTO, etc) probably either would have enough electric capacity - to reduce parts count (the current KSP trend), or would have no inner battery at all - to play with outer batteries, etc (an early-KSP tamagochi-rocket style).

Seems to me that the unmanned pods would be splitted in two categories, with no intermediate cases..

- Lightweight primitive ones - for the original tamagochies such as real-world Sputnik, Luna, Venera, Mariner, Voyager. Just a brain with no jibs.

- Heavy advanced AI-containing ones such as KSPI Computer Core ( https://github.com/FractalUK/KSPInterstellar/wiki/Computer-Core ) - with inner resources. A fully-featured command module but without humans.

Edited December 30, 2014 by kerbiloid

[klgraham1013]

Btw, fuel tanks inside the wings were already implemented by some mods.

Isn't this about stock re-balancing? I love mods, but "there's a mod for that" should not always be the answer.

Edited December 30, 2014 by klgraham1013

[sherkaner]

H'm. That wouldn't be rebalancing parts, but adding new capabilities to existing parts. Rebalancing parts involves tweaking parameters that have already been set up, and thus it is quite easy to do.

You're right, though - the wings should probably come with a little fuel.

I think this idea is part of a larger rebalancing (and expansion) of aircraft. I feel that the SPP wing parts are essentially fine as is for true orbital space planes that generally aren't very jet fuel intensive and where the wings are more about providing heat resistance for reentry. I think there need to be a wider class of sub-orbital wing parts that are much lighter, but generally hold the majority of jet fuel (and lack heat shielding) -- and with that, engines should increase in size (and probably weight), with the effect that fuselages would generally not be practical to use for jet fuel. This would I think provide more realistic weight balances and design tradeoffs, and (perhaps more importantly) would mean that aircraft would pose a set of interesting design challenges that would be more distinct from those of rocket design.

[Overfloater]

I think the Mk1-2 capsule's weight justifies its impact tolerance ._.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I miss Stock Rebalance Project :/

[korvanos]

Why is the Mk2 Lander can so stupid heavy anyway. The thing is essentially useless.

[zekes]

ambitious project.

[GoSlash27]

Some suggestions for aerodynamic parts rebalancing:

Wings:

All wing parts should have standardized drag coefficients according to their sweep angle. The straight sections would have the highest drag coefficients, the 60* angled parts would have the least. Likewise, the straight parts would have the highest lift coefficient (proportional to mass) and the 60* swept parts would have the least.

As it stands now, smaller parts have proportionally lower drag coefficients. This should not be.

Engines:

The basic jet seems okay the way it is.

The turbojet needs seriously de-nerfed. In fact, the "turbojet" should not exist at all.

I'd propose replacing the turbojet with a "ramjet", available under hypersonic flight tech level. Velocity curve would be 300 0 0 0, 1200 1 0 0, 2400 0 0 0 and the Isp curve would remain as-is.

*edit* I just made a ramjet, and it is cool!!

Velocity curve kicks in at 300, hits full power at 350, stays there until 1000, then 50% at 2000 and 0 at 2400.

This would mimic the behavior of ramjets, which don't operate below Mach 1, but are capable of hypersonic flight. It would also make the Rapier a more attractive choice for SSTO spaceplanes.

Intakes:

The fuselage intakes are all pretty useless, and with the availability of radial mount intakes they might as well be scrapped.

The shock cone intake should have it's intake area nerfed a bit to .016 to make it competitive with the others.

The structural intake should have it's mass reduced to .004. It's too draggy and heavy for it's size.

The circular intake should have it's intake area reduced to make it less attractive as an SSTO intake and more useful as a low speed intake.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited January 4, 2015 by GoSlash27

[ghpstage]

Couple more here on higher tech parts being clearly worse than ow tech ones.

Control:

The Mk1-2 pod is much heavier than an equivalent number of the starter Mk1 pods. And twice as expensive. The only advantages it has are its impact tolerance and parts count.

The Mk2 lander is similarly much heavier and slightly more expensive than the equivalent in Mk1's. It doesn't even have the impact advantage that the pod has!

Solar Panels:

Rather insanely the quality of panels tends to fall as tech increases.

The starter OX-Stat has the highest power to cost, is massless (though it would have the highest power/cost if its mass counted), its the least likely to take impact damage, is always active and does not break during atmospheric entry.

On the other end of the scale the Gigantor array has the worst performance in terms of mass and cost against power of any solar generator.

Solid Rocket Booster:

I'm not 100% sure on whether everyone will agree on these being significant balance issues but,

RT-10 has the highest thrust/weight, cost/weight and potential dV as a result of staging

BACC has more dry mass (1.5t) than equivalent RT-10's (1t)

The only serious advantages of the BACC is the lower parts count, and lower cost if proper staging is used between RT-10s

Batteries:

Radial batteries being weightless

The earliest battery, the weightless Z1 radials, having the best cost/charge ratio of all batteries with 0.8. For reference the Z-1k has the next best with 0.88 and then a sizeable gap to the next one, the station Z-4k with 1.125.

Again the only advantage of later tech 'replacements' appear to be lower part counts to achieve the same thing while doing a worse job of it, and the inline batteries that have mass are effectively worthless.

I know parts counts are a significant factor in career now, but it would be mad if that was used as a primary pivot around which to balance the parts.

Edited January 5, 2015 by ghpstage

[NERVAfan]

Why is the Mk2 Lander can so stupid heavy anyway. The thing is essentially useless.

Yeah. I would prefer to see the Mk2 Lander can and Mk1-2 Commmand Pod mass decreased rather than the Mk2/3 Cockpit mass increased.

You can just put a Mk1 command pod on top of a mk1 lander can and it's way less mass than a mk2 lander can.

[ghpstage]

Yeah. I would prefer to see the Mk2 Lander can and Mk1-2 Commmand Pod mass decreased rather than the Mk2/3 Cockpit mass increased.

You can just put a Mk1 command pod on top of a mk1 lander can and it's way less mass than a mk2 lander can.

Or two mk1 lander cans on top of each other, that will have even less mass.

UpsilonAerospace]The Probodobodyne QBE is the lightest unit, but it somehow manages to have a 30 m/s impact tolerance. Oh, and its batteries will also last less than a minute without power.

I see no problem with it being damage resistant, light does not mean it will be destroyed easily, small packages can be very tough indeed. Besides theres not a whole lot it could achieve surviving an impact like that as there won't ordinarily be much left attached to it!

My biggest concern with impact tolerances is that velocity seems to be the sole determinant on whether a part is destroyed or not, leaving potential for things like this probe core to be used as improve heavy landing gear.

Edited January 5, 2015 by ghpstage

[bounding star]

Can you add + and - symbols next to the aspect that needs to be changed in the table?

[Daze]

Some suggestions for aerodynamic parts rebalancing:

Wings:

All wing parts should have standardized drag coefficients according to their sweep angle. The straight sections would have the highest drag coefficients, the 60* angled parts would have the least. Likewise, the straight parts would have the highest lift coefficient (proportional to mass) and the 60* swept parts would have the least.

As it stands now, smaller parts have proportionally lower drag coefficients. This should not be.

Engines:

The basic jet seems okay the way it is.

The turbojet needs seriously de-nerfed. In fact, the "turbojet" should not exist at all.

I'd propose replacing the turbojet with a "ramjet", available under hypersonic flight tech level. Velocity curve would be 300 0 0 0, 1200 1 0 0, 2400 0 0 0 and the Isp curve would remain as-is.

*edit* I just made a ramjet, and it is cool!!

Velocity curve kicks in at 300, hits full power at 350, stays there until 1000, then 50% at 2000 and 0 at 2400.

This would mimic the behavior of ramjets, which don't operate below Mach 1, but are capable of hypersonic flight. It would also make the Rapier a more attractive choice for SSTO spaceplanes.

Intakes:

The fuselage intakes are all pretty useless, and with the availability of radial mount intakes they might as well be scrapped.

The shock cone intake should have it's intake area nerfed a bit to .016 to make it competitive with the others.

The structural intake should have it's mass reduced to .004. It's too draggy and heavy for it's size.

The circular intake should have it's intake area reduced to make it less attractive as an SSTO intake and more useful as a low speed intake.

Best,

-Slashy

I quote all, it would be amazing to see al that things implemented with the better aero update

[Renegrade]

Wings:

All wing parts should have standardized drag coefficients according to their sweep angle. The straight sections would have the highest drag coefficients, the 60* angled parts would have the least. Likewise, the straight parts would have the highest lift coefficient (proportional to mass) and the 60* swept parts would have the least.

As it stands now, smaller parts have proportionally lower drag coefficients. This should not be.

I'd personally leave any aero balancing alone (or make it very mild, addressing only the non-insane parts of stock aero) until and unless the placeholder system we currently has goes byebye.. It would be wasteful to balance for this system and then have all of that work superseded... :/ ALso, what if those straight parts are used as components in a swept wing? Like two deltas and a big square making a 4x size delta?

Once new aero is in though, it should definitely be revisited.

Solar Panels:

Rather insanely the quality of panels tends to fall as tech increases.

The starter OX-Stat has the highest power to cost, is massless (though it would have the highest power/cost if its mass counted), its the least likely to take impact damage, is always active and does not break during atmospheric entry.

On the other end of the scale the Gigantor array has the worst performance in terms of mass and cost against power of any solar generator.

My own stock rebalance project focused heavily on this, as solar power is one of my favorite things. I'd definitely like to see a balance pass through here, plus on actual energy usage (the larger panels are made even more worthless by the fact that there's almost no stock use for anything larger than an ox-stat or three).

Plus I'd also like to see an area where short term missions would be cheaper (fundswise) if they were ONLY battery powered, thusly establishing a niche for small battery-only short-duration craft.

And it would be nice if the batteries were a lot sooner in the tech tree than the corresponding panels...

[ghpstage]

My own stock rebalance project focused heavily on this, as solar power is one of my favorite things. I'd definitely like to see a balance pass through here, plus on actual energy usage (the larger panels are made even more worthless by the fact that there's almost no stock use for anything larger than an ox-stat or three).

Plus I'd also like to see an area where short term missions would be cheaper (fundswise) if they were ONLY battery powered, thusly establishing a niche for small battery-only short-duration craft.

And it would be nice if the batteries were a lot sooner in the tech tree than the corresponding panels...

True, the only big electric eaters are ion drives and mobile labs and the latter doesn't need a constant supply.

I think solar panels should be made relatively expensive to help batteries, but that might make silly turned off battery exploration missions too popular.

I recently learned that probes can comeback to life after having no power due to its batteries, external and internal all having been shut off. Bear in mind that engines and closed panels, the other power sources, cannot be activated post probe death. It can allow for silly situations, such as Jool and Eeloo being visited by a probe with a power supply of just a Z1 battery. I think it would be better to give probe cores a hibernation setting that requires greatly reduced power for long ranges, this would make batteries more attractive to more people due (who presumably don't know) to this being quite intuitive, while solving a silly loophole.

Edited January 6, 2015 by ghpstage

[Captain Sierra]

Engines:

The basic jet seems okay the way it is.

The turbojet needs seriously de-nerfed. In fact, the "turbojet" should not exist at all.

I'd propose replacing the turbojet with a "ramjet", available under hypersonic flight tech level. Velocity curve would be 300 0 0 0, 1200 1 0 0, 2400 0 0 0 and the Isp curve would remain as-is.

*edit* I just made a ramjet, and it is cool!!

Velocity curve kicks in at 300, hits full power at 350, stays there until 1000, then 50% at 2000 and 0 at 2400.

This would mimic the behavior of ramjets, which don't operate below Mach 1, but are capable of hypersonic flight. It would also make the Rapier a more attractive choice for SSTO spaceplanes.

Intakes:

The fuselage intakes are all pretty useless, and with the availability of radial mount intakes they might as well be scrapped.

The shock cone intake should have it's intake area nerfed a bit to .016 to make it competitive with the others.

The structural intake should have it's mass reduced to .004. It's too draggy and heavy for it's size.

The circular intake should have it's intake area reduced to make it less attractive as an SSTO intake and more useful as a low speed intake.

Addressing in order.

Engines:

KSP already has a brick wall of a learning curve. While I understand and respect a veteran player saying we need a less OP turbojet and a ramjet is necessary to fill the gap that would then leave, lets think about that in terms of a newer player experience, especially when we consider how difficult SSTOs really are, even using RAPIERs. I think a better compromise would be to rebalance the turbojet to something very effective at high altitudes and speeds, but reduce its velocity curve to cut off sooner and lower (FAR already does this but I think it does so in an extreme that would be more detrimental than useful).

Intakes:

Before I begin on balance, REMODEL THESE PLEASE!!!! Only PorkJet's shock cone is ever worth looking at (unless I'm using stock revamp).

I take one of two stances on the stack intakes.

Option 1: If all the intakes are meant to be "competitive" then why do we have three? Scrap them and give us just one, less part bloat.

Option 2: Give them a distinct vertical progression at the cost of mass (intake A is better than intake B even though intake A is heavier)

I personally opt for option 2. If we really want the other two to have a use late game, then my suggestion is this:

The circular intake has the best intake speed (this is basically the speed the fan sucks in the air and is additive to your airspeed) and is meant for operation 0-10km, 0-500m/s. Beyond that it massively loses effectiveness.

The ram intake needs to be for high altitude flying and should be barely enough to actually take off. It should suffer down low. Optimal conditions: 8-24km, 500-1200m/s.

If you want to go higher and faster, you need the shock cone, BUT, the shock cone cannot intake sufficient air on takeoff to actually spool the engines. Radial intakes will be required to feed the engines until 500m/s, when the shock cones kick in to full gear. Optimal range: 15-35km, 1000+m/s

WALL OF TEXT WARNING

There are some other thoughts on engines I had but I removed them because it was a jumbled mess. I've recompiled those concepts below in a more thoughtful manner.

Turbojet:

It needs a rebalance but I disagree with the severity which everyone wishes to nerf it with. Again, think of the less experienced (this is directed at you veterans saying nix it for a ramjet). Right now it peaks at 1000m/s and reduces to 50% by 2000m/s (and 0), cutting off at 2400m/s. Obviously this curve needs dialling back. My suggestion would be to pull the cutoff down to 2100m/s and make the curve as follows: 25% at 1700, 50% at 1300, 75% at 1000, and peaking at 800m/s.

As a random sidenote, I feel like the term "Basic Jet" for the low alt jet makes it appear straight up inferior and that it should be renamed to "Standard Jet Engine" or something of the like.

48-7S:

We all know this needs to be beaten up, down, and sideways with the nerf bat. My suggestions: Drop thrust to 25 (from 30) and up the mass to 0.15 (from 0.1). It could also do with an Isp hit since it's Isp improvement over the radial alternative is INSANE. Knock it to 270 and 320 for atmo/vac respectively.

LV-1®:

Why is this even still in the game? I see no real way to rebalance it and I'm also not a fan of the model. I vote in favor of scrapping it entirely. I'd also point the devs towards RLA Stockalike for good small engine concepts (hint hint Squad, make that mod go stock)

1.25m Engines:

These have lousy balancing all around. I have found I constantly have TWR issues when using the LV45 as a second stage (not upper, this is on a 3-stage LV) The TWR increase of the LV30 also is too minor to make it worth use over the 45 in many many cases.

Suggestion 1: reduce mass of the LV45 and LV909 by 0.25 tons (this also gives the 909 a higher TWR than a 48-7S equivalent).

Suggestion 2: increase LV45 thrust to 250 and increase LV30 thrust to a whopping 375. The LV30 would then have it's vac Isp cut down to 360 to compensate. Conversely, I'd suggest buffing the ASL Isp of both the 30 and 45 by 10 (to 330 from 320).

2.5m Engines:

To keep the same rough thrust improvement increment, the Skipper should be brought up to 1000 thrust and the Mainsail would need it's mass cut down to 4.5 (from 6). This creates the same rough increment while still improving on TWR by about 25%. Logically, the poodle should have its mass reduced to 1.5 (from 2) and its thrust cut to 200 (from 220), but I'll get back to this one in a bit.

The TWR changes do not fix efficiency, which is only on par with the 1.25s The Skipper and Mainsail should have their vac Isp buffed by 10 (to 380 and 370 respectively).

Another thing to consider is cutting down the Mainsail's gimbal range to 0.5 from 1 or even removing it entirely. That would add a new challenge to launches which really isn't there (control authority has never been an issue with nothing but gimbal, at least until MECO)

Poodle:

This one is a special case and needs some love. First, even with a TWR buff from reduced weight, the engine suffers from an unnecessarily large formfactor. The poodle also seems to attempt to fill two roles, where it does neither well (the LV909 however does a good job of this). I would first remodel it to make it have a skipper-like nozzle, and be about 40% flatter than it is currently. This can be achieved by flattening out the tankbutt as much as possible (or removing it entirely if a later art pass finally makes all stock tanks domed) and shrinking the actual engine structure inwards and upwards (imagine a 1.875m scaled LV909 stuck on a 2.5m tankbutt). The reduced height makes it a better landing engine and the reduced formfactor makes it look like it deserves that mass cut. I'd also bump the vac Isp to 395 (an improvement over the LV909) and the ASL Isp to 290 (it doesnt need quite so much punishment). Either cut the thrust back to 200 (for reasons above) or increase it to 250 and give it a smaller mass cut to 1.8 instead of 1.5.

Kerbodyne:

I won't actually share any thoughts on this stuff because GAAHWWDD!!! The 'balancing' going on there makes me want to go Danny2642 on my kerbals, or murder adorable kittens, whichever is closer to reach. Oh and don't even get my started on the texturing.

I'm going to end my WoT on that before it becomes any longer. I have more thoughts to write but I'm going to cut myself off here.

[tater]

I want to nerf the turbojet, and I have never built a spaceplane---because they feel like "magic" in KSP, and I'm not fond of magic (unless it's nethack, then I play a wizard, often). I'm not sure if I count as a vet, though.

The battery issue is significant, as well. You can lose a probe in Kerbin shadow forever from drained batteries and lack of solar in a few hours… amazing that Apollos made it over 12.5 days without panels

[Captain Sierra]

True, the only big electric eaters are ion drives and mobile labs and the latter doesn't need a constant supply.

Mods, before you yell at me for two separate posts rather than one, my last one was a wall and I want this separate.

In response to the quoted post, what if kerbals had a life support requirement of power? Instead of something complex like TAC, what if stock 'life support' is that you need X power for every kerbal? We can assume this covers water purification and oxygen recycling and some hand-wavy reprocessing of waste back into snacks, rather than having to actually address all those individually. If each kerbal required say, 10 Ec/s, that'd be great. Straight power/mass balance on the solar panels says if gigantors give 100, then small deployables give 5 and statics give none (massless , technically they'd give 1.43). If we rebalance mass and what not for target efficiencies and power outputs (say gigantor 100, small 15, static 1), then we cut the gigantors down to 0.2 mass for 100 power. From there, the small deployables would be 0.05 unshielded, 0.25 shielded (also make unshielded breakable even undeployed when stock fairings come out, which is a must (fairings that is) when the new aero model is released). That gives the small panels less power/mass efficiency over a gigantor but it is still light. That rebalance would make the statics horridly less efficient if their mass meant something.

In reference to the LS suggestion, that means two small panels could keep the Mk 1-2 pod happily powered for as long as you need (an RTG would be needed to ensure surplus power to recharge battery). A single Gigantor could support up to 6 kerbals on an orbiting space station or interplanetary ship. Huge kerbal orbiting stations now actually need those massive solar trusses!

I want to nerf the turbojet, and I have never built a spaceplane---because they feel like "magic" in KSP, and I'm not fond of magic (unless it's nethack, then I play a wizard, often). I'm not sure if I count as a vet, though.

The battery issue is significant, as well. You can lose a probe in Kerbin shadow forever from drained batteries and lack of solar in a few hours… amazing that Apollos made it over 12.5 days without panels

I challenge you to make an SSTO spaceplane with just basic jets and rockets. While I get the point you are trying to make, stating you have never done the thing which such a nerf would affect the most takes some punch out of it. And just to be sure I called it right with the turbojet curve suggestions, I'll modify the config for it myself for people to try (myself included).

In regards to your second point, Apollo had hydrogen fuel cells on board. Also the way KSP's electrical system works (treating it as a massless tankable resource) is utter garbage from a realism standpoint and pathetically represents the challenges of power in relation to real world space flight.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Captain Sierra

[tater]

I realize the differences between real fuel cells and what we have in KSP. I was saying that the batteries should be more of a thing in any rebalance. Even with low power usage, they should allow longer flights with just batteries (filling in as they do for anything short of solar and RTGs).

I like the idea of power for LS. I end up using Snacks (I terminate any flights that would run out) because I like the notion of LS treated as the sum total, though there is another one (interstellar?) that also uses a 1 unit fill-in for LS, along with power I was looking at.

I have no plans to make a spaceplane, they seem overly optimistic, so it doesn't really matter to me one way or another as I could delete the hanger and not notice it was missing.

Edited January 7, 2015 by tater

[Azimech]

MK3 parts: Breakingforce and Breakingtorque for the long cargo bay are at 200, WAY too low!

And since they're retextured B9 HL parts: B9 uses 705.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Azimech

[Jouni]

KSP already has a brick wall of a learning curve. While I understand and respect a veteran player saying we need a less OP turbojet and a ramjet is necessary to fill the gap that would then leave, lets think about that in terms of a newer player experience, especially when we consider how difficult SSTOs really are, even using RAPIERs.

Air-breathing SSTOs aren't really that hard. You only need to learn a different ascent path than with rockets, but that's it. It only becomes difficult if you add wings or other unnecessary aesthetic parts that make the craft harder to fly.

Turbojet:

It needs a rebalance but I disagree with the severity which everyone wishes to nerf it with. Again, think of the less experienced (this is directed at you veterans saying nix it for a ramjet).

There are two necessary changes: 1) Fix the fuel usage bug and make the turbojet burn 16x more fuel, as it should. 2) Peak TWR should be lower than with any conventional rocket engine. If these changes are not made, the engine should be renamed to Magic Star Wars Engine or something similar, to avoid giving new players an impression that the engine has anything to do with jet engines.

1.25m Engines:

These have lousy balancing all around. I have found I constantly have TWR issues when using the LV45 as a second stage (not upper, this is on a 3-stage LV) The TWR increase of the LV30 also is too minor to make it worth use over the 45 in many many cases.

Suggestion 1: reduce mass of the LV45 and LV909 by 0.25 tons (this also gives the 909 a higher TWR than a 48-7S equivalent).

Suggestion 2: increase LV45 thrust to 250 and increase LV30 thrust to a whopping 375. The LV30 would then have it's vac Isp cut down to 360 to compensate. Conversely, I'd suggest buffing the ASL Isp of both the 30 and 45 by 10 (to 330 from 320).

The basic 1.25 m engines are fine. The LV-T30 is a good general-purpose engine, and definitely the best of the three. The LV-T45 is a niche engine that's still useful for multi-stack 1.25 m rockets, if thrust vectoring is needed. The LV-909 is a nice upper stage/vacuum/lander engine, especially after the 48-7S is nerfed.

2.5m Engines:

To keep the same rough thrust improvement increment, the Skipper should be brought up to 1000 thrust and the Mainsail would need it's mass cut down to 4.5 (from 6). This creates the same rough increment while still improving on TWR by about 25%. Logically, the poodle should have its mass reduced to 1.5 (from 2) and its thrust cut to 200 (from 220), but I'll get back to this one in a bit.

The TWR changes do not fix efficiency, which is only on par with the 1.25s The Skipper and Mainsail should have their vac Isp buffed by 10 (to 380 and 370 respectively).

The Skipper is already the best general-purpose engine in the game, and it definitely doesn't need any buffing, unless the 6.4x Kerbol System is made stock. The Mainsail is about as good on paper, but it's usually too powerful for a 2.5 m stack.

Another thing to consider is cutting down the Mainsail's gimbal range to 0.5 from 1 or even removing it entirely. That would add a new challenge to launches which really isn't there (control authority has never been an issue with nothing but gimbal, at least until MECO)

Definitely not. The Mainsail is a core/sustainer engine, so it needs thrust vectoring to steer the rocket. If you want a 2.5 m booster engine without thrust vectoring, the LFB would be a better choice.

Poodle:

This one is a special case and needs some love. First, even with a TWR buff from reduced weight, the engine suffers from an unnecessarily large formfactor. The poodle also seems to attempt to fill two roles, where it does neither well (the LV909 however does a good job of this). I would first remodel it to make it have a skipper-like nozzle, and be about 40% flatter than it is currently.

The Poodle could use some flattening, but it's stats are already good enough. Alternatively, if Squad added a fourth engine to the 2.5 m Rockomax line, some adjustments could be useful:

1. Poodle: A flat lander engine with 100-150 kN of thrust, 1-1.5 tonnes of mass, and 270/390 s of Isp.
   
2. Terrier: An upper stage engine with 300-400 kN of trust, 2.5-3 tonnes of mass, and Isp somewhere between the Poodle and the Skipper.
   
3. Skipper: A general-purpose engine with 800-900 kN of thrust, 4 tonnes of mass, and 320/370 s of Isp.
   
4. Mainsail: A lower stage engine with the current stats.
   

[Renegrade]

True, the only big electric eaters are ion drives and mobile labs and the latter doesn't need a constant supply.

Yep. Entire system needs a rework.

I recently learned that probes can comeback to life after having no power due to its batteries, external and internal all having been shut off. Bear in mind that engines and closed panels, the other power sources, cannot be activated post probe death.

Yeah, that's a change that made it in recently. Prior to one of the recent releases, you couldn't control fuel/battery/etc buttons if there was no active control on the ship (ie, a manned pod, or a POWERED probe core). I've confirmed that in 0.22, loss of probe power meant that the buttons are locked. It may have been that way in 0.23 as well (not sure when the change actually went in).

I don't know if it's a regression that slipped in, or was an intentional dumbing down, but I'm very not pleased with it.

I think it would be better to give probe cores a hibernation setting that requires greatly reduced power for long ranges, this would make batteries more attractive to more people due (who presumably don't know) to this being quite intuitive, while solving a silly loophole.

I wouldn't mind a hibernation system. Also, one of the BTSM features, the ability to turn probe cores off, is quite nice for multi-probe ships or hybrid crewed/probed ships. (Another BTSM innovation is that cores that run out of power die forever, unless they're powered down, and only top level cores can be powered down).

In response to the quoted post, what if kerbals had a life support requirement of power? Instead of something complex like TAC, what if stock 'life support' is that you need X power for every kerbal? We can assume this covers water purification and oxygen recycling and some hand-wavy reprocessing of waste back into snacks, rather than having to actually address all those individually. If each kerbal required say, 10 Ec/s, that'd be great.

I wouldn't be opposed to that...not sure Squad likes life support at all, unfortunately...

That rebalance would make the statics horridly less efficient if their mass meant something.

The "#lolmassless" problem is quite serious. I really wish they could whip up some way of just adding the "massless" mass to the vessel's COM. That would likely involve less processing than all-up massed parts, and would allow vessels to be virtually ballasted internally for the small masses, while not letting them #lolmassless their way to being 500kg with a scale weight of 30.

I challenge you to make an SSTO spaceplane with just basic jets and rockets. While I get the point you are trying to make, stating you have never done the thing which such a nerf would affect the most takes some punch out of it. And just to be sure I called it right with the turbojet curve suggestions, I'll modify the config for it myself for people to try (myself included).

I actually have done that, in FAR too with half-powered engines. It's not that hard, you just have to consider it to be a rocket-powered, winged SSTO launching from a high-altitude, fast-moving launchpad and design accordingly. The dv cost on the rocket part was only about 1,500 in my FAR version if I recall correctly.

In regards to your second point, Apollo had hydrogen fuel cells on board. Also the way KSP's electrical system works (treating it as a massless tankable resource) is utter garbage from a realism standpoint and pathetically represents the challenges of power in relation to real world space flight.

There are some shortcomings to the system (lack of rate of charge/discharge being the glaring..est .. of them all), but suggestions posted before to improve the realism were met with violent and almost universal disapproval...unfortunately.

I think a better compromise would be to rebalance the turbojet to something very effective at high altitudes and speeds, but reduce its velocity curve to cut off sooner and lower (FAR already does this but I think it does so in an extreme that would be more detrimental than useful).

FAR reduces it's curve AND cuts it's base thrust in half.

48-7S:

We all know this needs to be beaten up, down, and sideways with the nerf bat. My suggestions: Drop thrust to 25 (from 30) and up the mass to 0.15 (from 0.1). It could also do with an Isp hit since it's Isp improvement over the radial alternative is INSANE. Knock it to 270 and 320 for atmo/vac respectively.

I'd prefer something more like 15kn and stock mass, with a 330-range Isp, with the 24-77 brought up to a similar Isp. In particular, the ant is the next lower engine at 4kn, and the 909 at 50. While splitting the difference at 25/30 sounds neat, I find (in my own designs, anyhow), that a geometric progression is better - 4x ant power would be 16, 1/4 of 50 is 12.5, so 12.5 to 16kn.

LV-1®:

Why is this even still in the game? I see no real way to rebalance it and I'm also not a fan of the model. I vote in favor of scrapping it entirely. I'd also point the devs towards RLA Stockalike for good small engine concepts (hint hint Squad, make that mod go stock)

Superlight probes. Because of #lolmassless (and even without it, since the tiny science instruments are all 5kg anyhow), you can make a simple science probe, or short range RT2 relay, or similar that has a total mass of about 100kg-ish. Slap on an oscar or round8 or two oscars and an ant, and you've got yourself a lot more delta-v than a 48-7S build even before nerfing.

After 48-7S nerfing, the ant's niche becomes bigger. Specific impulse is vastly overrated in the KSP community.

I'm not a fan of the model either though.

There are two necessary changes: 1) Fix the fuel usage bug and make the turbojet burn 16x more fuel, as it should. 2) Peak TWR should be lower than with any conventional rocket engine. If these changes are not made, the engine should be renamed to Magic Star Wars Engine or something similar, to avoid giving new players an impression that the engine has anything to do with jet engines.

Haha - agreed on both counts there. "Incom Corporation L4L Fusial Thrust Engine"~

[*] Skipper: A general-purpose engine with 800-900 kN of thrust, 4 tonnes of mass, and 320/370 s of Isp.

Are you suggesting a mass nerf to the Skipper here? It's currently 3 tonnes, FYI. It got a buff back in the ARM era I think.