The Great Part Rebalancing!

[Jouni]

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.

I'm fine with the 2.5 m Rockomax engine line as it currently is, but I'm also open to adding a fourth engine to the line. In that case, the Poodle should be split into a small lander engine and a larger upper stage engine, and the Skipper should be made 30-40% bigger to differentiate it from the upper stage engine.

[ghpstage]

In response to the quoted post, what if kerbals had a life support requirement of power?

I like this idea a lot. It would make power consumption an actual issue, and be a small step toward redressing the imbalance between manned and unmanned missions! Edited January 7, 2015 by ghpstage

[Alshain]

The Mk2 Monopropellant tank needs to be cut in half... both in content and in physical model size. In most cases you won't use that much monoprop and in the off chance you do need that much, you can just add two smaller ones.

[Renegrade]

I'm fine with the 2.5 m Rockomax engine line as it currently is, but I'm also open to adding a fourth engine to the line. In that case, the Poodle should be split into a small lander engine and a larger upper stage engine, and the Skipper should be made 30-40% bigger to differentiate it from the upper stage engine.

Oh okay. Just wasn't sure, as the Skipper DID have a mass of 4 back before that update.

I would not be opposed to the lineup you suggested, by the way, it looks pretty good to me. While most of my LKO orbiters and landing units are built in the small scale (1.25m), my stations are generally 2.5m, and they can always use more flexibility in the 2.5m scale.

[Laie]

About impact tolerance:

Keep in mind that the pods are supposed to land safely with a single fitting chute attached. That's like 8m/s even at sea level. Consider that there may be some stuff attached, or that the thing may come down in the highlands. Going boom because you're sliding downhill is one thing, but destroying the pod because the parachute can't hold it would be cruel. Making the one-man pod more fragile than it currently is would be a trap for newbies, and annoying for most anyone else.

Even 45m/s impact tolerance isn't too unreasonable -- I personally survived a car accident where I went into the fields at even higher speed, without serious injury. What happens after a botched landing follows a similar pattern and I empathically believe that such an event shouldn't automatically kill the crew. Of course, in KSP it will also withstand a 45m/s head-on collision, which is just plain silly. But that we can only have both or neither isn't the pod's fault. All things considered, the high impact tolerance seems to be the more reasonable choice, at least in the case of plane-style cockpits.

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

For me, there's also the problem that no pods can hold duplicate results. I like to return at least two, preferably three results. Which currently means building vessels of two or three one-man lander cans, or going over the top and bringing an entire lab.

- - - Updated - - -

The Mk2 Monopropellant tank needs to be cut in half... both in content and in physical model size. In most cases you won't use that much monoprop and in the off chance you do need that much, you can just add two smaller ones.

Actually... I'm putting an inline tank into the cargo bay, together with batteries, probe core and all other odds and ends. As far as I'm concerned, the monoprop tank is totally unnecessary. Same with Mk3.

[Random Tank]

I don't like the 0.24 engine stats, as I feel it takes a lot of variation out of the engines... Plus, with the Mainsail and LV-T30, they are only useful when you have ONE. If you ever need to have more than one, the KS-24x4 and Skipper will beat them respectively. Here's my table for engine balance using the old 0.23.5 stats, and I use the Mainsail and LV-T30 as a basis for all changes:

Rip it apart as much as you want, but those are the engine stats I use, and it makes every engine pretty useful, yet still varied

[Wanderfound]

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).

Two basic jets, one LV-T45.

[arkie87]

I've got a quick one.

Wings - Let's give them fuel already.

And a tweakable option for percent covered in solar panels and heat shield

[Renegrade]

Even 45m/s impact tolerance isn't too unreasonable -- I personally survived a car accident where I went into the fields at even higher speed, without serious injury. What happens after a botched landing follows a similar pattern and I empathically believe that such an event shouldn't automatically kill the crew. Of course, in KSP it will also withstand a 45m/s head-on collision, which is just plain silly. But that we can only have both or neither isn't the pod's fault. All things considered, the high impact tolerance seems to be the more reasonable choice, at least in the case of plane-style cockpits.

45m/sec is about 162km/h.. .that's above the cruise speed of a Cessna 150..what exactly where you doing? O.o

Anyhow, KSP's collision/damage system probably needs a rework anyways. It would be nice if it could understand angle-of-impact issues better, and also the difference between "scratched paint" and "flaming wreckage". The binary not-destroyed/destroyed thing (which has been brought up before) is inadequate.

(I do agree with the general concept that a pod should be able land safely using only it's associated inline parachute)

For me, there's also the problem that no pods can hold duplicate results. I like to return at least two, preferably three results. Which currently means building vessels of two or three one-man lander cans, or going over the top and bringing an entire lab.

I'd love to see a 'results' container (like the one provided by the Goodspeed parts pack).. one thing I do though is make it so that probe cores can store results too:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],#CrewCapacity[0]]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleScienceContainer
		reviewActionName = Review Stored Items
		storeActionName = Store Experiments
		evaOnlyStorage = True
		storageRange = 2.5
	}
}

(Squad also needs to tweak the ranges they're accessible from in EVA.. they're all over the place. You pretty much have to hump a Science Jr or Mobile Lab to get the results from it, whereas some of the others are like invisible extendo-arm land)

[Captain Sierra]

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Challenges/Akademy%20Awards/Kerbodyne%20Alphatek/screenshot83_zps0b8b4c4e.jpg

Two basic jets, one LV-T45.

Wanderfound you are a certified SSTO master (I reference your sig-linked craft thread). Of COURSE you can do it. I don't dispute its possible (not that I really can given there's photo proof in front of me), just that its not easy compared to a turbojet SSTO (which is already not easy, especially for a newer player).

My immediate reaction was to counter it by your use of FAR but knowing that FAR beats the crap out of the turbojet with a rather weighted nerf bat (dunno what it does to basics but basics are pretty crappy at altitude anyway). How much of that ascent was just brute force vs a more conservatively efficient jet cruise?

[Wanderfound]

Wanderfound you are a certified SSTO master (I reference your sig-linked craft thread). Of COURSE you can do it. I don't dispute its possible (not that I really can given there's photo proof in front of me), just that its not easy compared to a turbojet SSTO (which is already not easy, especially for a newer player).

My immediate reaction was to counter it by your use of FAR but knowing that FAR beats the crap out of the turbojet with a rather weighted nerf bat (dunno what it does to basics but basics are pretty crappy at altitude anyway). How much of that ascent was just brute force vs a more conservatively efficient jet cruise?

I don't think FAR nerfs Basic Jets, but it doesn't really need to; they're horrible apart for use in VTOLs and subsonic aerobatics specialists. They top out around Mach 1, and although you can get them up to about 20,000m with a zoom climb, the practical flight ceiling is around 10,000m. The reduced drag in FAR would have helped during the rocket phase, though.

For this one, I did basic jets up to Mach 1 and ~12,000m, nothing but LV-T45 after that. It's not the most fuel efficient way to get to orbit, no.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Wanderfound

[Laie]

45m/sec is about 162km/h.. .that's above the cruise speed of a Cessna 150..what exactly where you doing? O.o

A young male in a high-powered car. You know the story, it happens every weekend everywhere.

I got lucky and went into a field. No trees, no banks, no nothing. Took some time for the severity of the incident to sink in -- while it happened, it felt no worse than riding a bumper car.

[Captain Sierra]

I don't think FAR nerfs Basic Jets, but it doesn't really need to; they're horrible apart for use in VTOLs and subsonic aerobatics specialists. They top out around Mach 1, and although you can get them up to about 20,000m with a zoom climb, the practical flight ceiling is around 10,000m. The reduced drag in FAR would have helped during the rocket phase, though.

For this one, I did basic jets up to Mach 1 and ~12,000m, nothing but LV-T45 after that. It's not the most fuel efficient way to get to orbit, no.

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Challenges/Akademy%20Awards/Kerbodyne%20Alphatek/screenshot81_zps82b85524.jpg

Okay, it is rather strongly brute forced. The FAR lower drag probably helps a LOT not wasting as much fuel sustaining your apo on coast. Either way, it is an impressive thing to do, though we expect nothing less from an SSTO kingpin.

[Pthigrivi]

Im just going to go down the line and make comments on every part that seems to have major problems, as well as suggest badly needed parts to fill in gaps.

Pods:

MK1 Lander Can: Ideally this should be competitive with stacking 2 MK1 cans. I’d bump the cost down to 2800 and the weight down to 1.6t.

MK1-2 Command Pod: This seems heavy too, but mainly Id like to see this moved earlier in the tech tree so it could be used on earlier Mun missions.

Stayputnik MK1: I would give basic SAS back to all of the probes and move this even earlier in the tech tree so it could be used as an early learning platform. I’d also bump up its impact tolerance.

1.25-3.75m 6 Kerbal Command Pod: This would be fantastic

Tanks:

Engine Nacelle: This should really be tailored as a high altitude component, with improved intake and higher cost to differentiate more from the Radial Engine Body.

Structural Fuselage: Now that we can tweak out liquid fuel I would ditch this part entirely.

Radial Mounted Fuel Tank: This should exist, in large cylindrical and small spherical models.

MK3 Liquid Fuel Fuselage Long: I could be corrected but I don’t think anyone needs this.

1.25m Xenon Tank: This should exist with a capacity around 3000.

Engines:

Rockomax Poodle Liquid Fuel Engine: Others have done much more thorough engine balance analysis but this stands out as needing a big boost.

LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine: This should be more different from the T45, with higher TWR and lower ISP. It should also look more different.

LV-N Atomic Rocket Booster: Something needs to happen here. I use this for almost everything interplanetary because of the insane ISP. People have brought up using LF only. I think it should be heavier and overheat instantly in any atmosphere. It should also be even more expensive. Mainly it needs competitors I think, possibly smaller and larger variants.

LFB KR-1x2: All of the extra large engines need work, but mainly Id like this split off from the fuel tank. It kind of breaks the lego spirit of things and limits creative uses.

Kerbodyne KR-2L Advanced Engine: This should be nerfed and specialized as a mid-stage booster. Then we should add an extra large low thrust high ISP engine for pushing big interplanetary vessels.

Turbojet Engine: This does need a nerf. Really it should specialize even tighter for high altitude powering.

Scramjet Engine: Can we get one of these? Pretty please?

2.5m Airbreathing engine: We need one, especially for MK3 platforms.

Launch Escape System: I agree with others this needs a tweak to be more useful. Also the MK2 and MK3 cockpits should come with ejection and parachute options.

2.5m Solid Booster: I think this could be useful.

1.25m Ion Engine: I love the Ion system and feel like it’s so underused. This could really help make larger solar sailors more practical.

Structural:

Rockomax Brand Decoupler: Mainly this is too tall and clunky looking. Also this, the TR-38-D and the Hydraulic Detachment Manifold are way underpriced.

NCS, FL-A10, ADTP-2-3 Should all hold fuel. NCS is way overweight and the Rockomax adapter can be ditched now that we have the C7’s.

Low-profile 2.5m>3.75m and 2.5m>MK3 adapters: We should have them.

Tail Connector: Should have a node on the end.

Small Hardpoint, BZ-52Radial Attachment Point and TVR-2160C MK2 Stack Quad-coupler: are all way, way overpriced.

Tube frame and Spherical structural parts: Would be great for framing buggies etc.

1.25m>.625m multicouplers: Would be great.

3.75m>1.25m Hex coupler: ditto.

Probodyne RoveMate: There should be a few basic rover platforms, ideally with a bit of space to fit things inside.

Aero:

Intakes: I’m sure these will be getting some attention. Probably they should weigh much more.

Protective Rocket Cone MK7: Is heinous. The cones should really all be able to hold LF/O, with hollow cones made for the fairing system.

Wings: Im not crazy about the current setup but Im sure this will be dealt with for the new aero system.

Misc:

Streamline RCS Block: Id love to see this made available for spaceplanes.

Small Gear Bay: Really should have powered drive.

Larger landing legs and gearbays: We need em.

MK16-XL Parachute: Im sure these will be worked on but this needs to provide much more drag.

Solar Panels: I’m sure power will be a big thing when ISRU comes into play, but something feels backwards about the panels. The SP’s need more output and the larger panels should be much lighter, possibly with the output to weight reversed to make larger panels more efficient and more expensive. A big heavy nuclear reactor for resource processing will be good too when that happens. A streamlined expandable panel for spaceplanes would be nice too.

Z-4K Rechargeable Battery Bank: I cant think of a use for this.

Streamlined Light: Would be great for spaceplanes.

Docking ports: These could all be more expensive. We could also use a 3.75m Docking port.

Rovemax Model M1: This should fold up and deflate for better packing in docking bays/fairings.

Rovemax Model XL3: This is some silly business. Its not very well designed and too huge to be useful for anything but novelties. Maybe a huge tank track would be better and add an intermediate wheel for large rovers about a third this size. This large wheel should be able to pack somewhat tightly for transport.

That’s what I got on a first pass. Hope its helpful

Edited January 17, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[LethalDose]

Even 45m/s impact tolerance isn't too unreasonable -- I personally survived a car accident where I went into the fields at even higher speed, without serious injury.

I think your premise if flawed. There's a big difference between "... went into the fields" and "... went into a retaining wall", the latter being much more comparable to the "impact" during a landing.

That being said, I don't have much trouble believing a cockpit could be reinforced to withstand a sudden deceleration of ~ 150 mph. The G-force associated with that kind of deceleration and the subsequent interaction between the kerbal and his restraints, however, would be a different issue. I think DRE handles g-force survival, though, so in my games, I feel like this is covered well enough.

[Renegrade]

Wanderfound you are a certified SSTO master (I reference your sig-linked craft thread). Of COURSE you can do it. I don't dispute its possible (not that I really can given there's photo proof in front of me), just that its not easy compared to a turbojet SSTO (which is already not easy, especially for a newer player)

I'm no SSTO master. I consider them a nuisance in fact, and am founding a company on the premise of pest control of SSTOs. Durned things are always getting in the snacks, and chewing through fuel lines, nibbling on wires and tearin' holes in the operations manual and nesting inside.

That being said, I've built basic jet-based SSTOs for both FAR and stock as well. The basics act as a moving launchpad, greatly reducing launch costs (gives you some altitude, which always reduces delta-v requirements, some speed, and also brings you above the bulk of the air).

My immediate reaction was to counter it by your use of FAR but knowing that FAR beats the crap out of the turbojet with a rather weighted nerf bat (dunno what it does to basics but basics are pretty crappy at altitude anyway). How much of that ascent was just brute force vs a more conservatively efficient jet cruise?

The basics get hit fairly hard in FAR as well. Thrust is the same as stock, but the velocity curve ends at 350 (and is only 0.2 thrust at 250), vs 0@1000, 0.2@850 for stock engines. That's actually a much bigger hit than the turbos take in a percentage term.

A young male in a high-powered car. You know the story, it happens every weekend everywhere.

I got lucky and went into a field. No trees, no banks, no nothing. Took some time for the severity of the incident to sink in -- while it happened, it felt no worse than riding a bumper car.

Ouch. Yeah, very lucky there. Was reading about an actor who wrapped himself around a phone pole in a Corvette doing something like that just the other day (he didn't make it)... Anyhow, good thing it was just a field

I think your premise if flawed. There's a big difference between "... went into the fields" and "... went into a retaining wall", the latter being much more comparable to the "impact" during a landing.

I think he meant in terms of like if you were sliding along the runway, you'll still explode at 46m/sec, just as you would if you hit the runway at right angles.. when in reality, you could easily survive the former (assuming you didn't start tumbling or hit those horrible lights at the end, etc..), but the latter would be very bad at half the speed.

I think that's why the landing gear have a special module - they can survive rolling along well above any sort of impact rating, but are destroyed if they hit the ground at a sharp angle..

[Frozen_Heart]

45m/sec is about 162km/h.. .that's above the cruise speed of a Cessna 150..what exactly where you doing? O.o

Trying for a Darwin award?

LV-N Atomic Rocket Booster: Something needs to happen here. I use this for almost everything interplanetary because of the insane ISP. People have brought up using LF only. I think it should be heavier and overheat instantly in any atmosphere. It should also be even more expensive. Mainly it needs competitors I think, possibly smaller and larger variants.

I'd like to see smaller and larger variants. Squad started adding KSPX parts and then Claira disappeared down a wormhole or something. :/

However they are meant to be OP. they are already nerfed compared to RL so nerfing them more wouldn't make sense. A cost increase wouldn't go amiss though. Players ought to be encouraged to not throw them away and rather reuse them.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I wouldn't nerf the ISP, they really make interplanetary travel possible. The trouble is really one of gameplay. I use LV-N's for basically everything except landing on Eve and Laythe and some small probe stuff. There just should be more trade-offs to consider to push a greater variety of design solutions. You shouldn't be able to use them in atmosphere. There should also be a major competitor for large interplanetary vessels. Maybe its as simple as adding a 2.5m variant with an ISP around 850, puts out 280kn of thrust but weighs 10t. That way once a craft goes over 50t or so it makes sense to bump up to the big guy for the transfer stage, but there's little sense in landing an engine that large. I also think reversing the weight/output ratio on solar panels and adding a large ion tank and engine would create more choice and conflict on the lower end and make manned solar sailors a more viable option.

[Tw1]

As long as they:

1 change things in a way that makes sense -eg, a more durable pod cost more, and is heavier, etc

2 Don't rebalance things with the tech tree as the main focus- all parts should have a niche, and there's also sanbox,

3 Don't change things so radically that they no longer seem like the part they were,

(A little less thrust here or there, etc, shouldn't be a problem if you've got safely margins, but radically changing the nature of a part will be kind of irksome for people doing long term stuff.)

I should be happy. Some parts could do with having what makes them different from everything else emphasised, others could do with a bit of a nerf, so they aren't the obvious choice for everything. And now aerodynamics is a thing, that's a factor to take into account too.

It seems odd to me that the new MK3 cockpit is lighter than the Mk1-2. RTGs might be worth another look, though the cost and extra mass does make solar panels a nicer looking option.

Also, no SAS, but a tiny bit of torque in the stayputnik, and other light probe cores would be nice. And the 2.5 meter nose cone always seemed a little too heavy for what it's supposed to do.

There should also be a major competitor for large interplanetary vessels. Maybe its as simple as adding a 2.5m variant with an ISP around 850, puts out 280kn of thrust....

There was something Like this in KSPX, which never made it to stock. It takes away some of the challenge of having to design around the long engine.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Tw1

[Frozen_Heart]

You shouldn't be able to use them in atmosphere.

You practically can't. They have the worst ISPs in the game in atmo at only 220s.

Compared to real life NERVAs its very UP. 850s vacuum and 380s atmo.

Engines shouldn't be artificially nerfed. Cost of parts exists for a reason.

There was something Like this in KSPX, which never made it to stock. It takes away some of the challenge of having to design around the long engine.

I liked the 2.5m NERVA but the KSPX one was way too short. I agree it should be a length that makes building around it more of a challenge. Also its stats were weird. It was barely more powerful than the 1.25m one which made it very pointless compared with clusters.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Frozen_Heart

[Pthigrivi]

You can use them for Duna landers and in the upper atmosphere though. What Im saying is is as soon as it touches even a very thin atmosphere it should rapidly overheat.

[Renegrade]

You practically can't. They have the worst ISPs in the game in atmo at only 220s.

Compared to real life NERVAs its very UP. 850s vacuum and 380s atmo.

Engines shouldn't be artificially nerfed. Cost of parts exists for a reason.

Chemical engines go upwards of 450+ for LOX/H2 based ones (higher with insane tripropellant designs) . We have 390s tops. Based on that scaling, the LV-N should be more like 700-720.

Also the LV-N is one of the most efficient atmospheric rocket engines there is (specific impulse wise, obviously it has TWR issues). Past 1500m, it's already above 370s, and past 2000m, it's above 411...and crosses into the 700s before hitting 9000m. Not something to replace your mainsails with, but don't be afraid to use it for the rocket portion of a spaceplane, etc.