Ups and Downs of 0.90

[PB666]

Having given up on career mode for the time being . . .

1. Way too buggy, even with the work-arounds

2. Done it in previous version

3. The Astronuat complex needs a golden suicide pistol mounted on the wall, pretty much this is what career mode is now.

4. Why exactly do we start career mode with manned missions?

. . . . . my attention has shifted to parts and sandbox mode.

My first impressions here were ... Hey I modded a part that almost just like that. Still keeping my old mods but the new ones have found their uses.

I have done a fair share of new part modding, in particular the Space Plane II parts.

- Dupped a SP2 crew and made the primary node a back attach node.

- Dupped and Shrank the F2 to F1 fuel to F1 to F1/2

- Dupped smaller conversion and gave it 'special' properties

Rant- Finding the SPP directory was not easy - shouldn't it belong in the parts directory?

From these parts it was possible to build a sleek 2 @ 2 symmetry space ship with a 4 nacell design really worthy of sci-fi notoriety, Bravo on the new parts.

Comments:

1. however, the capacity and fuel density of the SP2 monopropellant tank is about 2/3rds of what it should be.

2. Another bravo goes the the considerable number of fueled conversion parts, I found one deficiency, but more or less every conversion is covered.

3. I was looking at the SP2 'telescoping' docking port, and I wondered could you actually transfer crew through such a crapped space. My solution as to convert a Side-Adapter mod into a back of the part as crew and goods transfer area.

4. Unrelated to new parts but somewhat related to 3, I think a factor 0.625 to 0.88 basic crew transfer shaft would be a nice addition to some ships, something about as long as MK1 but half to 70% as wide.

5. I am looking to build parts for a high ISP VASIMR-like ION drive, there are issues discussed below.

The ship was designed to be a true full feature interplanetary ship, capable of performing a multitude of independent missions in one trip, in this it accomplished its task but with exceptions.

1. To conserve fuel ION drive was used for the interior planets, it was decided that since a leg could be made from Moho to Eeloo taking full advantage of the Oberth effect and the proximity to the Kerbol this was a good choice.

2. To utilize ION drive as frequently as possible on the burns including the landing burns (this is possible on many satellites).

3. Refuel as needed.

In the trip to Moho it was quickly realized that the mass density of Xenon is really low, one either has to bring a hideously large and wide Xenon tank into orbit or a bunch of F2 tanks (big-orange '64') dimension and chain them together on docking ports. We all know what happens when we do this [Kracken noises heard in the back ground]. The only other option is to use a F3 docking port.

The SP parts work so much better than previous parts in terms of stability. Despite having a thrust slightly above the S gravity of Moho, the combination of high ISP engines and ion drive got the ship down safely.

Getting up was no problem, but on the Moho-Eeloo transfer, Xenon was a major issue. The solution I have decided for this multimission ship is a higher ISP ION Drive, otherwise one needs to cheat on fuel density. There is plenty enough energy around MOHO to justify the change. This is only a ~5500 D/V and with high ISP (2000 to 5000s now) engines is should be easily accomplishable, except for the feul density issue.

Eeloo landing - a breeze, no problem.

Eeloo to Jool transfer - surprisingly easy (although took 5 years this ship has 7 crew and space for 42).

Jool - Pol - 1st major problem, ship was damaged on landing - flight engineer I brought along was useless. (see below)

Jool - Bop - Big problem, this is not the place to land a 100T (empty) ship. The biggest problem is that there is no unambiguous reference for terrain. I find myself saying

'this l o o k s? like a slope' to move over and find what looked like a 20% grade from above is a 60% grade from the side view on descent. The only real positive reference was the asymmetry in light spot created in the 'night' landing cameras. This can be exaggerated by having two of different colors one mounted further back on the ship. However this only works well if the ship is within 100M of landing, not the time when to decide were to land. ON Bop there is the simultaneous issue of getting close enough to survey, changing direction, and staying far enough the terrain to avoid collision. Without telemetry, for large ships one needs to send out probes with rovers to select landing spots, this creates another problem (see below).

Terrain Guidance

What we need here is terrain guidance of some sort, for example a switch that shows were the lowest and highest points in the terrain. Alternatively another map mode in which the gravity centered point-centered mess can be brought forward or backward against the terrain to see where the mesh first and finally breaks the surface. The irony here is that I have a massive space ship with a crew of 7 and 2 dozen veiw ports but still have no radio telemetry capability, even 100 M off the ground!

The Cargo bay objects and lag.

I have to say from the start that the new 0.90 parts have greatly simplified ship building in terms of parts and need for converters etc. A comparable ship of complexity 0.90 versus previous 0.25 has lower lag, but with the new capabilities also comes the new sources of lag.

I wanted several probes that could be dropped instead of landing. The weight and size was not an issue, but each probe adds to the part count. I was wondering why could not parts be frozen in a SP2 cargo bay when the doors were close and the part count diminished to 1 for the cargo bay only altering the weight of the cargo bay. I thinks a real good idea to mask part intricacy while the cargo-bay door is closed and SP2-cargo bay is structurally intact.

Basically 4 small probes (F-half) slowed the game down from just under normal time to about rate = 1/3 rd.

The second issue was I fixed my sat with a modified smaller radial decoupler to the back, should the decoupler not be active until the cargo bay door is open. What Iam trying to say is that should not all the activities of parts in cargo-bay (e.g. fuel tanks, parachutes, etc) 'silence' while in a closed cargo bay?

The strut connector needs a more civilized big brother.

With the advent of the new VAB 'tweak' tools, the strut connector needs to be appended. I Use a MK1 that has been side flattened to form a nacelle arm, it can be attached via strut connectors after tweaking, it would be nice to weld to parts together once they are inside a certain range (say 0.05M).

Flexible attachment schemes.

The use of adapters such as the radial attachment points (which I typically use for mounting complex engines to fuel tanks) are not really necessary under most uses and add to the part count. There should be part attachment nodes that can be 'stuck' in multiple, user chosen, ways. For example if I want to node- stick an engine to a tank, or stick the same engine in a 6:1 configuration to the same tank, I should have the option. Finding stable places to put nuclear engines and ION drives is not easy, and most endup cranking up parts count, hard to get into space, require unnecessary and unattractive strutting and a kracken fodder once there. These problems are largely solved by getting rid of the need for 'bridge' parts and creating flexible attachment parts.

Appending the above:

Cargo bay wobble. This goes to the suggestion above that activities of objects in the cargo bay should be silenced. I found my cargo-ed lander was wobbling excessively. If I silenced the reaction wheels elsewhere it stopped, then finally silenced the reaction wheel on the lander, and turned on the main wheel.

Edited January 29, 2015 by PB666

[Yemo]

Having given up on career mode for the time being . . .

1. Way too buggy, even with the work-arounds

2. Done it in previous version

3. The Astronuat complex needs a golden suicide pistol mounted on the wall, pretty much this is what career mode is now.

4. Why exactly do we start career mode with manned missions?

[...]

Link in signature:

[problemecium]

Career Mode being suicide is all about the way you play. I've still never lost a Kerbal, even with the added difficulties in 0.90's Career Mode.

[Beachernaut]

1. Way too buggy, even with the work-arounds

3. The Astronuat complex needs a golden suicide pistol mounted on the wall, pretty much this is what career mode is now.

4. Why exactly do we start career mode with manned missions?

Are these statements, or opinions?

[Vanamonde]

As this appears to be neither a suggestion nor a development discussion, the thread has been moved to the General subforum.

[Tripzter]

I havent played it yet.. Kethane mod is still down. shame.

[PB666]

Career Mode being suicide is all about the way you play. I've still never lost a Kerbal, even with the added difficulties in 0.90's Career Mode.

In 0.25 i did not lose a kerbal.

In 0.90 I have lost Jeb 3 times a walking to the grass kracken in KSC. Mmmm-mmmmm.

So if you are saying play but don't walk then that might be correct, but I think EVAs are part of the game so.....

[SkyRex94]

For the Cargo bay: just strut your payload into the bay. Its not like real world things are just hanging at one connection point in a bay.

Although there is a problem with picking up cargo later, I have to admit.

[problemecium]

I have lost Jeb 3 times a walking to the grass kracken in KSC.

I had that issue several versions ago. It's related to the terrain settings. First, I recommend quicksaving before walking around anywhere. Second, try using one of the custom terrain settings files around here or on Curse, or write your own. If you have the resolution set too low, Kerbals have trouble detecting the collision mesh for Kerbin's surface before it's too late (on account of the triangles being so big).