Squadcast Summary (2015-01-31) - The 'Wait For It..' Edition

[Panzerbeard]

People are saying that the new aerodynamics is going to require an overall engine nerfing, because it will be easier to get to Kerbin orbit. But that will make all the rest of the game (once you get outside the atmosphere) harder. I don't think it's a good idea if the new aerodynamics makes everything else harder (or makes the system "feel larger", as you say). I was hoping that improved aerodynamics would just improve the aerodynamics...NOT result in messing up everything else.

So the rebalancers should be sure to put a Tylo landing and return mission to their test suite to see how their engine changes are going to affect things.

That is definitely a concern, and I'm not sure how they'd go about addressing that; bear in mind, though, that while we might be getting reduced efficiency across the board, we're also going to be able to refuel on the surface now. I feel like perhaps they're pushing for more creative landing/orbit solutions; engines would be less efficient, but they're revising the aerodynamics, making spaceplanes a far more practical option for atmospheric bodies. At the same time, we have the mining fuel system, making some sort of Mars Direct style mission preferable for places like Tylo or Moho.

I feel like a nerf would be a good thing, personally, it'd make the system seem lager, as Renegrade said, and add certain obstacles when dealing with the less accessible planets/moons, which can be circumvented by taking a different approach. We'll have to see how it pans out, though.

[Frozen_Heart]

I feel like a nerf would be a good thing, personally, it'd make the system seem lager, as Renegrade said, and add certain obstacles when dealing with the less accessible planets/moons, which can be circumvented by taking a different approach. We'll have to see how it pans out, though.

I'm just worried that it will make highly staged, super realistic rocket designs work and anything creative or futuristic looking will no longer function. My single staged designs already struggle heavily to get to other planets and if they're nerfed then my style of play just goes out the window.

[Spartwo]

What does this mean for aerobraking?

[Brotoro]

What does this mean for aerobraking?

If your ship's orientation changes its drag, then calculating an aerobraking altitude is going to depend on your orientation.

How do people using FAR handle aerobraking?

[Spartwo]

I mean re-entry heat and the lack or mothership sized heat shields.

[SorryDave]

One of the best things about KSP was learning the game, it will be nice to start again learning a rebalanced version.

[Brotoro]

I mean re-entry heat and the lack or mothership sized heat shields.

Ah. It may mean having to do more careful planning of aerocaptures, such as coming it at the target as close to perfectly tangentially as possible since that decreases the relative velocity. And doing aerocaptures that barely result in your ship being captured...followed by smaller aerobrakings. Or you may have to bring more fuel to augment the aerocapture with engine braking. Out at Jool, it may mean becoming good at gravitational-assist captures instead of using aerocaptures.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Brotoro

[Nachtwind]

About the whole Engines might get too weak discussion: Bear in mind that you get refueling options in space - and if not using these you still have LV-N or Ion engine to use for deep space exploration..

Yes the overall baalnce might change but then again this poses a new challange for those who already had a perfect solution for pretty much every scenario that KSP offers.. those who start the game whilst having only the new aero will just adopt to that environment.

Also it is not realistic to have an SSTO that goes interplanetary and makes the journey back.. if need be interplanetary ships have to be assambled in LKO...

[regex]

I mean re-entry heat and the lack or mothership sized heat shields.

I highly doubt that reentry heat will be much of a worry unless you're doing things like diving directly into Kerbin from interplanetary space at 8+ km/s or something. You should easily be able to do a shallow aerocapture at Jool, but you probably won't be able to nearly circularize like before since you won't be able to dive too deeply. Bring more fuel than you normally would, either for the mothership or the support craft. As others have said, being able to refuel in the outer solar system will help immensely.

[problemecium]

Regarding this heatshield controversy I'll bring up that I just hope 1.0 brings meaning to the "heat tolerance" value on the existing parts. That way the question of, say, how to aerobrake a small probe can be answered with "use the cube core". And if I recall right, the structural panels do have high tolerances as it is, so that's that.

P.S.: I'm in favor of mothership size heat shields. That or SQUAD jumping on the Procedural Bandwagon and making the heatshields have variable diameters and costs, so I can go all 2010 and have a giant expensive balloot on my mothership.

P.P.S.: I also have my fingers crossed that SQUAD does something to make landing on water actually a good thing like it's supposed to be. At the very least they can have everything have its collision tolerance doubled for water.

Edited February 1, 2015 by parameciumkid
balloot

[regex]

That or SQUAD jumping on the Procedural Bandwagon

Fat chance of that happening... Shame, really. Although, if they can't figure out how to deal with the fact that they load ALL THE THINGS into memory (or lack the will to do it) that would be an excellent way to tackle the issue.

[Ippo]

So, if I understand correctly, they are going to nerf everything so that we can keep the artificial difficulty to orbit caused by the current "aerodynamic" model?

That strikes me as really weird (and also, totally expected...).

[klgraham1013]

So, if I understand correctly, they are going to nerf everything so that we can keep the artificial difficulty to orbit caused by the current "aerodynamic" model?

That strikes me as really weird (and also, totally expected...).

Seems like there could have been a better solution.

[PDCWolf]

About heatshields, I r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ actually have a quote on this:

Q: With the re-entry heat system, will there be any modules to mitigate heat?

A: We don’t want to add modules which will formalise the shape of a ship, like a heat shields system might. We don’t know if we want to add new parts or have all the modules have heat dissipation built in.

http://www.themittani.com/media/kerbal-space-program-qa-devs

But you know, this was from a time when the world was pink and the cows flew and we would be getting reentry heat on 0.19 and resources on 0.20 so yeah, don't pay that much attention to it.

[klgraham1013]

But you know, this was from a time when the world was pink and the cows flew and we would be getting reentry heat on 0.19 and resources on 0.20 so yeah, don't pay that much attention to it.

I remember those days.

[Alshain]

So, if I understand correctly, they are going to nerf everything so that we can keep the artificial difficulty to orbit caused by the current "aerodynamic" model?

That strikes me as really weird (and also, totally expected...).

I don't think it's as bad as all that. The 48-7S was massively overpowered. You had to know it was coming, it was good while it lasted, and remember FAR/NEAR had to nerf jets engines after adding real aerodynamics because planes were getting up to Mach 7 on basic jets.

[DanJourney]

Stock vessels are designed to be less than perfect in a specific way - the Learstar can't actually make orbit and if you're clever, you can figure out why.

But... I've gotten that beast into orbit. It was a trick, but it can be done. The harder part is reentry, which I found is tricky using just the MP engines.

I have a screenshot of the Learstar A1 soaring over Kerbin after overshooting the KSC by a wide margin, but I don't know how to upload it.

Edited February 1, 2015 by DanJourney
Oh god how did this get in here I am not good with computers

[GusTurbo]

So, if I understand correctly, they are going to nerf everything so that we can keep the artificial difficulty to orbit caused by the current "aerodynamic" model?

That strikes me as really weird (and also, totally expected...).

What do you mean artificial difficulty? Isn't everything in a game technically artificial difficulty? ~4500 m/s is the number they seem to have baselined for reaching orbit on Kerbin, so they have to make some changes to reach that number. I think revising engine Isp down is an elegant way of doing that. Compare the Mainsail (320SL/360Vac) to the F1 engine (263SL/304Vac). As long as they're not making the engines super inefficient, I think it's a good change.

[metl]

It was said a long time ago that the engines (especially the jet engines) were overpowered simply because of the thick soup atmosphere. They had to do it that way, but it was never intended to stay as they knew they would be overhauling the aero eventually. I imagine that the 48-7S is really supposed to only be a small maneuvering engine for probes and was never intended to take on the duty it has.

[Duxwing]

It was said a long time ago that the engines (especially the jet engines) were overpowered simply because of the thick soup atmosphere. They had to do it that way, but it was never intended to stay as they knew they would be overhauling the aero eventually. I imagine that the 48-7S is really supposed to only be a small maneuvering engine for probes and was never intended to take on the duty it has.

I agree. Our specific impulses are unrealistically-high; e.g., the Mainsail, a heavy-lift kerosene engine whose specific impulse rivals the SSMEs'. I wish the overall would make atmospheric pressure change thrust and not specific impulse.

-Duxwing

[regex]

kerosene engine

The fuel in KSP is indeterminate, as are the unit sizes of fuel, so any such real-world comparison is suspect.

[Renegrade]

People are saying that the new aerodynamics is going to require an overall engine nerfing, because it will be easier to get to Kerbin orbit. But that will make all the rest of the game (once you get outside the atmosphere) harder. I don't think it's a good idea if the new aerodynamics makes everything else harder (or makes the system "feel larger", as you say). I was hoping that improved aerodynamics would just improve the aerodynamics...NOT result in messing up everything else.

They're correct in that an overall (including vac) nerf would definitely be required to keep the ships performing the same during launches (doing atmospheric only would not have much of an effect unless atmospheric Isp became like.. 25~). Based on the numbers KIDS uses (Kerbal Isp Difficulty Slider), it seems like a nerf to 81% is sufficient.

That's not a terribly huge nerf and as some have pointed out, would actually serve to bring engine Isps closer to real specific impulse numbers.

So the rebalancers should be sure to put a Tylo landing and return mission to their test suite to see how their engine changes are going to affect things.

My last Tylo manned return lander was only 15 tons in low Tylo orbit; it's not going to be much worse with an 81% Isp. I threw together a new one in my Horrible Nerf save, after setting KIDS to the 81% setting, and I got an 18.8 ton lander, despite the fact that Horrible Nerf beats the 48-7S with the nerf bat and re-adds mass to several classically massless components.

[Brotoro]

...My last Tylo manned return lander was only 15 tons in low Tylo orbit; it's not going to be much worse with an 81% Isp. I threw together a new one in my Horrible Nerf save, after setting KIDS to the 81% setting, and I got an 18.8 ton lander, despite the fact that Horrible Nerf beats the 48-7S with the nerf bat and re-adds mass to several classically massless components.

This is good to know. Thank you.

Do you have pictures of your Tylo lander that you could post?

[Melfice]

Fat chance of that happening... Shame, really. Although, if they can't figure out how to deal with the fact that they load ALL THE THINGS into memory (or lack the will to do it) that would be an excellent way to tackle the issue.

Wasn't there a huge kerfuffle over the fact the fairings were going to be procedural?

Pretty sure there was.

Looks like the odds were more likely.

[Superfluous J]

But... I've gotten that beast into orbit. It was a trick, but it can be done. The harder part is reentry, which I found is tricky using just the MP engines.

I have a screenshot of the Learstar A1 soaring over Kerbin after overshooting the KSC by a wide margin, but I don't know how to upload it.

Considering this is about 1.0, I think that the ability to do anything in any current or past version has no practical relevance to how possible it will be to do (or how possible they state it will be to do).