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

[kujuman]

Throw me in the camp of "bigger Kerbin, please". Not that I think 4.5km dV launchers are anything magical or anything, but it's something I've always wanted: space stations, even at 70km, look really distant from Kerbin compared against real pictures from the ISS. Kerbin just feels too small, and the resizing in 0.16 didn't help; 1m parts to the Mun and back was an epic adventure.

I'm interested in seeing how much of a drop in dV to LKO we'd actually see from the new aero model. We're making assumptions it'll be like FAR or NEAR, but we really don't know how Squad will end up balancing it. Though anything will help with ascent from Eve.

[klgraham1013]

+1 to just re-sizing Kerbin.

edit: I doubt that will happen.

[kujuman]

Seeing as the Procedural Fairings mod is the #15 viewed thread in Addon Releases with a million views for its forum thread (no download stats due to GitHub), I think it's safe to say it's not the vast majority. I can imagine that fixed fairings are more popular among veterans and seeing as they are often more active/vocal on the forums, I think that could skew your view. I think the vast majority hasn't even tried fairings or don't care between the two.

Yes, this is a good way to measure interest. But before we think about pFairings, we need stock Mechjeb, and stock FAR, and stock OKS, and stock TAC, and stock RT, and stock RSS, etc.

Or you know, all those views could be people posting that they have a problem or don't understand how something works, and then they need to check for responses. Or people check it out, and say, nah, not for me. It's just very hard to gauge how the community feels about something based on views, particularly when we have non-forum discussions of KSP etc.

[regex]

+1 to just re-sizing Kerbin.

Anecdotally, I've tried a few different sizes and I believe a 1.5~1.75x upsize with a 12 hour day (because Kerbin imparts a ridiculous amount of delta-V from spin on launching craft) and about 3km of extra atmosphere altitude will result in pretty close to the 4.5km/s that stock requires now. If you increase the rest of the solar system by a similar amount the delta-V to get elsewhere isn't increased by all that much, although Moho will be even more punishing and Eeloo will feel a bit more unreachable than it is now (both good things, IMO).

E: Of course, that's with FAR; I'm not sure how the stock aero will work out (and I'm not really partial to trying it).

E2: Anyone else getting deja vu from this thread?

Edited February 2, 2015 by regex

[CaptRobau]

Yes, this is a good way to measure interest. But before we think about pFairings, we need stock Mechjeb, and stock FAR, and stock OKS, and stock TAC, and stock RT, and stock RSS, etc.

Or you know, all those views could be people posting that they have a problem or don't understand how something works, and then they need to check for responses. Or people check it out, and say, nah, not for me. It's just very hard to gauge how the community feels about something based on views, particularly when we have non-forum discussions of KSP etc.

It's not the most reliable metric, but at a million views it can be considered a popular mod. My mod has about 10K downloads and it has 73K views and a lot of that is people posting about problems, so a million views is not nothing.

[Renegrade]

Anecdotally, I've tried a few different sizes and I believe a 1.5~1.75x upsize with a 12 hour day (because Kerbin imparts a ridiculous amount of delta-V from spin on launching craft) and about 3km of extra atmosphere altitude will result in pretty close to the 4.5km/s that stock requires now.

Er, didn't we determine that the 1.5x one was a bit too small and that it required 1.75x to 2.0x?

E2: Anyone else getting deja vu from this thread?

Yes~

[Nemrav]

Just noticed something...

"Kerbin looks horrible and undetailed" at the same time as

"Kerbin should be scaled up, ur a loser if u dont agree with me !"

Take one or the other, but my cpu says no to both.

[regex]

Er, didn't we determine that the 1.5x one was a bit too small and that it required 1.75x to 2.0x?

Yeah, I think you're right. Though for 1.75x you definitely need a higher atmosphere, for 2.0x I think you could get away with the stock 69.<whatever>km atmosphere height.

- - - Updated - - -

"Kerbin should be scaled up, ur a loser if u dont agree with me !"

No one is calling anyone a loser here (except for maybe Squad, but I, for one, don't have a very high opinion of them). Edited February 2, 2015 by regex

[kujuman]

E2: Anyone else getting deja vu from this thread?

Yeah...but we're in for 3-5 months of it I bet...so why not enjoy it? And I'd much rather argue about pFarings and aero of Kerbin than the other big "controversial" item in the update.

I came off a bit more harsh to CaptRobau than I intended, sorry. It's just that getting a good sample of KSP players is VERY hard to do with the information we have, so even attempting to do so seems pointless (KerbalStuff is probably the best info we have since it displays downloads by version as well as totals). And people who willingly mod their games are probably quite a bit different of players than those poor souls who play stock. It'll be neat to see how quickly the stock players adapt to the new update (I wholeheartedly understand the need to break the game to improve it at this point. And relearning how to play KSP will be fun. Adding so many new large changes and rebalancings should happen all at once, one round of break saves is better than 2 or 3).

[Renegrade]

Yeah, I think you're right. Though for 1.75x you definitely need a higher atmosphere, for 2.0x I think you could get away with the stock 69.<whatever>km atmosphere height.

I tried out the experimental one you made back in the day (I'm pretty sure it was 1.5x?) and it played very well (it was a bit short on delta-v, however). I find the bigger scales (6.4x+) to be punishing in terms of launch times and such, but I didn't mind the 1.5x, and so I feel that the 2.0x scale would be acceptable as well.

[Vanamonde]

Okay people, simply throwing insults and disdain at Squad is not going to persuade them to do anything differently. Any further posts along those lines will be considered trolling/derailing, infracted, and removed. If you have a criticism, express it with specifics and what you would like done differently.

[Nachtwind]

Just as a friendly reminder--how many of you have tested the new aero model? The new Engines?

You all discuss things which are still in work and as i suppose ever changing... so why cant some of you wait for a release or at least for some more released data before trying to badmouth everything? So far all the information that is publicly available is not even worth speculating about since it lacks too many facts.

And discussing/arguing about stuff that noone has a clue about is just not leading to any point..

[Wjolcz]

Throw me in the camp of "bigger Kerbin, please". Not that I think 4.5km dV launchers are anything magical or anything, but it's something I've always wanted: space stations, even at 70km, look really distant from Kerbin compared against real pictures from the ISS. Kerbin just feels too small, and the resizing in 0.16

The hell? KERBIN afaik never got any resize. It wasvthe atmosphere that got higher. And I dont think it was 0.16 but earlier.

To me the size of Kerbin is okay. Its a game after all. Resizing it would ruin a lot. Everything would have to be rescaled. Ane Im not a fan of that, tbh.

[NecroBones]

(KerbalStuff is probably the best info we have since it displays downloads by version as well as totals).

Sadly those numbers are completely unreliable. KerbalStuff has been counting reconnects as entire downloads, so there are artificial download spikes that number in the thousands. Some mods have received these more than others, so the download numbers are horrifically and unevenly inflated.

I don't know if this was ever fixed or not, but the thousands of phantom downloads that were counted are still there.

[PDCWolf]

Just as a friendly reminder--how many of you have tested the new aero model? The new Engines?

You all discuss things which are still in work and as i suppose ever changing... so why cant some of you wait for a release or at least for some more released data before trying to badmouth everything? So far all the information that is publicly available is not even worth speculating about since it lacks too many facts.

And discussing/arguing about stuff that noone has a clue about is just not leading to any point..

Because we are in a situation (based on previous experience) where either they get it right on the first try or we wait years for a fix.

[regex]

Because we are in a situation (based on previous experience) where either they get it right on the first try or we wait years for a fix.

Or we never get a fix...

[Ippo]

JSo far all the information that is publicly available is not even worth speculating about since it lacks too many facts.

Wrong. We already know that in the new aero model drag depends on the shape of the vessel and lift is proportional to v^2.

We already know for sure (physics dixit) that with this kind of model getting to orbit is easier: there's no arguing that.

In the past, it has been suggested that nerfing all the engines would be a way to balance a proper aero model to retain the same difficulty to orbit. And in the squadcast, they mentioned a general engine nerf: this leads me to fear that they intend to go with this plan, which I consider terrible game design and it's especially sinful in a game that dues all its success to physics.

In the past I've seen Squad taking a series of decisions that I don't agree with, at all (especially in 0.90, that has completely killed my interest in career mode). I'm not doubting them for the sake of it: I doubt their ability to deliver a game that I will like because I've seen them deliberately making it less fun for me for the last 6 months. If someone likes where KSP is going, great for them! But I don't like the direction they are taking, and no amount of banhammer threats from Vanamonde will improve my own personal opinion of where Squad is taking KSP.

[Superfluous J]

Or we never get a fix...

I see you got your crystal ball working again. Good job!

[AmpsterMan]

I wonder if changing the scale height or making the atmosphere higher will accomplish the same results of keeping DV-to-Orbit as nerfing engines. Nerfing engines will not increase the dv to orbit, rather, will make getting to any given dv harder do with said merged engines.

However, space planes are comparatively easier to make without engine nerf (if FAR is anything go by) so i can see jet engines getting the nerf bat regardless.

[Alshain]

Why does everyone think they need the same dV to Orbit? It requires too much as it is, you have build giant asparagus monstrosities to get even medium to small payloads to orbit instead of sleek looking rockets. That's one of the great things about NEAR and FAR is your rockets look like rockets.

So far I've only seen the 48-7S nerf mentioned. Presumably Jet engines will be as well, even FAR and NEAR had to do that. I still don't think it's going to be as bad as people are assuming here, but I think reduce dV to orbit is a good thing.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Alshain

[regex]

I wonder if changing the scale height or making the atmosphere higher will accomplish the same results of keeping DV-to-Orbit as nerfing engines. Nerfing engines will not increase the dv to orbit, rather, will make getting to any given dv harder do with said merged engines.

Changing the atmosphere height won't make a huge amount of difference; remember that Saturn V had a net drag loss of 40m/s in a roughly 130km atmosphere while requiring nearly 9.5km/s to get into orbit. Most other RL launchers lose not much more than 100~200m/s due to drag, which means that, on a stock scale, the atmosphere isn't going to make a lick of difference if you're at all smart.

Upscaling Kerbin will help quite a bit, however, as will increasing the day length of Kerbin because it spins fantastically fast; your spacecraft are literally flung off the planet.

However, space planes are comparatively easier to make without engine nerf (if FAR is anything go by) so i can see jet engines getting the nerf bat regardless.

Spaceplanes under a corrected FAR on a slightly upscaled Kerbin are fairly tough to make, from what I've seen. You need to bring a lot more rocket fuel.

Why does everyone think they need the same dV to Orbit?

Squad does, given that they're talking about a big, general nerf. While we have yet to see how extreme it will get, Squad has made a point of implying that the current 4.5km/s is a baseline. Also, using the stock solar system with FAR, your payload fraction is even more ridiculous than stock's 17~18%, which reduces the need for staging and interesting lifters. Edited February 2, 2015 by regex
Stupid updated post thing

[Robotengineer]

4.5km/s is about half Earth's DV to orbit, so why not resize Kerbin to be whatever it is that requires that much DV to orbit? The solution appears quite clear. Why not use it?

Edited February 2, 2015 by Robotengineer
I know this has been suggested, just +1'ing it.

[regex]

4.5km/s is about half Earth's DV to orbit, so why not resize Kerbin to be whatever it is that requires that much DV to orbit? The solution appears quite clear. Why not use it?

Resizing Kerbin without resizing the entire solar system would be ... silly. The Mun is already incredibly close to Kerbin. An experiment you should try: Get RSS and make a config with, say, a 2x Kerbin (complete with unrealistic 9.8m/s^2 gravity), and reduce its spin to a 12 hour day, without resizing anything else. Look at how big Kerbin is and how close the Mun is.

Resizing only Kerbin is a bad solution.

[Robotengineer]

Resizing Kerbin without resizing the entire solar system would be ... bad. The Mun is already incredibly close to Kerbin. An experiment you should try: Get RSS and make a config with, say, a 2x Kerbin (complete with unrealistic 9.8m/s^2 gravity) without resizing anything else. Look at how big Kerbin is and how close the Mun is.

Resizing only Kerbin is a bad solution.

I meant the whole system, my bad. I was surprised that the transfer requirements in RSS are not as high as I thought they would be, only 640m/s to venus and approximately 1000 for Mars. A rescale wouldn't be that bad.

[regex]

I meant the whole system, my bad. I was surprised that the transfer requirements in RSS are not as high as I thought they would be, only 640m/s to venus and approximately 1000 for Mars. A rescale wouldn't be that bad.

Transfer to Mars from LEO is some 4.2km/s, transfer to Venus is 3.8km/s. You still have to burn out of the (equivalent of) Earth's SOI.

A 2x upscale for the Kerbin system would add some 200~300m/s required to get to the Mun IIRC, and probably some 500m/s to get to Duna or Eve. Moho and Eeloo would be much tougher than they are now, maybe requiring 6~7km/s and 5~6km/s (average respectively).