Better Than Starting Manned (Flower's WIP KSP mod )

[Stormweaver]

Whoooo

[FlowerChild]

Whoooo

Is that an owl "hoo", an extended "whoooo?" like when you get pushed over a cliff and wonder who did it, an "ooooo" with a slight lisp, or a truncated "woot!"? :)

[Stormweaver]

Whoooo

Is that an owl "hoo", an extended "whoooo?" like when you get pushed over a cliff and wonder who did it, an "ooooo" with a slight lisp, or a truncated "woot!"? :)

The second one? I think...maybe?

Anyways, going well so far. Other than re-learning how to orbit (well, making ever improving guesses as to how to do it) I'm doing well; just got done exhausting all of the kerbin science while gathering enough stuff to send up a munar probe.

Now I just need to remember that mass/drag ratios are important with FAR - I keep expecting my Mk-1 command pods to get below 200m/s before I have to open the parachute, which doesn't actually work now. As of yet, no kerbal has returned from space alive :3

[jorgebonafe]

I was reading the other forum and...

*facepalm*

All I can think of is this...

Spoiler

Show

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, that guy is all kinds of "special". I probably should have ignored him the instant he said "MechJeb" in his first post ;)

[FlowerChild]

The second one? I think...maybe?

Anyways, going well so far. Other than re-learning how to orbit (well, making ever improving guesses as to how to do it) I'm doing well; just got done exhausting all of the kerbin science while gathering enough stuff to send up a munar probe.

Now I just need to remember that mass/drag ratios are important with FAR - I keep expecting my Mk-1 command pods to get below 200m/s before I have to open the parachute, which doesn't actually work now. As of yet, no kerbal has returned from space alive :3

Sorry man, missed this one earlier.

Yeah, there's a lot to adapt to, to be sure. Terminal velocity for example not being fixed, but dependent on the shape of your rocket is a big one. I find myself winging it a lot too.

If at some point you could give me your overall impression as to whether this is more or less fun, I'd be much obliged. I still haven't made up my own mind on that point :)

[Stormweaver]

Well, it's still fun. Since at the point I've reached so far the only effect FAR really has on the experience is getting into orbit - though the high orbit goo probe re-entered nicely for it - it's not having a huge impact one way or the other, beyond the added challenge of getting into orbit - it's definitely making me want to upgrade to thrust-vectoring lower stages. The really big impact is the whole thing with engines having their thrust reduced in atmosphere, as opposed to their fuel efficiency. And designing rockets that can take off at effectively half thrust has been a good challenge in itself so...yeah.

It's definitely not less fun. It's definitely going to be pushing the learning curve up for people who haven't played with FAR though, as that little learning experience can be downright frustrating.

[FlowerChild]

Well yes, it is fun, but it's really a matter of whether it is more or less so :)

There are a number of things I like about it:

-It discourages silly horizontal designs, and makes rocket design more interesting overall by introducing more design considerations.

-It gives purpose to nose cones and generally making rockets that look like rockets.

-It makes flying into orbit early on much more challenging and engaging.

-It strengthens the aerodynamics branch into something I feel I really want to buy, but this is an area I'd like to get some feedback on as to how others feel about it.

-It gives some added depth to the later tech tree and purpose to parts like the aerospike rocket.

Some of the downsides:

-Yes, it makes the initial learning curve MUCH steeper. I don't feel it changes tech 1 and 2 very much, and if anything I've simplified things there by limiting the attachment rules so there's less variables to consider if your rocket is veering off course due to being out of balance, but I feel it kinda drops off a cliff at tech 3 and gets way hard way quick. I also don't seem to have much wiggle room there to smooth it out, and I went through many iterations of tech 1 through 3 before deciding that one was the best of the bunch, and it's actually the one that's closest to the pre-FAR versions, largely just substituting the need for fins, for the need for nose cones.

-This is hard to define, but I find FAR rather "twitchy". Reasons for loss and control and stability are often less than evident with no real feedback as to what's going on until your rocket is swinging like a pendulum in the upper atmosphere (which I personally find looks very weird...not sure if it's accurate). I'm not really sure this fits the flavor of the rest of BTSM, and is probably my primary concern here. I find myself wondering if something somewhere in between the stock aero model and FAR would be more in keeping with the spirit of BTSM and vanilla KSP. Basically, deeper than stock aero, but more "game" than FAR. This makes me wonder if waiting for a stock aero model might be a better option, as I think it likely that's what Squad would aim for.

-I think we really need some fairings, and for reasons I mentioned over on the BTSM KSP forums thread, I'm not finding any of the existing fairing mods out there really suitable for career mode or BTSM, as they strike me more as CAD-like tools for advanced Sandbox play, rather than something that fits into progression based play like we have here.

So yeah, overall, pros and cons on both sides for me, and the cons look to me that they would involve a sufficient amount of work for me to involve that scrapping the whole thing and sticking with stock aero is an option worth considering if this isn't actually more fun.

[FlowerChild]

Oh, and with regards to engine thrust:

It's not really 50% or what have you. Some of the early tech engines have their atmospheric ISP reduced to 50% yes, and so do even later tech ones not designed for atmospheric use (e.g. LV-909). Ones that are designed for it (LV-30 etc) are reduced to around 80%.

Also, in terms of delta-V alone, getting to orbit with small rockets is much MUCH easier in FAR, so those reductions have nowhere close to the impact they'd have in stock. Seriously, if you want to see what I mean, try playing this prerelease of BTSM without FAR installed. I doubt you'll even be able to get off the ground :)

So basically, yeah, if you're making horizontal designs with high drag, you're basically fucked. But, if you're making vertical designs with aero tops, the requirements to get into orbit shouldn't have changed much at all, and are definitely nowhere close to double :)

[LupusExMachina]

Did you stumble over this one?

http://kerbalspaceport.com/0-18-1-kw-ro ... verhauled/

I used an older version last year or so. It contained a couple of non procedural 120° and 180° fairings with different sizes. Not completly trivial to figure out how to use, but still easy enough.

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, looked at that, looked at the ones in NovaPunch, and looked at Procedural Fairings. They seem to be the big fairings mods out there, and each of them have the CAD things to one degree or another.

I described over on the KSP forums the type of thing I was really looking for, and the best bet if I go that route might be adding some parts to Proc Fairings that are slightly less powerful, and have less configuration options.

[FlowerChild]

Icy is currently streaming the most recent prerelease, and I'll be joining him in voice chat:

http://www.twitch.tv/icynewyear

[Sarudak]

Well... I have only played around with it up to T3 and only for a couple hours so take this with a grain of salt. But I feel like it's less fun. Mostly because it seems less intuitive to me. Like when my rocket was flipping over there was no indication as to why it was happening. Also when I have control surfaces everything feels really touchy when I'm using the keyboard and I can't help but oversteering. Maybe I'm just too used to how it was before but that's how I'm feeling right now.

[DaveYanakov]

The issue I ran into entering into tier 3 was not the structure of the rocket but the staging. I have gotten used to firing off the main booster and two of the small boosters, then firing off the second pair of small boosters which in the case of FAR results in far too much velocity within the atmosphere. Learning to fire all four smalls and then the main is a valuable lesson.

It also appears to be impossible to loft a gravioli detector into low orbit without nosecones so that further solidifies the tier 3 node progression to focus on control first.

Sarudak, are you using fine controls to ascend using those control surfaces? an aerodynamic rocket generally wants to fly straight so only very small corrections should be needed.

[Stormweaver]

Right, Pics for icy. And anyone else really.

First of all, my design for the pointy cockpit;

Spoiler

Show

Not my original design, but I came up with this while trying to remember how I did it and it works! And looks suitably fragile.

And Second, a good rule of thumb for re-entry modules:

Spoiler

Show

Note how I put a Mk-1 command pod next to it for comparison. If your re-entry module more-or-less follows that kind of shape, it'll come in fine. If it doesn't...it'll tip sideways so that the heatshield is pointing perpendicular to the way you're traveling, which is bad. The cavity can hold as much stuff as can fit and it'll be fine regardless. It also works scaled up, with the Mk1-2 heat shield and the rockomax adapter, for those munar missions.

[Psion]

My personal impressions of prerelease so far:

I've unlocked all teir III nodes so far. getting high orbit science was rather difficult for me, since every combination of rockets i used didnt seem to work. I eventually settles on a design with 8 boosters around the main one, with 8 more boosters on the first set of boosters. i fired the outermost 8 first, then 4 of the innermost, then 2 more, 2 more, then the main rocket. this got me to 263km, enough to hit high orbit comfortably and unlock gravioli and liquid fuel.

Other than that, using fins seems very responsive... waaaay too responsive, even with capslock to use finer controls. its fairly forgiving if you go too far though, at least with shorter rockets, so it's not yet a big deal, but it is a slight annoyance.

On the plus side, i've yet to feel any of my rockets are about to blast themselves apart for no reason. I'm not missing struts so far, which is a first for me. getting into orbit feels much easier for me now too, possibly because my rockets arent trying to explode themselves mid flight. :D

So far, i've found it much more enjoyable than before, other than the FAR interface thing, which i can't figure out what it's for, so i just closed it. <_<;

[FlowerChild]

I've unlocked all teir III nodes so far. getting high orbit science was rather difficult for me, since every combination of rockets i used didnt seem to work. I eventually settles on a design with 8 boosters around the main one, with 8 more boosters on the first set of boosters. i fired the outermost 8 first, then 4 of the innermost, then 2 more, 2 more, then the main rocket. this got me to 263km, enough to hit high orbit comfortably and unlock gravioli and liquid fuel. \

For reference, can you post a pic of this design? Trying to get an idea what lead you down a "mo'boosters" design tangent :)

If you look at the last few pages of the thread, me and Storm discuss designs for high orbit at tech 3, and you will likely face-palm once you see the simplicity of them by comparison ;)

On the plus side, i've yet to feel any of my rockets are about to blast themselves apart for no reason. I'm not missing struts so far, which is a first for me. getting into orbit feels much easier for me now too, possibly because my rockets arent trying to explode themselves mid flight. :D

So far, i've found it much more enjoyable than before, other than the FAR interface thing, which i can't figure out what it's for, so i just closed it. <_<;

Hmmmm...ok, why is that the case? It's the only clear "yes" response I've heard to this so far, when everyone else either seems on the fence about it, or distinctly negative about it.

Is the rockets not falling apart bit the extent of why it enhances your enjoyment?

[Psion]

Ok, here's a picture of my monstrosity, as you call it. XD

Spoiler

Show

I just fired each rocket right as the previous stage was giving out, starting with the 8 outermost rockets.

here's the final height I got:

Spoiler

Show

which comfortably got me to high orbit readings. Everything else I tried before this, such as just the 8 rockets around the main rocket, was just not enough to reach high orbit, though I'm pretty bad at designing rockets.

As far as enjoyment goes, not having rockets fall apart at random is probably the biggest reason i enjoy it more, yes, but it really is quite big for me. having your creations just... fall apart when they seemingly should work just fine is rather irritating when you have to spend hours redesigning your rockets just to not explode midflight, and then finding out they're not strong enough to get to where you're trying to go, which leads me further and further down the mo'boosters designs, which then results in more explodey creations, in a vicious cycle. FAR so far has nipped it mostly at the bud, with my worst rocket so far being the above. most are much more reasonable, such as a liquid rocket with 4 solid boosters around it.

FAR so far has made me pay more attention to the streamlining of my rockets as well, trying to hide sticking out parts under nosecones and the like, which feels more intuitive to me and makes my rockets look nicer. Before I pretty much didnt use nosecones because they just resulted in a heavier rocket that didn't fly as high and worse yet, were more likely to shake apart. Now they're essential to good rocket design, which feels right to me, and makes fins and nosecones nodes feel like worthwhile purchases now.

[FlowerChild]

Cool thanks for the additional explanation man. Most of that (other than rockets falling apart which doesn't coincide with my own experience), is in keeping with my own thoughts with regards to how FAR improves the experience, in terms of improving rocket designs and such.

I have a tendency however to build rockets that look like rockets though, as illustrated by many of the designs I've posted screenshots of in this thread, just because it feels wrong if I do otherwise, so it's not something that impacts me too much personally. I tend to do things like put nose cones on designs anyways, even though I know that with stock rules, I'm actually hurting my performance. Similarly, I always build vertically and stay away from "mo'boosters" designs, even though there's no penalty for them in vanilla, and I am likely often making things harder than they need to be by doing so.

Anyways, it's good to hear from a player with your particular rocket design tendencies as a result, because it gives me a clear indication that what I wanted to happen with the FAR integration is indeed happening for others, even if it doesn't affect me too much directly.

So, thanks again for the details man, as it provides me with a lot of additional insight into the overall impact here.

Seriously though, take a look at the designs pictured a couple of pages ago for high orbit designs at tech 3 for the obligatory face palm. I am likely going to change the attachment rules to prevent people from doing what you did in the screenshot above, to ensure they understand what's going on before progressing, so it'll be worthwhile having a look for when later releases come along ;)

[Stormweaver]

Well, I think I'm going to take a break for the day. I did a bit of messing around with re-entries from minmus earlier and it's definitely a lot more fun with FAR. Aerobraking is a lot more forgiving with the thinner upper atmosphere (as in, you don't lose half your ablative if you drop a little too low on your first pass) but at the same time if you judge wrong, you're going to be spending a lot of time watching the map because if you aim too high, you'll be going around in circles forever.

But for now, I've just finished my first Munar crew report sweep (with added goo) and due to a derp moment, forgetting to put power in the Mk1-2 before re-entry, I loaded up a quicksave to find myself much in the same position as icy was in his stream when he was reverting to launch. The bug also appeared to have destroyed Kerbin, reducing it to a giant white ball of plasma with some pretty rings. So...I'm taking a break.

[Psion]

Wow, early game is MUCH more... i wont say easy, because it's not, there's still quite a bit of fiddling and optimization, but I managed to get into a polar orbit with all tech 4 nodes unlocked MUCH more easily than i normally do. Without FAR my contraptions start to look like something youd try to send to Eeloo, not the mun. But with This:

Spoiler

Show

I managed to not only hit a polar orbit, and have enough battery power to collect the rest of the missing biomes with about 800 power to spare, but I had about 50ish liquid fuel left to destabilize the orbit and send it into a fiery death and avoid cluttering up kerbins space with useless debris once i was done.

I'm not sure if everyone who's great at building rockets already would find this more fun, but for some of us who aren't natural space engineers, FAR seems to help nudge me in the right direction for rocket building.

[FlowerChild]

Ok, a question about the non-FAR version of BTSM, to Storm in particular:

Did the reentry module designs that seemed to flip without explanation include RCS thrusters?

I've identified a problem with them where they had artificially low drag values set by Squad for no discernable reason, basically causing them to act as negative drag, like the opposite of fletching. Changing this to match the other stock values seems to correct the problem and make bottom heavy designs orient predictably.

Just want to verify I'm not missing something.

[Psion]

I seem to be having an issue with reentry. Namely, even though the ablative shielding is nearly full, the entire rocket burns up anyways, shielding included, well before the shielding runs out. It's pointed perfectly in the right direction, bottom first, yet unlike without FAR, it just... explodes into fiery death. Is this by design, or is it something i'm doing wrong here?

[FlowerChild]

Can you describe your reentry? Periapsis, apoapsis and all that?

[Psion]

I didn't have it, since i didn't manage orbit, but i was coming in from about 70km at peak and came in around 2000 m/s at a shallow angle. (projected orbit ended at the north pole). was confused since without FAR that sort of reentry was perfectly fine, i've entered at a shallow angle as fast as 2500ish without burning up.