Not near my PC right now so can’t do proper reporting.
1. Removed
2. Engines are too light
Just too light. A general 25% increase in mass is recommended
3. SRBs are OP
It is easy to get delta V of >20,000m/s with large SRB crafts. There is probably a bug in the SRB code.
Also, aerospikes should only be available to small SRBs (<100%). They aren’t heat resistant
4. SRBs shut down during time warp
They shouldn’t
Disable timewarp during SRB firing is a fix.
Or unable SRBs during time warp.
5. Aerospikes are too long
50% of the current length is a fix (or make them resizable?)
6. Over Expansion is weird
They look like aerospikes.
I suggest making shock diamonds a thing.
7. Under expansion is weird
It should look more like a flat cone. The current one straightens out after a while. They also have very clear edges, while real ones fade out.
@AndrewGarrison I did it, I have to search it
@pedro16797 Make a suggestion post (if you haven't already) and we'll see what we can do :)
@AndrewGarrison I love the idea of the gimballed rcs, I think multi-nozzle rcs fit better the diy part of the game or at least the subassembly part of it.
About the subassembly parts packs we're making can you make it so the subassembly folder can read from folders inside? Now we have to put the parts directly into the subassemblies folder and it gets messy, being able to place, imagine, SpaceX Engines in a folder called that can be very helpful for us :)
@AndrewGarrison hm, funny, I showed the veritasium video to my gf 5 minutes ago hahahaha
@pedro16797 @AnotherFireFox That is a really clever idea using the RCS thrust as an input to an engine. For the multi-directional RCS part we could either do a block with several nozzles (probably 5) or a single nozzle that can rotate on a ball joint that can direct its thrust (nearly) anywhere in a hemisphere, like this thing. That part won't make it in this update, so we still have more time to think about it and you have more time to influence its development.
@pedro16797 that reminds me of ComplexJoint
@AndrewGarrison and about RCS presets, what do you think about adding RCS blocks that are really multiple parts and not a dedicated one. Like the part packs we're making
@AndrewGarrison I was going to make my own ones (adding a rcs nozzle with 1e-3 thrust and taking the output as the controller for an engine) but if you add rcs option to any engine that won't be necessary.
If you add that option you may be able to get rid of current RCS and just make it a preset, but for easy use thay may mean that engine attachments should work like rcs ones, being able to attach to any surface and I don't know if you want that.
@pedro16797 @AnotherFireFox I'll look into scaling a bit smaller for the next beta update. I think you also need a setting to enable RCS style control for any rocket engine.....I'll have to think about that one.
@AndrewGarrison AS I said over and over and over again, RCSs are basically tiny engines. Besides that, a few or sub kilonewton engines are very useful. You need engines for ants everywhere, especially when you're sending a tiny probe into deeeeeep space.
@pedro16797 Shrugs
@Kell hm, that's actually a good idea but how do you would implement that? This way we will have to add 100% efficiency engines for RSS, that won't change automatically
@AndrewGarrison I think you should have an “efficiency” tag in the engines’ XML. 1.0 will be the engine’s ideal performance, and 0.8 will be suitable for the stock system. This could also make the real engine makers’ lives easier @pedro16797 @AnotherFireFox
@AndrewGarrison model rockets, separation stages, RCS like engines (I'm planning to use the rcs thrust to control the throttle of some engines to have more powerful RCS)
And also for the looks, of course
@AndrewGarrison Yes! Indeed!
@Kell 25 percent!? What are these?Engines for ants?
@Kell I think this is a duplicated message
@AndrewGarrison do you mind reducing the minimum engine size to 0.25? Small satellites need small engines. And retro motors for crewed capsules too.
@Kell YESSSS PLEASE! i don't want to see Kell suffering from notstockache. Como to the dark side of the xml muahahaha
@AndrewGarrison do you mind reducing the minimum engine size to 0.25? Small satellites need small engines. And retro motors for crewed capsules too.
Number 7,Under Expansion is Weird.Yes,I agree because I Presented Andrew with the Lava de Nozzle and I just don't Know their called Under Expansion.The Flat Under Expansion is Pretty Realistic as on Real Spacecraft.It will be Nice for the Under Expansion that Could be Decrease the Height during Leaving Droo's Atmosphere.If you see in Real Rockets when they Leave the Atmosphere,the Height of the Under Expansion Decreases while the Width Increases.I Hope This Should be in the Game because this are alot of nice Features and Bug Fixes.
Yeah, I feel that 15 mins to Low Orbit is kinda hardcore for light users.
@Kell not necessarily RSS but make Droo have 1/2 Earth size instead of 1/5, so it's easier than in real life but not so easy as it is right now.
Also RSS for stock may have too many bodies
@AndrewGarrison Why not just make the game RSS
@AndrewGarrison I'm glad to read this. Personally I think 0.7 needs a long beta testing period (I'm happy you released now) because it's too important. I think this will be one of the most important updates for the game ever (with the planet builder one). Keep this great work, and ask for anything you need :)