the ion engine is way too OP

[Levelord]

I'm not understanding the complaints about part counts, I really am not.

Kerbals, y'see, aren't really the explosion-loving failure-embracing nutbars they appear. Their rockets may lack some... structural integrity, but they shouldn't need to use struts to hold something onto the side of a ship. You want an engineering challenge? Simple: Don't use the new parts. Use your 400-part monstrosity from .23. No one's stopping you.

From my perspective, reduced part counts and tougher attachments make perfect sense. I fail to see why these merit complaints.

It's less about the structural integrity of having many parts and more to do with trying to optimize the game (which runs on Unity). You're free to build a Whackjob-level type of craft, but for the rest of us that doesn't have particularly powerful rigs, rocket parts that are combined into a single piece to keep part count down is a godsend.

[Jouni]

For those saying that these engines represent "advancements we've made in the real world after 60 years of R&D"

No. This does not match reality in any way.

the SLS really isn't significantly more efficient than the Saturn V, and it certainly can't single stage anything of significance to LEO.

The SLS is expected to have a 5% higher payload fraction to LEO than the Saturn V (4.2% vs. 4.0% for the heaviest configuration), while being significantly more cost-effective. If cost-effectiveness was not a factor, that payload fraction could increase significantly. Real-world SSTOs are not a reasonable comparison, as the delta-v requirements are somewhere between a Duna return mission and a Duna+Ike return mission in KSP.

Regarding the ion engines, I used them in small kethane probes in Jool system. Compared to using liquid fuel engines, the probes had twice the delta-v for the same mass. Flying them was also kind of fun, as it was so different from everything else I had done. Now that the ion engines have been boosted, they should be useful as lander engines in low-gravity worlds. I'll have to try that later today.

[Pthigrivi]

Since the fuel consumption was changed proportional to thrust all that has really changed is the power consumption rate. The real trick with these is keeping weight down, which means being really careful about the panels, setting it up so no matter which direction you burn they can all face the sun and aren't shading each other so you aren't dragging around panels that aren't drawing power. Its true, gigantors have a worse weight to energy ratio, but if half (or 2/3 with OX-STATS) are facing the wrong way and you have to use half a ton in structural components to get them facing the right way it doesn't matter.

And for those of you who think Ion probes were fine before, open up .23 and try to make an ion probe that draws 15e/s in 3 directions that gets more dV than a probe of the same weight using an LV-1. You'll be disappointed at what you find.

[Wahgineer]

Actually I was revering to the changes in the part.cfg.

Though your post doesn't say anything about why they shouldn't be useless in atmosphere, you only give a reason why they have the same ISP.

My point is that we don't use ion engines on planes in real life because that just doesn't work, their TWR is just too low for that.

To mimic the use of a real life ion engine the game should follow that rule and combine it with fun gameplay.

Which means no (or a minuscule) thrust in the atmosphere and the current thrust in space.

Believe it or not, but some one is working on some sort of special, in-atmosphere ion engine for planes.

[The Space]

Now the ion engine is not overpowered but usable. At least now you don't have to do 3 hour burns for interplanetary transfer.

[Jouni]

And for those of you who think Ion probes were fine before, open up .23 and try to make an ion probe that draws 15e/s in 3 directions that gets more dV than a probe of the same weight using an LV-1. You'll be disappointed at what you find.

The key was not to use 15 e/s in small probes. My 0.5-tonne probes could only sustain 15% thrust at Jool, but even that was enough to make flying them enjoyable.

[LethalDose]

A 40 minutes burn to the Mun might be realistic, but it's far from "good in the concern of gameplay". Ion engines now have the same Dv as before, only with 4 times the thrust. This might looks stupid compared to real life, but at least I might start using them. And this is what gameplay should be concerned about IMO.

The quoted response pretty much sums up my opinion: improving gameplay trumps realism.

If we could leave thrust on a for engines during full time warp, or while other vehicles were active, this wouldn't be an issue and ion engines' performance parameters could be reset to pre-0.23.5 values.

However, that's not the case, so other solutions are warranted. IMO, the current solution leads to gameplay better than was in 0.23.5, and you're free to disagree.

[Themohawkninja]

Now the ion engine is not overpowered but usable. At least now you don't have to do 3 hour burns for interplanetary transfer.

^^This.

You people need to remember that KSP is a pseudo-simulator. It uses all the fun equations of rocket science, along with having many IRL engines, but all programmed to work for the benefit of gameplay.

Nobody likes doing hour-long burns when you are on 4x time warp, and ion probes have never really been all that applicable for anything aside from landing on Gilly and recreating real-life space craft.

[WhiteWeasel]

Considering how many people hated the ion engine or never used it and only a few people regularly used them, the devs gave them a buff to make them more appealing. They are less frustrating to the normal player, and awesome to the people like me who already uses them. They are now getting fairly popular because of this, changing them back since they are "OP" would upset all of those people and not go down well for the ones who wanted them nerfed.

Don't play the realism for realisms' sake card. Give me a reason why the .23 and prior Ion engines were better or non "OP".

Edited April 4, 2014 by WhiteWeasel

[Rusty6899]

Now the ion engine is not overpowered but usable. At least now you don't have to do 3 hour burns for interplanetary transfer.

I think the main problem with this is that ion engines, in reality, are not meant to be used for interplanetary travel. Obviously the game is not a simulator of reality, but it seems that all the parts have real world analogues and are designed to be used in the same situations.

The problem lies in the fact that no one wants to do multiple hour burns, so it makes sense to increase their thrust, but increasing it by too much means that the engines can be abused to create OP interplanetary craft.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to have kept the Ion engines as they were, and add a new set, which have higher thrust (2kN) and lower Isp (~2000s).

This means that you couldn't use the high thrust Ions to go interplanetary (or if you did, it wouldn't be much more efficient than nukes) and keeping the old ones would prevent anyone's existing craft from being made obsolete as well as providing a more realistic ion engine.

I can understand why the devs didn't want to introduce new parts at the moment, and it isn't an issue that I'm particularly passionate about, but that would be my suggestion.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think the main problem with this is that ion engines, in reality, are not meant to be used for interplanetary travel.

Dawn, Deep Space 1, Hayabusa.

[Anton P. Nym]

I think the main problem with this is that ion engines, in reality, are not meant to be used for interplanetary travel.

That's exactly the opposite of reality. Ion engines are designed for long-duration missions with high dV requirements... so, yes, they're intended for interplanetary missions. Current models aren't suitable for crewed craft, but NASA and the usual suspects are looking into using more powerful versions (like VASIMR) that could. Current versions are well suited for cometary and asteroid missions, and there's no reason they also couldn't be used to send orbiter probes to the planets.

Ions aren't suited to use on landers or atmospheric craft in real life like the PB-ION is, however. That's the least realistic thing about the in-game ion engine, but until we get other forms of electric propulsion for aircraft (like ducted fans, which I've wanted to use on some glider designs for some time) I'm okay with this "fudge".

-- Steve

[Levelord]

I think the main problem with this is that ion engines, in reality, are not meant to be used for interplanetary travel.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about, son?

[Holo]

Staring at your computer for 20 minutes on 4x acceleration is not fun.

Of course, since Ion engines will only work when you're watching them and you can literally do nothing else when they are on.

[SpaceGremlin]

Of course, since Ion engines will only work when you're watching them and you can literally do nothing else when they are on.

HOW DO THEY KNOW!?!

[paranoia intensifies]

[Pthigrivi]

The key was not to use 15 e/s in small probes. My 0.5-tonne probes could only sustain 15% thrust at Jool, but even that was enough to make flying them enjoyable.

You're looking at hour and half burns to Jool with that. That doesn't sound fun to me.

[cantab]

What I think is silly are the ion powered planes, simply because such engines don't like atomsphere. For those who love the idea of solar electric planes, propellers could be a good realistic option.

For the time being, just image the ion drives are actually props

[Greenfire32]

I think the main problem with this is that ion engines, in reality, are not meant to be used for interplanetary travel.

Um...ion engines are almost exclusively for interplanetary travel. They're impractical to use on short distances because their thrust is so low, but extremely valuable for long-term flights because of how efficient they are.

HOW DO THEY KNOW!?!

[paranoia intensifies]

This is an actual observed phenomenon, albiet in reverse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

[Greenfire32]

double post.

[TheTennesseeFireman]

Frankly, I don't mind the increased thrust; hour-long burns aren't good gameplay, even if they're a correct simulation. But the fuel consumption should be at least somewhat compromised along with it. That does make it much more of a rocket than it ought to be, but at least it preserves some semblance of balance in not allowing you to jet around the solar system constrained only in the amount of time you have to sit through a burn.

[Joonatan1998]

Has anyone tried to make planes on eve with these engines?

While they may not be good for reaching the orbit, they could be used for efficiently moving from one place to another. (Something that will be very usefull when/if they add biomes to eve)

[Jouni]

You're looking at hour and half burns to Jool with that. That doesn't sound fun to me.

It took something like an hour of real time to transit between Laythe and Pol at 0.15 m/s² sustained acceleration. It was quite interesting, as maneuver nodes were almost completely useless, so I had to figure out new ways to navigate.

[Red Iron Crown]

It took something like an hour of real time to transit between Laythe and Pol at 0.15 m/s² sustained acceleration. It was quite interesting, as maneuver nodes were almost completely useless, so I had to figure out new ways to navigate.

Yeah, the assumption in most of the navigation tools of an instantaneous burn is particularly bad with ions.

I've messed around with simulating a torchship by using the infinite fuel cheat, orbital calculations are way different under constant thrust. Had to restrict my experiments to the Kerbin system because of limited timewarp.

[WafflesToo]

It took something like an hour of real time to transit between Laythe and Pol at 0.15 m/s² sustained acceleration. It was quite interesting, as maneuver nodes were almost completely useless, so I had to figure out new ways to navigate.

This was pretty much my experience with the ion drive... well that and overcoming the engineering problems with powering them. Haven't seen the new ones but the rock wall won't be the same with the wheelchair ramp installed.

[Killerdude8]

Gameplay >>>> Realism.

Whilst I agree, Current Ions aren't very realistic, They improve the Gameplay by quite a decent sized margin, You might find an hour Long burn fun and exciting, But most don't.