Maneuver Engine Re-Balance
Among the other features in 1.7 are a few art revamps for various maneuver engines. And amongst the feedback for those engines, some of the community pointed out that a couple of these engines aren’t as useful as others, due to their stats.
The team decided to take a look and yes, we did see some tuning issues – so we decided to update select numbers of the engines we’re revamping.
As with the last blog on the tuning of the MH engines, the goal here is balance and making sure each of our engines has a niche and a use, while making the smallest number of changes possible.
So first, here are the raw numbers of the engines we’re changing, as well as some reference numbers of similar engines that aren’t changing.
|
Engine Comparison |
Thrust (Vac) |
ISP Vac |
ISP ASL |
Mass |
Vac TWR |
ASL TWR |
Cost |
Cost/kN Thrust |
Tech Level |
Gimbal Range |
EC/s |
Crash Tolerance |
Entry Cost |
|
Ant (for comparison) |
2 |
315 |
80 |
0.02 |
10.19 |
2.59 |
110 |
55.00 |
Propulsion Systems (5) |
0 |
0 |
7 |
1500 |
|
Spider (for comparison) |
2 |
290 |
260 |
0.02 |
10.19 |
9.14 |
120 |
60.00 |
Precision Propulsion (6) |
10 |
0 |
7 |
1750 |
|
Twitch |
16 |
290 |
250 |
0.09 |
18.12 |
15.62 |
400 |
25.00 |
Precision Propulsion (6) |
8 |
0 |
7 |
1600 |
|
New Twitch |
16 |
290 |
275 |
0.08 |
20.39 |
19.33 |
230 |
14.38 |
Precision Propulsion (6) |
8 |
0 |
7 |
920 |
|
Puff (for comparison) |
20 |
250 |
120 |
0.09 |
22.65 |
10.87 |
150 |
7.50 |
Precision Propulsion (6) |
6 |
0 |
7 |
2500 |
|
Spark |
20 |
320 |
270 |
0.1 |
20.39 |
17.20 |
240 |
12.00 |
Propulsion Systems (5) |
3 |
0 |
7 |
2800 |
|
New Spark |
20 |
320 |
265 |
0.13 |
15.68 |
12.99 |
240 |
12.00 |
Propulsion Systems (5) |
3 |
0 |
7 |
2800 |
|
Place-Anywhere 7 |
2 |
240 |
100 |
0.03 |
6.80 |
2.83 |
280 |
140.00 |
Advanced Flight Control(5) |
0 |
0 |
50 |
4200 |
|
New Place-Anywhere 7 |
2 |
240 |
100 |
0.02 |
10.19 |
4.25 |
25 |
12.50 |
Advanced Flight Control(5) |
0 |
0 |
15 |
800 |
|
RV-105 RCS |
4 |
240 |
100 |
0.05 |
8.15 |
3.40 |
620 |
155.00 |
Advanced Flight Control(5) |
0 |
0 |
15 |
3400 |
|
New RV-105 RCS |
4 |
240 |
100 |
0.04 |
10.19 |
4.25 |
45 |
11.25 |
Advanced Flight Control(5) |
0 |
0 |
15 |
1200 |
|
Vernor |
12 |
260 |
140 |
0.08 |
15.29 |
8.23 |
1400 |
116.67 |
Specialized Control(6) |
0 |
0 |
50 |
4200 |
|
New Vernor |
12 |
260 |
140 |
0.08 |
15.29 |
8.23 |
150 |
12.50 |
Specialized Control(6) |
0 |
0 |
15 |
1800 |
And here’s the thinking behind these changes.
Twitch & Spark:
The twitch and spark are both relatively similar in size, use the same propellant, and the twitch unlocks later than the spark. The twitch is a surface attached engine with a good gimbal range, but otherwise the Spark is just better in every way – TWR, cost/KN, and efficiency. In fact, the Spark is so efficient that it outpaces many larger significantly larger engines, making clusters of them a better choice than using one of them, something we generally want to avoid as we think that both game balance and realism are better satisfied by having larger engines generally be slightly better than smaller ones, at the expense of not being as flexible in exactly how many of them you use.
Therefore, the Twitch was made about half as costly, and its ASL ISP was increased to make it a better descent engine for probes on planets with an atmosphere, or as a Vernier.
The Spark’s ASL ISP was lowered slightly, and its mass increased, to tilt it more toward being a Vac engine rather than just a perfect all-around engine that it was. We’re aware that the community has been using this engine for a while and kept the changes as small as possible, but this engine stood out too much from its peers when you look at the numbers to not need to adjust it.
RCS Engines:
The Place Anywhere 7, RV-105 RCS, and Vernor are all engines designed to steer your ship in space, making fine adjustments to orientation and course rather than providing raw power. Also, RCS is a much more realistic way to adjust a large craft’s orientation rather than piling on more reaction wheels. But the cost of these engines, we felt was just too exorbitant, especially given their low efficiency & the fact that they are typically placed in symmetry, so their costs were reduced dramatically.
The mass of the Place Anywhere 7 and RV-105 also made them a poor choice compared to the more powerful Vernor and were thus lowered.
However, these are still engines, sensitive pieces of equipment, so the crash tolerances were set more in line with other engines.
Recommended Comments