passinglurker

@RedPandaz they couldn't make the whole making history dlc work on consoles so they are taking the bits they can port and repacking them as a different smaller dlc. You can get everything they are getting through making history or preferably through higher quality mods.

To be fair there's ways to make it work ways like prerequisites to unlock it, giving it a severe penalty to the mass, part count, and dimensions of what you can launch from it plus a vehicle cost markup so that you'd always do much better launching from kerbin instead in about every respect but convenience, etc. The only real insurmountable problem with this is just that the one implementing it is Squad who as usual are just adding it in the laziest way they think they can get away with...

I find it significant because I don't expect it to stop with just the rcs block. The old meshes were sloppily done reuseing them carries an unnecessary risk of their flaws and mistakes persisting, and it's especially frustrating because most of the meshes they are reuseing are very simple and trivial to recreate cleanly from scratch to ensure there is no risk of errors. It's just another snip in a long line of bald squad corner cuts.

Excuse me? It's all valid these discrepancies wouldn't happen if parts were modeled from scratch especially considering how squad doesn't take feedback and redo's unless the parts reception is cold enough to build a snow kerbal out of. Edit: Also they are the same mesh they just added a bevel to the inside of the nozzel they are still made from the old mesh not from scratch.

I notice real nozzles such as the pic above don't have such a pronounced lip on them. I'll just chalk this up to "why squad shouldn't waste time retexturing old place holder meshes"...

I wasn't so much imagining colonization and off world facilities rather a "commercial service" that can deliver small payloads to various points in the solar system for you after you've explored them, but always being much smaller than what you could launch from kerbin and pilot to the same point yourself. A simple feature to cut out some tedium for smaller payloads so you can focus your time on the big ones.

probably best not to make assumptions though remember when so many people still thought the mission creator would create contracts for career mode despite multiple statements to the contrary?

It would seem a little less weird if the moon pad had more restrictions on it for size, mass, and part count in career mode(then you can wave it off as the vehicle being delivered there), make it something you can unlock and upgrade so you have a bit of an endgame beyond just unlocking the whole tech tree, but just as a freebie like the desert launch site? I imagine like autopilot features it would generate so much friction between those who play for the challenge to fly and everyone else that the debates would just be exhausting...

Same as everyone else. Good job, but kinda wish there was an alternate shape or bare engine option for my non-spaceplanes since part variants are a thing now.

sure at the hottest point but be it for physics or aesthetic it should taper off rapidly from that point. my issue isn't so much the choice of color but rather the amount of area covered by a single color. If they want to cover a lot of area with a glow then it would need to transition from one color to another as you go from coldest to hottest, or alternately if they only want the dull red they need to be more constrained with it or it'll just look amateurish. Also on the inside of the engine bell a case could be made for whiting out the center with something a lot hotter looking than dull red.

a cold gas propelled reaction control system would have an isp in the double digits. All kerbal rcs and monoprop engines should be assumed to be catalyzed just based on thier minimal performance. ISP is more easily explained by expansion ratio and unseen assumptions like chamber pressure and scale

I imagine people can go back and forth about that all day debating engine design, size, propellant choice, etc but to me the glow regardless of if it should be there should look nice which it presently does not. In order to not look like "my first emissive animation" it either needs more color variation as you progress towards the hottest parts or the glowing area needs to be much smaller so that there is little to no pure red area.

Why's the emmisive just flat glowing red? The bigger the area it covers the more it should gradient from red to yellow to white otherwise the emmissive just shouldn't get that broad and that bright.

[snip] Any way to sum up. I hate it and see little worth salvaging. Ideally since they've shown willingness to break compatibility they should start over with an encapsulated engine like the puff or thud and assuming this new twitch revamp doesn't take some cues from the spark revamp then the spark should be revised to take to take cues from the new twitch, and the new twitch should be buffed (cause again compatibility is out the window with the thrust angle change) so that their relation to each other is more intuitive. If someone wants to make some self contradictory and convenient excuses to get out of starting over the minimum they could do is redo it from the grey gimbal point down instead showing a bare combustion chamber and how it attaches to the rest of the engine to at least make it more visually interesting, and of course also incorporate a miniature turbo somewhere into the design for technical consistency, and attention to detail's sake. And if someone were to do both and let us swap between them with the part variant system I'll take back what I said about squad never going all in on a part.

That's really the crux of the problem isn't it? Even when you do come up with a mechanism to explain it(like the hollow ball air duct someone pointed out not that air ducts can stand up as structural rocket parts but whatever let's roll with it) the question then becomes "why wasn't the part modeled to show this in the first place?" As it stands the part is mechanically unintuitive and visually uninteresting the design seems to ask more "what saves me detail work?" or "I don't know how to model an organic aeroshell like the puff and thud engines" rather than "what looks appealing?", "what looks consistent?", "what makes sense?" This design is just lazy if it's made for vacuum you should remove the encasement and show the mechanically ingesting bits, if it's made for atmos it should be properly streamlined and protected, and ideally you should just do both and use the part variant system to switch between them cause that's a thing we have now! I'm sick of seeing the same lazy design ethos the placeholders had just with standardized textures made by people with no apparent passion or respect for space flight. After the lengths they jumped through to recreate real engines for making history I sincerely thought modeling at least wasn't going to be a problem but now it looks like they just have to be phoning something in one way or another...

Kinda a moot point now that the twitch has been revealed to fall apart under gravity with how it's been designed...

After we beat down the gate with the force of public opinion. They don't fix anything because they screwed up but rather only because the reception was cold enough. Wait... How can we have a ball joint without a socket to wrap around and hold it? It'll just fall out it's just hanging by the flexible fuel lines I can only imagine are running through the ball... Ok @nestor massive technical oversights like this are why you need to run rover's designs past the Community or QA team before be sinks time into them...

Exactly that's how their original author described them for the kspx mod, and I would love nothing more than for squad to take one or both of these back in order to iterate on, improve, and perfect the design. I simply offered an alternative as a compromise because everyone here knows how allergic squad is to revisiting revamps despite how naked their corner cutting can be at times... Seriously if they ever looked like they gave it their all on a part it wouldn't be so easy to criticize... Instead since they seem intent on giving the minimum effort as usual it might be prudent to show parts at a mute conceptual stage so community feed back can be given before to many man hours are spent and the sunk costs fallacy takes hold...

The Ukrainian hypergolic wizards would probably want a word with you they stage combustion basically everything even the little vernier thrusters. Also the micro launch market is presently awash with gas generator cycle engines a 9th the size of Merlin or smaller (fun fact in porkjets design document the spark and twitch take their cues from the Merlin engine) Rebalancing and adding more parts to flesh out the use cases would certainly be an option squad is already basically hard breaking things changing the angle of thrust. In which case the engine you see here would play the role of a larger pressure fed like the spider/ant engine and also get a stack mount variant and then squad can introduce a slightly larger engine that looks like a radial version of their spark engine and hey if they design it right maybe that odd choice of mounting the turbo separately from the thrust chamber would actually start to make a modicum of sense because it would suggest that the engine was radial first and adapted to stack use later. EDIT: I should add that kerbal has a tendency to spark curiosity and learning in people so while it may be the case that a user might not know a thing about engines now they may want to in the future, and if kerbal made even a small nod to accuracy and consistency well then that would be all the better when the user realizes it.

Enough to attribute to a reduced throttle or shorter engine bell not a fundamentally different engine cycle. If it's supposed to be pressure fed (Ie no turbos) then it would be more like an upscaled spider more thrust but similar twr and efficiency. With the spark establishing what is needed to achieve a certain level of performance then for consistency sake I would expect the twitch to follow (and ideally just be the same engine with a shorter bell and different mount as it was with kspx, but I'm guessing the artists didn't think that far when they churned out the spark and shrugged the feedback so I'd settle for having two different turbo fed rockets.)

@RoverDude are we nerfing the twitch? Cause I don't see how a smaller engine with no turbo machinery is supposed to be complimentary and on par with the spark engine.

@StylusHead thanks again for responding its good to have a dev who'll provide insight into his work Way I see it this is backwards I'm afraid. While its good that you can detail panels like porkjet at this point or rather since you started revamping the adapters onwards your style has turned into "panels for panels sake" there doesn't seem to be consideration paid to why there are panels especially those symmetrical rings of tiny panels your team seems fond of. For example why is say the C7 cone fabricated and assembled the way it is instead of just being formed as a single piece? it serves a purely structural function, and no plumbing runs through it so there is no need for an access hatch and its quite a small part so there would be no need to break it up into even smaller pieces for transport. half the active forum users here you could probably feed an untextured cylinder and they'd receive it well you should see the stuff they used to praise and defend before you got here... as for the other half which are more discerning speaking from my perspective the FL tanks were the first to at least tick the mandatory checkboxes, and taking in allowances for creative liberties they could have gone either way, but things have gone a bit panel happy since then. I'd now say they've gone the wrong way if they're acceptance is being used as evidence to support this creative direction. My only concern here is the porkjet nosecones the rest you could have just scrapped and started fresh honestly I never cared for seeing old meshes recycled as you already know. My concern here is you've basically made it so they can only be paired with thier usual accomplices, and they'd look terrible anywhere else (the C7 cone for example now only goes with the NCS adapter as part of a complex spaceplane, and instead looks out of place when used as part of a cheap sounding rocket whereas before it could do both with reasonable versatility). The advanced nose cone meanwhile I've basically just seen for rockets and rockets can mismatch nose and body styles with industrial impunity so I'm not sure what you were trying to pair it with. Still its not as bad off as the C7 is with the paneling gore but I hate how loud it looks now. I try and imagine a whole vessel incorporating these, and I think its just gonna look extra busy especially if you keep changing other porkjet parts to match these tastes. Wouldn't you agree that part of a good whole vessel design is giving player some options for subtler structural and fuel pieces so the can control what on a vessel grabs attention instead of making everything the same degree of attention grabbing?

@StylusHead I'm not mad I'm just disappointed. Please tell me you guys redid porkjet's nosecones on accident.(Oh who am I kidding I'm quite livid it's been said before with the adapters that the style is getting too loud and busy for inconsequential structural parts and now it looks like you guys are doubling down and trying to over write the parts that should have been used as your design references in this regard)

@Pthigrivi call it what you want we're done here either way unless interlopers want to drag it out with lectures and nitpicks.

Fair I read that wrong I will own up to that