Maxsimal

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.

1.6 has brought a lot of great changes, and we’re really thrilled with what the team has created for it. One of the changes that we've done, and something we felt strongly about doing, was tuning work that we felt would improve the quality bar of the game. Craft Improvements First, we've gone through all the stock craft, including VAB, SPH, and Making History craft, delivered for the game, with an eye toward updating them for the new parts that have been released in 1.6, and also improving the fly-ability of many of our craft. At one point, the idea was to have some of these stock craft have flaws for the player to correct. This did not have broad awareness in the community, so we've improved the flight behavior of quite a few of our craft - including using features like auto-strutting that weren't around when they were first added to the game. In particular, all of our space planes - the Learstar, the Dynawing, and the Slim Shuttle - have been fine tuned to improve their control behavior. They're still challenging to fly, of course, but you don't have to fight their controls quite so much. We've also strutted and improved the fly-ability to craft like the Albatross, Muna 1 & 2, the Acapello and several others. We encourage you to check the 1.6 change log for the full list. Making History Engine Rebalancing The other major change was adjustment to the tuning of a number of Making History parts - especially the engines. The engine changes in particular may be more controversial, and we'd like to explain the rationale behind them. The overall goal here is to put all the Making History engines in line with base game tuning. To let them have their own niche, and to neither obsolete nor be obsoleted by other engines. And generally, engines that are either bigger, or more specialized, will be unlocked deeper in the tech tree. Finally, we’re trying to make as few changes as needed, so that they won't drastically change the purpose of an engine. NOTE: For all stats in tables - a green background indicates an improvement over the current version, a red background means it was worsened. Small ASL Engine Tuning First, let's look at the smaller ASL engines. There are three Making History engines in this size category - the Skiff, the Bobcat and the Kodiak. Here are the relevant stats vs similar base game engines: Engine Comparison Thrust (Vac) ISP Vac ISP ASL Mass Vac TWR ASL TWR Cost/kN Thrust Tech Level Gimbal EC/s Crash Tolerance Cost Entry Cost Reliant 240 310 265 1.25 19.57 16.73 4.58 General Rocketry (3) 0 7 7 1100 3200 Swivel 215 320 250 1.5 14.61 11.41 5.58 Basic Rocketry (2) 3 6 7 1200 3500 Thud 120 305 275 0.9 13.59 12.25 6.83 Advanced Rocketry (4) 8 0 7 820 3500 Vector 1000 315 295 4 25.48 23.87 18 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 10.5 3 7 18000 115000 Current Kodiak 240 305 265 1.25 19.57 17.01 5.42 Heavier Rocketry (6) 0 3 6 1300 4200 New Kodiak 260 300 285 1.25 21.2 20.14 4.23 Heavier Rocketry (6) 0 5 9 1100 4400 Current Skiff 300 330 265 1 30.58 24.56 5 Heavier Rocketry (6) 2 3 6 1500 4500 New Skiff 300 330 265 1.6 19.11 15.35 7.67 Heavier Rocketry (6) 2 3 7 2300 9200 Current Bobcat 400 310 290 2 20.39 19.07 5 Heavier Rocketry (6) 5 3 6 2000 6000 New Bobcat 400 310 290 2 20.39 19.07 5 Heavy Rocketry (5) 5 8 12 2000 800 Kodiak: Overall, the Kodiak need the most adjustment - it’s just entirely matched or outclassed by the Reliant, which appears earlier in the tech tree as well. Therefore, and in keeping with its real world equivalent then RD-107, the Kodiak's stats were adjusted to give it a much better ASL ISP, a lower cost per kN of thrust, and a better durability. This gives it a niche as a 1.25m liquid fueled booster, leaving the Reliant as the more general purpose no-gimbal engine. The extra specialization helps to keep it at Heavier Rocketry, however, to match its historical partner, the Cub. Skiff: The Skiff's tuning is closer to ideal , but it turned out to be *too* good in too many categories categories - more efficient, better TWR, and lower cost/kN than other engines. It occurs later in the tech tree, so we've chosen to keep its high efficiency at the cost TWR and cost. Now it’s a great sustainer-category engine - its ASL ISP and cost won't justify its use as a main engine anymore, but it’s fantastic as the center stage with some SRBs or Kodiak-powered boosters. Bobcat: The bobcat had tuning most in line with the stock, so few changes were made. It got sturdier, and it moved earlier in the tech tree to give another ASL option in Heavy Rocketry, as we felt the end of the tech tree was getting crowded. Large ASL Engine Tuning Then let’s look at bigger ASL engines: In this category we have the Mastodon. Note: The stats for the Twin Boar reflect what they would be without the built-in tank. Engine Comparison Thrust (Vac) ISP Vac ISP ASL Mass Vac TWR ASL TWR Cost Cost/kN Thrust Tech Level Gimbal EC/s Crash Tolerance Entry Cost Vector 1000 315 295 4 25.48 23.87 18000 18 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 10.5 3 7 115000 Mammoth 4000 315 295 15 27.18 25.46 39000 9.75 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 2 12 20 115000 Twin Boar 2000 300 280 6.5 31.37 29.27 11250 5.63 Heavier Rocketry (6) 1.5 0 20 65000 Mainsail 1500 310 285 6 25.48 23.43 13000 8.67 Heavier Rocketry (6) 1.5 12 7 38000 Skipper 650 320 280 3 22.09 19.33 5300 8.15 Heavy Rocketry (5) 2 10 7 14000 Current Mastodon 1350 290 280 5 27.52 26.57 22000 16.3 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 5 3 6 135000 New Mastodon 1350 305 290 5 27.52 26.17 8000 5.93 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 5 8 15 32000 Mastodon: The current Mastodon has no niche, being outclassed in all categories by other large engines, and being really expensive to boot. The new Mastodon therefore become both more efficient and significantly cheaper. Now it is an ASL workhorse that doesn't perform QUITE as well in Vacuum as engines like the Vector and Mainsail, but it’s more flexible and a little more efficient than the Twin Boar, without quite matching the Twin Boar's amazing TWR and cost. Vacuum Engine Tuning Next we've got the vacuum engines: In this category we've got our most controversial engine, the Wolfhound, as well as the Cheetah. Note: For this chart, ISP ASL is not listed - with good reason. It just doesn't matter for engines that are almost exclusively used in a vacuum, it's not a significant balance criteria. Engine Comparison Thrust (Vac) ISP Vac Mass Vac TWR Cost Cost/kN Thrust Tech Level Gimbal EC/s Crash Tolerance Entry Cost Terrier 60 345 0.5 12.23 390 6.5 Advanced Rocketry (4) 4 0 7 1600 Poodle 250 350 1.75 14.56 1300 5.2 Heavy Rocketry (5) 4.5 8 7 4200 Rhino 2000 340 9 22.65 25000 12.5 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 4 12 7 68000 Current Wolfhound 375 412 2.5 15.29 1680 4.48 Heavy Rocketry (5) 3 8 6 6200 New Wolfhound 375 380 3.3 11.58 3000 8 Very Heavy Rocketry (8) 3 8 6 12000 Current Cheetah 125 345 1 12.74 1000 8 Heavier Rocketry (6) 3 3 6 3000 New Cheetah 125 355 1 12.74 850 6.8 Heavier Rocketry (6) 4 5 7 3400 Wolfhound: The Wolfhound is amazing in every category that matters - an ISP that's 20% higher than any other LFO engine, great TWR, unlocks relatively early, and is the cheapest cost/kn for an LFO engine. Sorry rocketeers - the Wolfhound needed adjustment to have some valid trade-offs vs other vacuum engines. It's still an amazingly efficient LFO engine, without having the sort of abysmal thrust & cost of a NERV, but now it doesn't completely overshadow every other LFO vacuum engine. As a more specialized, high efficiency engine, its moved back in the tech tree with the other Making History Apollo-class parts as well. Cheetah: The cheetah, conversely, is too expensive and heavy to justify its relatively low TWR, low-end ISP and high cost, so several improvements were made to help it stand out. Now it’s a bit like a smaller Wolfhound. Small & Maneuver Engine Tuning Finally we've got the small engines - for Making History, this is the Cub. Engine Comparison Thrust (Vac) ISP Vac ISP ASL Mass Vac TWR ASL TWR Cost Cost/kN Thrust Tech Level Gimbal EC/s Crash Tolerance Entry Cost Ant 2 315 80 0.02 10.19 2.59 110 55 Propulsion Systems (5) 0 0 7 1500 Spider 2 290 260 0.02 10.19 9.14 120 60 Precision Propulsion (6) 10 0 7 1750 Twitch 16 290 250 0.09 18.12 15.62 400 25 Precision Propulsion (6) 8 0 7 1600 Puff 20 250 120 0.09 22.65 10.87 150 7.5 Precision Propulsion (6) 6 0 7 2500 Spark 20 320 270 0.1 20.39 17.2 240 12 Propulsion Systems (5) 3 0 7 2800 Current Cub 40 320 270 0.18 22.65 19.11 1000 25 Heavier Rocketry (6) 22.5 0 6 3000 New Cub 32 310 280 0.18 18.12 16.37 800 25 Precision Propulsion (6) 22.5 0 7 3200 Cub: The Cub, relative to other maneuver engines, is too good in too many areas. Its ISP as good or better than all others, great TWR, fantastic (though only 1-axis) gimbal range and it is surface attachable, something most engines pay a penalty. Therefore, it got a bit of an thrust and efficiency nerf - it actually generated far too much thrust relative to its companion, the Kodiak, which helps make its TWR more reasonable as well. Finally, it moved to the appropriate tech node for maneuvering engines. Other Making History Tweaks We've also made the engine plates fall into tech nodes appropriate for their size, rather all in the same node. Anyway, I hope you'll appreciate these changes - we'll be watching community reaction to see how they go over! We encourage you to comment on these changes.