[1.7 Maneuvering Engine Balance Changes]

So to reiterate it from the 1.7 thread:

While I understand where you comes from, one of the reason why some of us are not happy with the Spark/Cub change (back in 1.6) is due to the fact that SuperDraco, which would have been represented as a radial engine, is a OP engine in terms of TWR ; and seeing that many people are trying to Make Dragon/DragonV2... That means that some parts which can be done in 1 part in the past may need 2, which may affect performances.

I think if you create an engine with horrible ASL (SuperDraco is only 235s (SL)) but OP TWR, people will be fine. (Draco don't need to be made as Twitch will do the job.) Even if you make it DLC, we will ask you to take our money.

EDIT: However, Spark change isn't too bad. I actually ran it through KER, and 8x Twitch is still inferior in both TWR and Delta-V, to 8x Spark but somewhat compariable.

[Tuning changes in 1.6]

19 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

Wow. So rude. The MH engines were WAY too OP. I was delighted when they were nerfed.

It need to be OP. That's what DLC is for. Industrial standard.

If it's just looks, they can easily ship it as a variant. It may not have the exact same looks, but we do our best anyway.

[Tuning changes in 1.6]

Personally, what I really dislike is the nerf on the Cub, since my Dragon depends on it. On the other hand, I feel the Thud maybe reworked soon, so I will poodle at that time.

[Tuning changes in 1.6]

2 hours ago, Deddly said:

I hardly think anyone would pay money just to get an OP engine. Config edits are free, innit.

I would. Granted. If they really want to, they can do what Payday 2 did, and quite a lot of Take Two properties did: No base game, No DLC, only the combination verison available, and if Steam is smart can subtract properly.

Selling OP stuff by cash is what allow Chinese game industry to expand, so...

[Tuning changes in 1.6]

8 minutes ago, Maxsimal said:

MH Acapello, while looking like a Saturn V, doesn't really have a lot of the same mass ratios.  I mean, first it's basically an SSTO given Kerbin's low LKO orbit requirements.  So the 2nd stage becomes the trans-munar injection and Munar orbit stage... etc.   While it is a concern, it is definitely the case that the Poodle should be used if you don't have a lot of fuel mass to push with your dry mass, and the Wolfhound should be used if you want a more efficient stage with a longer burn time.   See!  Tradeoffs!   That's a good thing.

I am refering to my own Apollo clones, ranging from one's made out of the Apollo Service Module, to the simple one where it's just a Mk1-3 capsule on top of a X16 fuel tank and then attach engine at the bottom, and even one that have the 2.5m Payload Bay on a x8 fuel tank -- but sure let's go with Acapello, which is a bit overkilled (and close to an x16 fueltank).

Will be interested to see how other users does it; especially those that use it as a space-tug/upper stage engine.

Speaking of which -- fix of Apollo Service Module door when? Right now if it's loaded, the door act as if closed.

[Tuning changes in 1.6]

What is weird with the new Wolfhound is that it actually have worse actual efficency when compared to Poodle according to KER. With a direct swap on various Apollo-type clone, there is an actual loss of delta 20m/s to even 200m/s. However, it's TWR (when compared to Poodle) is better, but for a vacuum engine it's not much of an issue...

Have not test out the cub yet, will check later. However, I think more and mroe of us are using Cubs more as a clone for SuperDraco on a Dragon V2, which is powerful and small