As of 1.0.2, do you think the engines are balanced?

[Laie]

I'm mostly content with the engines as they are. The one thing that truly nags me is that there is no good 1.25m engine. The first two make sense in the context of career, and once you've uncovered some higher tiers, there's pretty much no reason to revisit them ever again. Except that Mk2 planes are very dependent on 1.25m engines, and there's no really good choice available.

Given it's position in the tech tree, the aerospike could be the high-end small-diameter engine, but alas, it's not. Never mind the ISP (though it seems a bit odd to me), but what's really lacking is oomph. I mean, it's expensive, it can't be stacked, it has no gimbals... the ISP is pretty decent across the board, but given all the downsides, this doesn't convince me. Personally, I'd like to see it's thrust improved to something like 250kN -- that TWR still wouldn't be overwhelming, but at least it would be competitive.

I'm also missing a more powerful vacuum engine. For plenty of my designs, the Poodle is too weak and the KR-2L would be way overpowered. Something halfways between them would be nice to have.

And, of course, the Nerva. Apart from the heat issues, I feel it is too small. I'm not asking for a bigger NTR in addition to the current model, but instead of it. It would no longer be suitable to push 12t to Duna, but it would be much easier to handle when you want to send 60t to Jool.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Laie

[Adester]

i think the devs did a very good job balancing them. there is a purpose for every engine. in my opinion the small enginges could be placed earlieer in carrier, but that could only be me... i mean, that is grumbling on a very high level

[longcat]

I think the engines we have are fine. With that said, I'd like to see a smaller, less powerful jet engine for planes. I like a gigantic plane as much as the next guy, but sometimes I just want to build something small which doesn't have a 7.0 TWR.

[Hotaru]

I think the engines we have are pretty well balanced, except for the Aerospike, which could do with a more consistent ISP curve (mainly to make it useful on Eve again).

I do agree that there are gaps to be filled, though, especially in different size categories. 2.5- and maybe 3.75-meter versions of the jets, Rapier, Aerospike, Nerva, and SRB's would all be appreciated, for instance.

My only other complaint is that the visual models of the engines don't always match their performance... as I understand it vacuum engines should in general have large bell-nozzles while sea-level engines should have smaller ones--as it is with the two 3.75-meter engines--but a lot of the other sets have this backwards (Mainsail vs. Poodle, T30/45 vs. Terrier). Not a huge issue, and I suspect the nozzles on the Poodle and Terrier are short as they are largely because they're meant as lander engines--the Terrier does look a bit like the Apollo LM engines.

[regex]

I'm mostly content with the engines as they are. The one thing that truly nags me is that there is no good 1.25m engine. The first two make sense in the context of career, and once you've uncovered some higher tiers, there's pretty much no reason to revisit them ever again.

I made a 3.75m lifter last night with a Skipper and six LVT-30s, good for wide but relatively light cargo. Clustering the smaller engines is good for those odd scenarios and they're still quite useful for small service craft and shuttles.

Given it's position in the tech tree, the aerospike could be the high-end small-diameter engine, but alas, it's not.

I don't think I've ever had a use for the aerospike since, well, since I started playing. Maybe for Eve?

And, of course, the Nerva. Apart from the heat issues, I feel it is too small. I'm not asking for a bigger NTR in addition to the current model, but instead of it. It would no longer be suitable to push 12t to Duna, but it would be much easier to handle when you want to send 60t to Jool.

The heat isn't an issue. As far as what you can move with it, sure, why bother using it for Duna? By the time you've got it unlocked you should be well on your way to Jool anyway. If you're not, those high heat burns to Duna are going to be so short that the high heat shouldn't matter; might as well cluster a few for better TWR.

[Sidereus]

I voted "LV-N", though I suppose it's mostly the fact that it doesn't have a very wide variety of fuel tanks for it atm. It's pretty much Mk3 or go home. It'd also be nice to have a 2.5m version....keeping part counts low is important on my computer, and having to cluster 4-6 LV-Ns to get a useful TWR is murder on my framerate...

Also, we need some bigger versions of the jet engines and RAPIER, as well as something that goes in between the turbo and the basic jet engines - I'd like to get above mach 1 without having to constantly feather the throttle in order to keep from melting my wings off. Something that would take you to about mach 1.5-2 or so would be nice.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Sidereus

[Captain Sierra]

Aerospike got f***ed, there's no arguing that. The aerospike's niche is "an efficient burning of fuel at all altitudes". That implies it has a very shallow Isp curve (I'm assuming KSP models thrust as a linear function relative to barometric pressure, and barometric pressure is handled as a quadratic). A shallow Isp curve makes an engine take a relatively low thrust hit when under higher than 1 atm pressure (*cough*Eve*cough*). This is very much not the case, and if you land on Eve below ~5km above sea level, you are not going back to space today.

The Nerv is a bit on the hot side. I think that's a bit ridiculous. I know we're running a nuclear reactor and all, but this thing is not a nuclear lightbulb. I don't expect it to run on the razor's edge of meltdown. I went ahead and edited the heat production down in my personal config edits, along with fixing the now-useless aerospike.

The engine nerf makes it harder to get delta-V with chemical engines, which is a pretty strong buff to interplanetary travel. I'd like to see vac Isp come up some (definitely not to where it was before, which would be too strong, but certainly an improvement over current is needed). ASL Isp might need a minor boost to prevent creating a massive TWR curve on launchers, but I think vac engines like the 909, the poodle, and arguably the skipper to a lesser extent. need to be able to achieve good delta V again.

My all-chemical Duna transfer stage is a lot bulkier than before, IMHO very unnecessarily so. Larger, bulkier payloads do not go to space as easily, so artificially inflating the amount of fuel I need to carry (thus increasing my tankage needs and the size of the DTS overall) makes every step of the process which was, to my knowledge, not the target of these nerfs, harder overall. I understand the need to offset the 1000 less dV required to get to orbit now, but inflating the fuel requirements to acquire dV once in orbit I find wholly uneccessary.

- - - Updated - - -

I voted "LV-N", though I suppose it's mostly the fact that it doesn't have a very wide variety of fuel tanks for it atm. It's pretty much Mk3 or go home. It'd also be nice to have a 2.5m version....keeping part counts low is important on my computer, and having to cluster 4-6 LV-Ns to get a useful TWR is murder on my framerate...

Also, we need some bigger versions of the jet engines and RAPIER, as well as something that goes in between the turbo and the basic jet engines - I'd like to get above mach 1 without having to constantly feather the throttle in order to keep from melting my wings off. Something that would take you to about mach 1.5-2 or so would be nice.

Stock fuel switch should be a thing, and I'm guessing you want a properly modeled turbojet, not a turboram.

[Frozen_Heart]

Not a fan of the engine balance at all at the moment. Realism has completely gone out the window and they are pretty much purely balanced on gameplay now, with each engine filling a single role so there is no longer choice in what you use.

In 0.90 I could pick LV-T30/45, aerospike, 9 48-7S, or a rockomax BACC, with pretty much the same level of success. Now its LV-T30 only if you want to make a decent 1.25m lifter. Yes you can still use the others but they are so much worse for that certain task its not worth it.

Also vacuum engines lose pretty much all their power on the ground. Yes they should be less efficient than proper lift engines but should at least have more power than my fan heater. If you run a Merlin Vacuum engine on the ground it doesn't create a mild breeze of warm air like the KSP vacuum engines suddenly do.

[regex]

Realism has completely gone out the window and they are pretty much purely balanced on gameplay now

Which is kind of hilarious because everyone keeps reminding me that KSP is a game and not a hardcore sim while decrying the LV-N as "unrealistic"...

Not picking on you, really, I just think the whole thing is utterly hilarious.

[Frozen_Heart]

Which is kind of hilarious because everyone keeps reminding me that KSP is a game and not a hardcore sim while decrying the LV-N as "unrealistic"...

Not picking on you, really, I just think the whole thing is utterly hilarious.

A few years ago I was much more into the gamey aspect of KSP. As I've learnt more on the spacecraft topic I've gradually began to yearn for more realism.

And the LV-N is a whole topic of its own. In some ways its better than irl while in others its worse.

[Captain Sierra]

Which is kind of hilarious because everyone keeps reminding me that KSP is a game and not a hardcore sim while decrying the LV-N as "unrealistic"...

Not picking on you, really, I just think the whole thing is utterly hilarious.

KSP is a sim game. Its a bit of both. I personally argue that KSP should be balanced as 'believably realistic'. It should be balanced in such a way that the average person can say "that makes sense." Now, with KSP we have to bear in mind that the average person in this context may actually know a bit of real rocket science. These aren't Battlefield-type 'average people'. THe game should have enough realism to it that those people aren't able to easily nitpick the game's realism (there will always be hardcore sim players who can nitpick the crap out of the game's realism).

As Frozen_Heart said:

Yes they should be less efficient than proper lift engines but should at least have more power than my fan heater. If you run a Merlin Vacuum engine on the ground it doesn't create a mild breeze of warm air like the KSP vacuum engines suddenly do.

Anyone who knows a shred about rocket engines or bothers to do a bit of googling will come to this realization very quickly, hence my belief there is a problem.

[regex]

A few years ago I was much more into the gamey aspect of KSP. As I've learnt more on the spacecraft topic I've gradually began to yearn for more realism.

And the LV-N is a whole topic of its own. In some ways its better than irl while in others its worse.

come to the real side... we have a proper solar system and you don't have to suspend so much disbelief...

[SelectHalfling0]

I like the engines that we have now, but there is something missing:

An engine like the aerospike that is in a lower tier, slightly less thrust/efficiency but fills the same niche.

[WafflesToo]

SRB's got pretty thoroughly blatted into oblivion by the nerf-bat with this update I'm afraid. They are actually more expensive than LFO engines for the same amount of dV to go along with all of their other disadvantages.

Edited May 20, 2015 by WafflesToo
no one cares about my darn siggy

[Captain Sierra]

come to the real side... we have a proper solar system and you don't have to suspend so much disbelief...

I like my "Mun and back before dinner" scale system. I also haz more planets

[Wjolcz]

The engines are pretty balanced, IMO.

[Superfluous J]

Probably should have put that last option first, as most people read down the list until they find what suits them and then vote.

I think that the engines are quite well balanced for gameplay, forcing variety while embracing creativity. They're realistic enough and fun enough. And I can't agree more that people will always complain about something.

I fully expect that whatever changes they make in 1.0.3 will make some people happy and make other mad, and the ones who are mad will all be mad for different reasons.

[Jarin]

come to the real side... we have a proper solar system and you don't have to suspend so much disbelief...

If I didn't have to build my rockets so crazy-huge I'd find it more tempting.

[Laie]

I don't think I've ever had a use for the aerospike since, well, since I started playing. Maybe for Eve?

[LV-N] The heat isn't an issue. As far as what you can move with it, sure, why bother using it for Duna? By the time you've got it unlocked you should be well on your way to Jool anyway. If you're not, those high heat burns to Duna are going to be so short that the high heat shouldn't matter; might as well cluster a few for better TWR.

The aerospike is no good even on Eve. Given it's downsides, there should be some perk as well, which right now is lacking. As a lifter, it's inferior even to starting tech; and in space, it can't compete either. For all that, it costs a fortune and can't be stacked. Why use it?

The LVN heat, well, it's arguably no worse than for other engines, but that doesn't say much (when your whole vessel glows red hot, something is very very wrong). If you want to take a one-person lander to Duna and back, it's already the best engine by a significant margin... so much for "why bother with Duna". I don't think it would be unbearable if that kind of mission would have to make do with chemicals; but I think the Jool-5ers would gain a lot if there was more than 60kN per item.

Needn't even be bigger. Just stronger and heavier.

[zarakon]

The current state of the Aerospike is odd. I thought the whole point of it was that it's supposed to have the same Isp regardless of atmosphere, but now it has the same Isp range as the LV-T45, which is more than twice as wide as the LV-T30.

LV-N, I haven't bothered trying to use yet. It was awkward enough before due to its long length and crazy-go-boom fairing. The change to LF-only makes sense for realism, but we really need an option to change any LF+O fuel tank to be LF-only without leaving it half-empty. The overheating issue really seals the deal on keeping me scared away from them.

The rest of the liquid fuel engines seem fine now. The Spark is still useful without being ridiculous now, which gives the Terrier much more of a role than it had before. I've also found the Skipper and Poodle to be more useful than in the past, even with the Mainsail still being fantastic. I haven't yet gotten to the point where I needed to use the really big ones, but they seem to have well-differentiated roles.

My real beef is with all of the solid motors. Beyond the first couple missions of career mode where there aren't any other options, I just haven't had any use for them. When I play career, I'm always trying to minimize the costs of my rockets. In my 0.90 career, almost every rocket I built used solid boosters in some way - usually an all-solid first stage. But now they're just terrible, and I've never found a case where a rocket making use of solids is cheaper than an equally-capable all-liquid rocket.

Overall, the liquid engines mostly just received a nerf to Isp and a slight hit to atmospheric TWR. But the solid motors got hit from almost every angle. Their Isp dropped by much more than the liquid engines (both in terms of constants and percentages), their mass fractions all got worse (more dead weight), and their costs went way up.

[Laie]

I fully expect that whatever changes they make in 1.0.3 will make some people happy and make other mad, and the ones who are mad will all be mad for different reasons.

I fully expect that the next hotfix will mostly be about that memory leak, with a few minor things tossed in as time permits. Everyone will be mad that their pet peeve hasn't been fixed. I'll be mad if the science jr still has it's confirmation dialog, for example.

[regex]

If I didn't have to build my rockets so crazy-huge I'd find it more tempting.

My part counts are much lower in RO/RSS.

The LVN heat, well, it's arguably no worse than for other engines, but that doesn't say much

Much as I absolutely love the engineering challenge of the overheating it really should be changed. I really only take the "not a problem" stance because it isn't. Thankfully most of my disbelief suspension can now be focused on that one part and it heating the entire vessel rather than, well, literally the rest of the game.

[asmi]

If you run a Merlin Vacuum engine on the ground it doesn't create a mild breeze of warm air like the KSP vacuum engines suddenly do.

Actually it wouldn't work at all. I'll leave it up to you to research why.

[Superfluous J]

I fully expect that the next hotfix will mostly be about that memory leak, with a few minor things tossed in as time permits. Everyone will be mad that their pet peeve hasn't been fixed. I'll be mad if the science jr still has it's confirmation dialog, for example.

I hear that, though I personally classify those as annoyances, not ire-inducing. Add in to that the right-click option on pods to take a crew report. You click them and the game says "Nuh uh! You're not a scientist!" It's like offering a cookie and at the last second snatching it away.

[Alshain]

SRB's are badly broken. I think they just need higher ISP, they should burn longer and give a little more delta V.

Continuing SRB, we need a bigger one. That's just missing.

LVN heating is only an issue because there is no good way to solve it. They add the heat without adding real radiators. It's like having a boat with no water.

I haven't noticed anything particularly wrong with the aerospike. It still seems to be a great plane engine just as it always was. If I'm not using RAPIERS, the Aerospike + TurboJets are my choice of engines.

Everything else is fine.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Alshain