The new, longer jet engine models

[BudgetHedgehog]

Which part is not where?

This part of the model that makes it flush against the stack rather than rounded.

[regex]

I like it, hope it has a collider so we can do interesting things with it and more than 12 sides so it'll look good bare.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, the model may offer more realism in the form of showing jet engines to be more than a nozzle, but do we not trade this against a combustion engine that will in most cases be swimming in its fuel ... ?

As opposed to an engine that's mostly missing? Maybe that would explain why aircraft parts have such reduced fuel loads.

[Cirocco]

Gaaaah, this really is a rough one for me. On the one side, I like the fact that the actual model reflects the position of the CoM on the part, and it is nice as an educational value as well. On the other hand, I wonder what this will do for VTOL's and short-engine designs.

All in all I think I have to agree with Just Jim on this one: I can't really give a solid opinion on them until I at least see them in action a bit more or mess around with them myself. What happens when I try to attach these things radially? What if I attach to a fuel tank that is too short to fully conceal the turbine? If it sticks out, does that have an effect on the aerodynamics? etc.

Right now I'd say there are definitely some pro's, but there is also potential for a lot of big cons. If those worries can be soothed, then I'm all for them. If not, then I'll have to wait until I get more info before I can make a call.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I like it, hope it has a collider so we can do interesting things with it

On the official forums, PorkJet said it won't have collision.

[Majorjim!]

I'll just repeat my main argument from the devnotes thread. Almost anything is better than the current state of affairs where an object sitting in front of you magically has its mass three feet away.

No, this is a game dude. Everything is 'magical'. I do not like that jet insert part, it looks crappy, its pointless and will just get in the way, collision mesh or no collision mesh. Oh and LOL at the 'make sure you are sitting down' comment.

[pincushionman]

I think it's another step in the right direction like the CoM change, but I still think the real answer is a dedicated "engine core" part which produces "power" of some kind, and the nozzles use that power to produce thrust. This both avoids the "engine doesn't displace the fuel" issue and it eliminates art assets that, let's face it, are meant to never be seen (dedicated cores would look like any other exterior part).

It would offer all kinds of advantages in flexibility - the core would define the power requirements and efficiency, or could be something totally different like a piston engine or electric motor. The "nozzles" could then be tailored for different effects - high thrust, more efficient thrust, dedicated afrerburner, thrust reverser…or something different like a propeller, offset jet exhaust e.g Harrier), electrical generator, or wheels.

And yes, it would be wholesale change to the engine system. Not a suggestion to be taken lightly.

Edited November 4, 2015 by pincushionman

[regex]

On the official forums, PorkJet said it won't have collision.

Well that sucks...

[Alshain]

This design itself is a neat idea, but practicality of it fails.

• Engines without Turbines work, yeah the CoM is weird but it doesn't stop them from working.
  
• Engines with turbines will prevent you from having a good looking VTOL if they persist when attached. Whether you put the engines on the wing or in a cargo bay you will have this thing sticking out of a plane.
  
• They don't create drag or have colliders, but they will undoubtedly look very ugly sticking out of the plane.
  

They create no gameplay element but do remove one. It's very simple, removing valid capabilities from the game without a real reason is bad.

[Kerbart]

On the official forums, PorkJet said it won't have collision.

Can this be explained to the layman? I've been raised in KSP with Clipping=Kraken and this seems to induce part clipping on a major scale. Or does the lack of colliders mean that the humm of this engine is not siren call to The Kraken?

Aside from clipping reservations I like the idea and I hope it will be extended to regular rocket engines (where applicable, most larger engines are self contained but the smaller ones could have some protruding inner works) and perphaps some other parts as well.

The thought that you can't just magically slap a piece onto a piece of sheet metal without anything sticking out on the other side is plain silly, and this wonderfully addresses that.

[Yakuzi]

The parts basically handle the same as before, but give a better representation of what jet engines actually are

On the official forums, PorkJet said it won't have collision.

So far for better representing what jet engines really are.

This design itself is a neat idea, but practicality of it fails.

• Engines without Turbines work, yeah the CoM is weird but it doesn't stop them from working.
  
• Engines with turbines will prevent you from having a good looking VTOL if they persist when attached. Whether you put the engines on the wing or in a cargo bay you will have this thing sticking out of a plane.
  
• They don't create drag or have colliders, but they will undoubtedly look very ugly sticking out of the plane.
  

They create no gameplay element but do remove one. It's very simple, removing valid capabilities from the game without a real reason is bad.

^This^

[regex]

They create no gameplay element but do remove one. It's very simple, removing valid capabilities from the game without a real reason is bad.

They don't remove any gameplay elements. At all. Without a collider or a drag cube they will affect gameplay in precisely zero ways. It's purely cosmetic and, while it may remove an aesthetic element some people are used to, it also adds an aesthetic element.

[Red Iron Crown]

Can this be explained to the layman? I've been raised in KSP with Clipping=Kraken and this seems to induce part clipping on a major scale. Or does the lack of colliders mean that the humm of this engine is not siren call to The Kraken?

Each part in KSP has two models ("meshes"): A visual mesh that determines what the part looks like, and a collision mesh which is a much simplified invisible model used for physics interactions and part attachment. Clipping visual meshes is harmless, clipping collision meshes can cause issues (though much less than it did in the past).

[Alshain]

They don't remove any gameplay elements. At all. Without a collider or a drag cube they will affect gameplay in precisely zero ways. It's purely cosmetic and, while it may remove an aesthetic element some people are used to, it also adds an aesthetic element.

It doesn't add an aesthetic element. It's hidden inside your fueslage, you can't see it on a conventional plane. The ONLY THING THIS DOES is make VTOLs ugly. That's it, the only thing, full stop, no more.

[BlueCanary]

On the official forums, PorkJet said it won't have collision.

Surely this means it will look awful when kerbals walk straight through it (say if you crash and the engines are left as debris) or when the part disappears into the ground before it explodes in a crash? To me it seems like a tiny aesthetic improvement you'll only notice for 10 seconds in the editor that will also be a huge problem for anyone who wants to make VTOLs, anyone who wants to put engines attached to non-fuselage (but still not unrealistic) places, or anyone who wants to just make a "fun" or sci-fi craft that does have unrealistic engine placement but isn't meant to be realistic either.

Also, the "there'll be a mod to change it" argument doesn't help because A. Some of us don't have fancy enough computers and won't be able to use that mod without other problems, and B. It'd make the craft non stock, so harder to share on the forums etc.

Sure, the turbines look nice, but 95% of the time you won't even see them, and most of the other 5% will be because they're clipping out of your design in the most frustrating ways.

[cantab]

It doesn't add an aesthetic element. It's hidden inside your fueslage, you can't see it on a conventional plane. The ONLY THING THIS DOES is make VTOLs ugly. That's it, the only thing, full stop, no more.

It'll be possible to expose the turbine if one likes, and doubtless some people will.

WHAT IT DOES is makes jet engines MAKE SENSE and not VIOLATE BASIC PHYSICS like they do at the moment. The current behaviour LOOKS LIKE A BUG and has been REPORTED AS SUCH in forum threads before now.

[regex]

It'll be possible to expose the turbine if one likes, and doubtless some people will.

WHAT IT DOES is makes jet engines MAKE SENSE and not VIOLATE BASIC PHYSICS like they do at the moment. The current behaviour LOOKS LIKE A BUG and has been REPORTED AS SUCH in forum threads before now.

^^ this.

[Kerbart]

It doesn't add an aesthetic element. It's hidden inside your fueslage, you can't see it on a conventional plane. The ONLY THING THIS DOES is make VTOLs ugly. That's it, the only thing, full stop, no more.

I don't agree. We need more parts do this: “hey bud, this is only the piece sticking out. There's more on the inside, so you can't just slap it onto a wing surface†It's adding a bit of visual realism that doesn't make the game harder to play and increases immersion as it's showing you that you're adding a "real" jet engine when building a plane, not just a magic nozzle.

Now it does make VTOL's ugly. So maybe there should be a Harrier-style engine with rotating nozzles, or a low-profile ducted fan gizmo for VTOL's.

[Alshain]

It'll be possible to expose the turbine if one likes, and doubtless some people will.

WHAT IT DOES is makes jet engines MAKE SENSE and not VIOLATE BASIC PHYSICS like they do at the moment. The current behaviour LOOKS LIKE A BUG and has been REPORTED AS SUCH in forum threads before now.

The turbine doesn't have physics and it doesn't change the way engines perform at all, so it's not preventing them from violating any basic physics. As I said, it does nothing.

[Majorjim!]

They don't remove any gameplay elements. At all. Without a collider or a drag cube they will affect gameplay in precisely zero ways. It's purely cosmetic and, while it may remove an aesthetic element some people are used to, it also adds an aesthetic element.

Not true. Building is gameplay and why add a part that will just get in the way? it will effect building in a negative way. It wont even be seen most of the time! Until you try to make something different and then you have this useless part sticking out. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Majorjim

[regex]

As I said, it does nothing.

Au contraire, it's a visual representation of the COM offset, so it does do something.

[cantab]

Currently the jet engines have a centre of mass outside - well outside - themselves. That's the violation of basic physics and logic.

[regex]

Not true. Building is gameplay and why add a part that will just get in the way? It wont even be seen! It makes no sense whatsoever.

But it will be seen if the complaints are any indication!

[Majorjim!]

But it will be seen if the complaints are any indication!

Huh??

[Alshain]

The simple solution is this, make it like the CoM marker itself... only visible in the VAB. Once you launch the craft you can't see it again. If you are building a conventional plane, you wouldn't be able to see it anyway and if you are building a VTOL you wouldn't want to.

[pizzaoverhead]

I'm glad to see this conversation finally happening. Air breathing engines have had issues for a while now. As cantab said, weight is a problem for these engines. To be balanced well with the rest of the game, air breathing engines have to be heavy, but as they exist only as nozzles, their mass is unrealistically far back in the craft, causing handling issues. Squad remedied this by placing the part's CoM outside of the part's model, but this is only a bandage on the underlying issue, giving us weird non-intuitive, non-physical behaviour, such as placing a nozzle on the back of a rover to make it tip forwards. The non-colliding jet engine model is a step in the right direction, bandaging the non-intuitiveness of the CoM shift, but I think it can be brought further, given development time.

With regards to the criticisms about preventing VTOL, short craft and counterweight uses, I believe that these are indications of niches that are currently missing parts and being hackily filled by the current odd behaviour. Tiltable engines, rotatable nozzles, short lifting fans and counterweights should be added, rather than preserving a hack for the hacks built using it. Example:

The current solution still leaves non-physical oddities, lacking a collision mesh and clipping through fuel. Given additional development time, the best solution to all of these issues is the one described by Kordolius and Frozen_Heart

. We already have intakes which are separate from the engines, using invisible internal piping. Separating nozzles from the turbine is the next logical step. It allows many more real-life design opportunities, such as running multiple nozzles from a single engine, placing thrust off-line with engine mass, removes the need for part clipping through fuel, and actively encourages stable aircraft and VTOL design by making engine mass placement an explicit choice.

Edited November 4, 2015 by pizzaoverhead