Jump to content

The new, longer jet engine models


Do you like the new, longer jet engine models?  

261 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you like the new, longer jet engine models?

    • I like them.
      114
    • I dislike them.
      61
    • I have no strong opinion/don't care.
      51


Recommended Posts

The turbine is unlikely to have any type of collision box as it is intended to be stored inside another part that has collision. Because the turbine lacks any colliders, it won't generate any extra drag when it is exposed.
Are drag cubes built from colliders? That's a shame.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not like the way KSP has been going with these prefab parts for a while. First we get prebuild engine clusters already attached to the fuel tanks with the SLS parts. It should be adaptors and individual engines. Then huge ready shaped wings with the large wing parts when ideally it would be lego style like the smaller ones. Now engines turbines (and for the 2.5/probe sized ones the intakes) already stuck on. They should be intakes, turbines, nozzles. The Harrier and F-35 both have a horizontal turbine and an engine that can be vertical.

Its just been hindering creativity more and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are drag cubes built from colliders? That's a shame.

From what I've seen, yes.

That and basing the drag profile on the models simplified collider makes more sense than calculating the same for a complex model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not like the way KSP has been going with these prefab parts for a while. First we get prebuild engine clusters already attached to the fuel tanks with the SLS parts. It should be adaptors and individual engines. Then huge ready shaped wings with the large wing parts when ideally it would be lego style like the smaller ones. Now engines turbines (and for the 2.5/probe sized ones the intakes) already stuck on. They should be intakes, turbines, nozzles. The Harrier and F-35 both have a horizontal turbine and an engine that can be vertical.

Its just been hindering creativity more and more.

Yeah and considering it was Squad themselves who said they wanted KSP to be more lego than duplo this makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not like the way KSP has been going with these prefab parts for a while. First we get prebuild engine clusters already attached to the fuel tanks with the SLS parts. It should be adaptors and individual engines. Then huge ready shaped wings with the large wing parts when ideally it would be lego style like the smaller ones. Now engines turbines (and for the 2.5/probe sized ones the intakes) already stuck on. They should be intakes, turbines, nozzles. The Harrier and F-35 both have a horizontal turbine and an engine that can be vertical.

Its just been hindering creativity more and more.

It's what happens when a company loses their original vision. They might as well just put single part completed planes in the game next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is better than randomly having the CoM of the engine a meter or so outside of the part. However, if the extended bit doesn't have physics it'll look really funky when an engine falls off, but if they do have physics, then it becomes kraken food for any buggy parts that collide with the vessel they are attached to (also drag).

Also this'll screw with VTOLs even more. If you do this I'd like to get some dedicated VTOL engines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is better than randomly having the CoM of the engine a meter or so outside of the part.

I have to disagree with that. The off center COM was a good idea. if its so confusing add a little bit of text saying why its like that. Problem solved.

Breaking VTOLs is just the tip of the iceberg of craft that this addition ruins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is better than randomly having the CoM of the engine a meter or so outside of the part.

I really don't see why it's such a big problem having the CoM in a wierd place - I agree it's odd, but like MajorJim said, it just takes a little bit of text saying it's to represent the weight of the turbine not modelled in KSP for it to make perfect sense. I definitely don't think its a big enough problem to warrant a change with such a wide and often negative impact as this will do.

But yeah, please please please can we have VTOL engines at some point. And electric props.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and on top of all that, why introduce forced clipping at this point? As far as I am aware there is no other part like that yet, right?

Neat idea, but no thanks. Just because of VTOLs alone such an "upgrade" should at least be optional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dislike them, because they again kill off the 100% stock propellers/helicopters. Unless exhaust thrust vector can be modified.

Although some people don't care for them, turboshafts resonate with a part of the community who like an in depth kind of engineering, and we feel modifications are again aimed at making them impossible for the sake of simplistic crafts.

- - - Updated - - -

But yeah, please please please can we have VTOL engines at some point. And electric props.

Electric props ;.;

The bad joke of the Universe.

- - - Updated - - -

This is crazy.. Every cool idea I had for the little jet will be impossible with that monstrosity poking out.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and on top of all that, why introduce forced clipping at this point? As far as I am aware there is no other part like that yet, right?
IIRC the nodes on the doughnut tank are set so that attaching a large enough flat part will clip the tank.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be just a few very vocal people against these new models. I totally understand how this could affect VTOL's but this isn't an aircraft game' date=' it's a space game. Consider yourselves lucky you plane-builders are getting so much love in this update round. All the buoyancy and jet engine/cockpit parts coming in 1.05 almost exclusively benefit aircraft (or boat, even weirder) builders. Please set Phas...errr Whiners to '0' please.

E: Forgot to add where I stand, somewhere inbetween "don't care" and "like" maybe ever so closer to like, but yea.[/quote']

And I have a big dislike for your opinion, have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News to me that colliders have anything to do with drag. Dragcubes render the part to texture, they don't touch colliders.

So then they will have drag if they clip through the part. That's just more of a reason this is a bad idea then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with that. The off center COM was a good idea. if its so confusing add a little bit of text saying why its like that. Problem solved.

Breaking VTOLs is just the tip of the iceberg of craft that this addition ruins.

Its not that its confusing, but it is odd. Most notably so when I was making a tiny little jet and the engine shifted the center of mass forward. At least now I'll have engine going through the cockpit to confirm my jet is too tiny for physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like them, but my reason for not liking them seems to be different from most.

As far as the design itself is concerned, I'm ambivalent, and my reaction basically boils down to "meh, whatever": I gotta agree with Alshain's position.

But what I really object to is the "opportunity cost": the feature or features that didn't get done because they were working on this. Squad is a tiny company, and there are far more things that need doing than there are people to do them. That means they have to triage features relentlessly, and put efforts where they're needed most.

I gotta say that this feature seems kinda frivolous to me, effort would have been better spent elsewhere. Such as LF-only tanks that are rocket-friendly rather than hopelessly spaceplane-centric, for example (desperately needed since the LV-N change), or a decent way of docking landed craft to enable base construction.

Admittedly, I may be biased here, because I'm not a spaceplane guy, I like playing KSP because I wanna fly rocketships, and I gotta say that seeing patch after patch after patch focused so heavily on planes without getting some love for rockets is frustrating to me. But even for spaceplane builders, surely there must be some spaceplane feature that would have been more useful than this?

Wishing the poll had another voting option, "think the effort would have been better spent elsewhere."

Consider that as of 1.0.4 there are:

18 liquid fueled rocket engines (including the LV-N)

6 solid fueled rocket engines

1 Xenon fueled low-thrust engine(generally hard to use inside the atmosphere)

3 jet engines(one of which doubles as a liquid fueled rocket engine)

29 rocket fuel tanks

12 liquid fuel tanks

4 electrically powered rover wheels(note: more types of rover wheel motors than jet engines!)

That sounds to me like Squad has already done as much as they can with rocket parts without pushing the game too close to the memory cap, and now they are going back to give a bit of attention to other parts of the program that have been neglected in the past(like airplanes).

Even with the two additional jet engines in 1.0.5 there are still more than three times as many liquid fueled rocket engines as there are jet engines(five times as many if you include other rocket engine types). If anything is being neglected here, I do not think that it is rockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider that as of 1.0.4 there are:

18 liquid fueled rocket engines (including the LV-N)

6 solid fueled rocket engines

1 Xenon fueled low-thrust engine(generally hard to use inside the atmosphere)

3 jet engines(one of which doubles as a liquid fueled rocket engine)

29 rocket fuel tanks

12 liquid fuel tanks

4 electrically powered rover wheels(note: more types of rover wheel motors than jet engines!)

That sounds to me like Squad has already done as much as they can with rocket parts without pushing the game too close to the memory cap, and now they are going back to give a bit of attention to other parts of the program that have been neglected in the past(like airplanes).

Even with the two additional jet engines in 1.0.5 there are still more than three times as many liquid fueled rocket engines as there are jet engines(five times as many if you include other rocket engine types). If anything is being neglected here, I do not think that it is rockets.

Also a very large proportion of the new plane stuff is thanks to PorkJet, who, correct me if I'm wrong, I think is hired specifically for doing plane parts and is extremely good at doing so, so the focus on new plane parts is not AFAIK reducing the amount done for rockets, its just planes now have someone specifically to work on them, and that person is doing A LOT of work on them. I may be totally wrong though, considering thats what I've just picked up from a few threads a while ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be just a few very vocal people against these new models. I totally understand how this could affect VTOL's but this isn't an aircraft game' date=' it's a space game. Consider yourselves lucky you plane-builders are getting so much love in this update round. All the buoyancy and jet engine/cockpit parts coming in 1.05 almost exclusively benefit aircraft (or boat, even weirder) builders. Please set Phas...errr Whiners to '0' please.

E: Forgot to add where I stand, somewhere inbetween "don't care" and "like" maybe ever so closer to like, but yea.[/quote']

You may think that, but, space exploration has so much in common with planes. Just remember, without planes we still wouldn't be in space or be able to travel to and from Europe to America in any good time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a nice touch, but not really needed. It will ruin the smooth look of many VTOLs. Unless we get mk1 and mk2 (F-35-like) ducted fans. With opening tops and all that when activated. I would love to have those tbh.

I didn't vote BTW.

Edited by Veeltch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming this thread has some relevance to future input on parts, please count me as part of the playerbase that would prefer to keep the parts like they were before, or add an option to hide the overlay. I appreciate the efforts of the developers to fine tune their baby to their hearts content and the hard work that goes into that. But I kinda felt more disappointed then enthusiastic about this particular change as I don't feel this adds anything but an aesthetic restriction to using the (these?) engines. I can only speak to my own playstyle of course, but I've always liked the freedom of the "place-anywhere" lego aspect of the original jet engines (and every other part for that matter), in lieu of more rigid requirements for the sake of a little engineering accuracy. I can't see them adding the same thing for air intakes, rocket engines, or other parts... right?

When I build crafts, I just assume the relevant internals are inside the structural elements in the craft and don't worry about the specifics. In this case, if I use 'em as VTOL engines, I just assume they are ducted from some guts in the heart of the craft, and get to flyin'. Poorly. If I wanted more realism, I could always roleplay and build the craft to exacting specifications using the parts at hand as flavorparts, the same way I do with adding unnecessary habitat parts to give my Kerbals the illusion of living space.

If SQUAD wants a mechanism to justify/explain the CoM difference, could we make this overlay only for the VAB, and not for post-launch? Or provide a means to turn it off? Or would SQUAD consider releasing centerline and radial hinge parts so that engines can be mounted F35/Halo Pelican style? What about dedicated high thrust/high overheat VTOL engines with low(er) profiles that can act like ducted engine parts? (I've always wanted something similar in the mods that feature fusion engines et al. - the inclusion of a short-use-time, high thrust fusion engines that can be used for touchdown... but only touchdown.)

Just my two cents.

Or 1.62 cents, American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...