Jump to content

Engines revamp - Thrust and performance changes discussion


  

112 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like these performance changes to become part of the game ?

    • Yes, as they are
      37
    • Yes, with tweaks
      45
    • No
      10
    • Don't know / not enough information
      20


Recommended Posts

 

38 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

The vector was different because it was and still is a rocket made for a space plane and so it needs to be sleek exposing the powerhead and breaking saves over a users fit of ocd is the worst decision.

The bad decision was rolling it out as a special case engine. Clinging to it obsessively rather than finding a way to fix the problem solves nothing.  It limits the options for space planes to the one "correct" choice.

 

Edited by Tweeker
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

 

The bad decision was rolling it out as a special case engine. Clinging to it obsessively rather than finding a way to fix the problem solves nothing.  It limits the options for space planes to the one "correct" choice.

Nothing about a throat attached vector stops you from using other engines. And frankly no matter what either of us say there will always be only one right choice for replica shuttle heads. attaching the vector at the top of the powerhead will not magically change how the real life shuttle everyone wants to emulate is put together so there will always be demand for a throat attached vector.

A special case is not a bad decision. there is no problem with the vector to fix. the plan as presented is perfect as it is. any problem with the vector you precive is all in your terribly obsessed head as we proved can happen when you insisted up and down that the rhino powerhead was too small yet when overlaid with an offical picture of the j-2x the two were nearly identical.

 The only problem that needs fixing is the fact that you keep going on about how the vector is attached in this thread as if you expect to go unchallenged because it's off topic. You will never have the last word here in this thread not on my watch.

Edited by passinglurker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been skimming back, but not seeing anything. Is anyone other than Tweeker up in arms about the Vector model? This really seems more like a "fix it with a 'realism mod' if it bugs you that much" situation to me

Edited by Jarin
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

Nothing about a throat attached vector stops you from using other engines. And frankly no matter what either of us say there will always be only one right choice for replica shuttle heads. attaching the vector at the top of the powerhead will not magically change how the real life shuttle everyone wants to emulate is put together so there will always be demand for a throat attached vector.

A special case is not a bad decision. there is no problem with the vector to fix. the plan as presented is perfect as it is. any problem with the vector you precive is all in your terribly obsessed head as we proved can happen when you insisted up and down that the rhino powerhead was too small yet when overlaid with an offical picture of the j-2x the two were nearly identical.

 The only problem that needs fixing is the fact that you keep going on about how the vector is attached in this thread as if you expect to go unchallenged because it's off topic. You will never have the last word here in this thread not on my watch.

If the fix functions the same on shuttle, but opens up more options how is it a bad thing? 

Why are you so afraid of even talking about it?

2 hours ago, regex said:

vOv

Personally I'd just start over and totally homogenize the engines based on their intended usage so that no engine is any better than another in isp, they'd just differ in thrust and that would determine the mass. Though I guess balancing based on gimbaling would be a thing...

 

 It would be better to start over, clean sheet, but I don't think that idea would get too far, people are far too attached to thing. Even suggesting the smallest change is bound to get some push-back.

   I'm not sure how it would work, balancing only by thrust and weight, it seems less dynamic to me. I think ISP is too important to put aside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

 

If the fix functions the same on shuttle, but opens up more options how is it a bad thing? 

Why are you so afraid of even talking about it?

First it's not a fix because nothing is broken.

Second I'm not afraid take this to the proper thread I'll meet you there unless you talk about it here again in which case I will always provide the necessary opposition.

Third It won't function the same The added length could break craft files and by extension saves and it won't look like the shuttle which is what the people who promoted the vectors creation cares about.

Fourth it doesn't open any new options that don't already exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

First it's not a fix because nothing is broken.

Second I'm not afraid take this to the proper thread I'll meet you there unless you talk about it here again in which case I will always provide the necessary opposition.

Third It won't function the same The added length could break craft files and by extension saves and it won't look like the shuttle which is what the people who promoted the vectors creation cares about.

Fourth it doesn't open any new options that don't already exist.

If it is recessed there would be no extra length, so no problem with saves, and no problem with looks.

If all the engine mount in the same way then there are a lot of options, such as the skipper which I mentioned earlier.

If you don't want to talk about this here then don't. I posted in the other thread You're more than welcome to comment over there

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

I'm not sure how it would work, balancing only by thrust and weight, it seems less dynamic to me. I think ISP is too important to put aside.

Engines using the same fuels will generally have similar isps when used for similar tasks. There will be variation based on their cycle but I feel like that's less important in the long run. We've got and are getting so many engines that finding a "niche" for each one is impossible. Better to bring them closer in isp performance with a linear mass per thrust for a given task (lifting, upper atmosphere, and pure vacuum) so that the choices are more dynamic for the player. Otherwise one or two engines will tend to dominate career games.

Edited by regex
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, regex said:

Engines using the same fuels will generally have similar isps when used for similar tasks. There will be variation based on their cycle but I feel like that's less important in the long run. We've got and are getting so many engines that finding a "niche" for each one is impossible. Better to bring them closer in isp performance with a linear mass per thrust for a given task (lifting, upper atmosphere, and pure vacuum) so that the choices are more dynamic for the player. Otherwise one or two engines will tend to dominate career games.

But then there's no reason to use any engine over any other of the same class, aside from part count.  You wouldn't have to think about decisions like whether to use the Spark to save dry mass, or the Terrier for its greater Isp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vegemeister said:

But then there's no reason to use any engine over any other of the same class, aside from part count.  You wouldn't have to think about decisions like whether to use the Spark to save dry mass, or the Terrier for its greater Isp.

Then find a niche for every engine. I know I can't; eventually you'll run into situations where people are griping about how some engines are useless. Either make them broadly similar and interchangable or accept that some engines aren't going to be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, regex said:

Engines using the same fuels will generally have similar isps when used for similar tasks. There will be variation based on their cycle but I feel like that's less important in the long run. We've got and are getting so many engines that finding a "niche" for each one is impossible. Better to bring them closer in isp performance with a linear mass per thrust for a given task (lifting, upper atmosphere, and pure vacuum) so that the choices are more dynamic for the player. Otherwise one or two engines will tend to dominate career games.

I think a lot of it depends on the player, I find a lot of times that I end up sticking to 1 or 2 engine now. I think part of it has to do with how carrer is setup up.  you fall into a rut of building certain types of rockets, and  progress  along a path. even if you unlock a new engine it might be hard to use it well because you don't have the complentary pieces unlocked, or there are not complementary pieces.

For example in the .625 realm. there is only the spark and the twitch. In addition there is only 1 size of fuel tank, so your part count is higher than it needs to be.  The 1.25 m range is really over populated, more so with the proposed additions.  I think it would be better if they changed the lv-303 to a .625m part, maybe a 2/9ths sized  909, call it a lv-202. and make the twitch more of a "heavy" lifter. with less isp. and the spark an midthrust sustainer.   That would go along way towards making the .625 range more useable. The only other thin would be adding a couple of taller fuel tanks, and a small radial decoupler.   

I'm still not sold on the idea of the lv-t15 either  It seems a bit redundant,  you already have the aerospike pretty close to that thrust range, and now that it has a bottom mounting point there is no reason not to use it in stacks.  I like the symmetry of having an LV engine at 100/200/300 thrust, but not enough to convince me the lv-t15 is a good idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the LV-T15 receives an Isp upgrade (to ~320s vac) to convert it into a sustainer engine, which was what I originally suspected it to be.

The LV-T30's lack of gimbal also bothers me a bit because it detracts from its usefulness as a 1.25m stack engine.

Edited by Giggleplex777
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Giggleplex777 said:

Hopefully the LV-T15 receives an Isp upgrade (to ~320s vac) to convert it into a sustainer engine, which was what I originally suspected it to be.

In the Porkjet early release parts it seems to be intended as a lifting engine because the 303 unlocks at the same node (Basic Rocketry).

11 minutes ago, Giggleplex777 said:

The LV-T30's lack of gimbal also bothers me a bit because it detracts from its usefulness as a 1.25m stack engine.

I would like to see it as a heavier thrust gimbal-less version of the T45 myself, I think that's what you're thinking?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

So do we know if there are unreleased models for these or are they just sketches? I guess what Im saying is I WANT DEM PARTS.

Devnotes said the Overhaul is long from finished.

54 minutes ago, Giggleplex777 said:

Hopefully the LV-T15 receives an Isp upgrade (to ~320s vac) to convert it into a sustainer engine, which was what I originally suspected it to be.

I've upgraded the LV-T15, and it acts more like a smaller booster. I think the highest VAC it gets is about 305 ISP or so, but it's getting a lot of thrust upgrades for it's tiny shape and low weight.

Quote

The LV-T30's lack of gimbal also bothers me a bit because it detracts from its usefulness as a 1.25m stack engine.

Thrust to weight ratio is crazy tho. I think it get's upgraded to 300+ KN of thrust with the final node.

I imagine you could stick 2 LV-T15 to a LV-T30 and use them as gimbal engines, tho. It's of course not true sustainer, but ISP is not that super important in KSP when you just need 3300dv to orbit.

Edited by Temeter
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

If it is recessed there would be no extra length, so no problem with saves, and no problem with looks.

If all the engine mount in the same way then there are a lot of options, such as the skipper which I mentioned earlier.

If you don't want to talk about this here then don't. I posted in the other thread You're more than welcome to comment over there

 

There would still be extra length for legacy craft files. The parts absolute positions in 3d space are stored in that craft file if you surgically swapped out one part for another it won't automatically adjust for the new positions of the attachment nodes that is why the dimensions need to be preserved. So as I said the longer vector will still be sticking out too long and breaking crafts adding recesses to the mk3 mount was never a viable option and your unrelenting insistence to the contrary only shows your ignorance about how this game functions. Not to mention the mk3 mount is not the only place vectors are used they are surface attachable you can't put recesses everywhere they could be.

Keeping the vector throat mounted doesn't make anything else less of an option you aren't going for the shuttle replica by this point so you can get away with showing some power head but if you insist against this again we could just throat mount all the compacts for consistency then we'll really have a lot of options more so than your impossible to make work recessed mount idea.

And finally you misunderstand me I will answer your bold faced lies about the vector anywhere you take them so you best confine them to the appropriate thread.

1 hour ago, Tweeker said:

I think a lot of it depends on the player, I find a lot of times that I end up sticking to 1 or 2 engine now. I think part of it has to do with how carrer is setup up.  you fall into a rut of building certain types of rockets, and  progress  along a path. even if you unlock a new engine it might be hard to use it well because you don't have the complentary pieces unlocked, or there are not complementary pieces.

For example in the .625 realm. there is only the spark and the twitch. In addition there is only 1 size of fuel tank, so your part count is higher than it needs to be.  The 1.25 m range is really over populated, more so with the proposed additions.  I think it would be better if they changed the lv-303 to a .625m part, maybe a 2/9ths sized  909, call it a lv-202. and make the twitch more of a "heavy" lifter. with less isp. and the spark an midthrust sustainer.   That would go along way towards making the .625 range more useable. The only other thin would be adding a couple of taller fuel tanks, and a small radial decoupler.   

I'm still not sold on the idea of the lv-t15 either  It seems a bit redundant,  you already have the aerospike pretty close to that thrust range, and now that it has a bottom mounting point there is no reason not to use it in stacks.  I like the symmetry of having an LV engine at 100/200/300 thrust, but not enough to convince me the lv-t15 is a good idea. 

I'm with @regex on this one kerbal isn't in depth enough to truly balance all the different pros and cons of real life engines and propellants, and probably shouldn't try (that's what the RO mod is for :wink: ) all parts are using the same type of fuel so they will all have similar base isp then there is the matter of engine cycle but in simplified terms those largely break down into the three categorized roles of lifter(whichever gives the most thrust), sustainer(whatever doesn't fit in the other two), and vacuum(whichever gives the most efficiency) and of course expansion ratio(nozzle to throat size) which helps further optimise and distinguish these roles from one another.

Simply put at the end of day when taking the logical approach all lifters will have roughly the same twr and isp with some variance balanced by the cost of the engine, all sustainers will have roughly the same twr and isp with some variance balanced by cost of the engine, and all vacuum engines will have roughly the same twr and isp with some variance balanced by the cost of the engine.

that being said there is a way to have it both ways using the new upgrade mechanic. Simply put this idea of engines being similar to the point of interchangeability could be the end result of applying all upgrades whereas when un-upgraded all the engines are distinct and different reflecting that they were spread along different points of the tech tree and as a result along different points of technological advancement.

Edited by passinglurker
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Giggleplex777 said:

Hopefully the LV-T15 receives an Isp upgrade (to ~320s vac) to convert it into a sustainer engine, which was what I originally suspected it to be.

The LV-T30's lack of gimbal also bothers me a bit because it detracts from its usefulness as a 1.25m stack engine.

To me the LV-T15 looked like a Merlin engine, which is very much a launch engine. Looks like it is designed for clustering which I like.

 

Also not a fan of giving all the engines the same ISP. Would make choosing an engine significantly more boring and would mean there was no benefit to using low power upper stage engines.

 

Edited by Frozen_Heart
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to talk about it here, then don't talk about it. but since you bring it up again....

 

Once again I remind you that the changes to the vector are not the only changes being made. so whay is this one change any more heinous than  they others?

What I suggested was recessing  the mouning plane, which is much better, and less restrictive. than your approach of putting mounting hole in the part, The fact that vector are surface attachable is all the more reason to change the mounting point, otherwise it's ower head will clip out of the sides of the fuel tank when it is clustered close to the edge.

Changing all the other engine to mount like the vector is a terrible idea. you jumping thru 9 hoops to justify, and hide 1 problem.  

 

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

To me the LV-T15 looked like a Merlin engine, which is very much a launch engine. Looks like it is designed for clustering which I like.

 

Also not a fan of giving all the engines the same ISP. Would make choosing an engine significantly more boring and would mean there was no benefit to using low power upper stage engines.

 

The problem is it's not significantly smaller than the Reliant,  but it's thrust is, Also the aerospike is right there, just above it in thust. Maybe if you swapped it with the swivel? then you could have a progression thru the 1.25 range of Vac engines, Utility engines, Sustainer, Lifter.

Edited by Tweeker
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The problem is it's not significantly smaller than the Reliant,  but it's thrust is, Also the aerospike is right there, just above it in thust. Maybe if you swapped it with the swivel? then you could have a progression thru the 1.25 range of Vac engines, Utility engines, Sustainer, Lifter.

Isn't the spike a sustainer engine though? As it is derived from the shuttle engine irl.

I agree that the LV-T15 doesn't look much smaller than the LV-T45 is now, but the new 30 and the 45 look like their engine bells are quite a bit larger than they used to be, so might be worse for clustering. I can currently fit a 30 and eight 45s on a single 2.5m stack. I don't think that will be possible anymore.

Edited by Frozen_Heart
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Isn't the spike a sustainer engine though? As it is derived from the shuttle engine irl.

I agree that the LV-T15 doesn't look much smaller than the LV-T45 is now, but the new 30 and the 45 look like their engine bells are quite a bit larger than they used to be, so might be worse for clustering. I can currently fit a 30 and eight 45s on a single 2.5m stack. I don't think that will be possible anymore.

 The width of the bell being the limiting factor on clustering is one reason I suggested, making the mounting point about the same width as the bell. That way the limiting factor is similar engine to engine, and also you have a good representation of the gimbal.

In the course of this discussion it also occurred to me that giving the engine the ability at generate a faring above it. If this already matches the width of the bell all the better.

  As far as the aerospike, I'm not really sure where to class it, it is kind of an odd duck. I'm not really sure what engine the aerospike is based on, I always thought it was the j-2t derived from the Saturn j-2 engine. Of course the shuttle engine is descended from the J-2 too.......

Clustering seems like it will amount to a de facto buff to most engines. I doubt anyone will be using single engines very much, 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2016 at 5:19 AM, Tweeker said:

Also the aerospike is right there, just above it in thust.

The aerospike is almost at the very end of the tech tree, and it costs nearly 4000 spesos. I don't think its a problem if it's strictly better than a couple of the other engines. The aerospike is not based on any engine that has actually flown on a rocket. Aerospike rocket engines are a real thing, but they haven't yet been put to real-world use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2016 at 3:02 AM, Tweeker said:

Exactly ! there is no reason the Vector should be any different than any engine. Squad created a problem when they gave us a hacked-off engine, rather than a proper engine mount.

So we're getting back the actual turbine part of the jet engines too...?

Edited by swjr-swis
uhm... why did the forum show me that old post as a new entry?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mk-55 Thud could probably be made into a .625m engine, if you had the option to make it inline like the Puff now can.  Going by eye, it also looks like the Pug, Terrier, and LV-T15 could be used on .625 meter rockets in compact mode.  Now we just need more fuel tanks in that size.  A small SRB wouldn't be bad either

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2016 at 8:57 PM, Giggleplex777 said:

Hopefully the LV-T15 receives an Isp upgrade (to ~320s vac) to convert it into a sustainer engine, which was what I originally suspected it to be.

The LV-T30's lack of gimbal also bothers me a bit because it detracts from its usefulness as a 1.25m stack engine.

Well, there are part upgrades which bring it to around that.

Edited by legoclone09
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...