[Most 1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (August 26)

[Guest]

FYI, Cougar is not an RD-180 equivalent. It's the RD-701, projected engine for MAKS spaceplane:

It should have the option of switching between LH2 and kerosene fuel (the real one did), but this isn't implemented.

[kerbnub]

What is the thinking behind the Scimitar engines in NFA? As far as I can see, they are just better versions of rapiers, replacing them entirely, and since they're unlocked at the same node, I have no reason to build rapiers. I think their rocket mode thrust should be nerfed and ISP buffed to have those 1.25 options similar to the two 2.5 multimode engines in NFA.

[GrandProtectorDark]

19 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

'Manatee' - it's literally a mutated/randomized 'Mammoth' . It's 12% more powerful and has worse sea-level ISP (by 10) but everything is the same, plus, we have engine plates. What's its purpose, if any?

 

19 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

'Walrus' is an overpriced 'Skipper'. Differs by 5 s ISP, 100 kN more thrust (and is twice as expensive), so it has no unique role. It has no shroud.

Iirc, these 2 having similar stats is because they (and most of NFLV) serve as a set of LFO engines for when you have the Cryoengines patch installed, that converts all stock/restock engines that should technically be hydrolox.

[Krzeszny]

16 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

 

Iirc, these 2 having similar stats is because they (and most of NFLV) serve as a set of LFO engines for when you have the Cryoengines patch installed, that converts all stock/restock engines that should technically be hydrolox.

I could install Cryoengines but it would make KSP just too complicated and with too many engines for now, and besides, it isn't said anywhere that NFLV is made to work with Cryoengines, so it probably should work without them.

Still, why should all stock engines should be technically hydrolox and what patch does that? I only found a patch that converts NF Aeronautics to hydrolox. Based on the description, the Cryoengines mod apparently only adds new hydrolox engines without converting the stock engines.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Krzeszny

[Guest]

Not all, and this is related to how they are modeled in ReStock. Some of them are modeled after engines which are cryogenic IRL. CryoEngines patch will turn those engines into LH2 ones, and then NFLV engines will fill the niches left open by this.

NFLV works without CE, but you will get lots of engines which are similar in performance to stock ones. Nobody says it has to work well without the companion mods.   To get the best possible experience, you need the whole suite, NFLV+CE+ReStock+ReStockPlus. 

[Krzeszny]

On 9/22/2020 at 12:13 PM, Dragon01 said:

CryoEngines patch will turn those engines into LH2 ones, and then NFLV engines will fill the niches left open by this.

I still don't know what patch you're talking about. I installed the Cryoengines mod and it only added new engines without changing the stock ones. There's a patch that allows cryogenic engines to burn LF/Ox but this can't be it.

On 9/22/2020 at 12:13 PM, Dragon01 said:

NFLV works without CE, but you will get lots of engines which are similar in performance to stock ones. Nobody says it has to work well without the companion mods.   To get the best possible experience, you need the whole suite, NFLV+CE+ReStock+ReStockPlus. 

I'm using NFLV without Cryogenic Engines, as I installed it for the fuel tanks and the engines are a bonus, but they're too good to be left unused. Besides, if this mod was made to work with Cryogenic Engines, it would be called something like "Cryogenic Engines - Liquid Fuel replacement engines (and huge fuel tanks???)" 

What using hydrolox rockets changes basically is increasing the rocket size 2 times, giving 20% more deltaV but making the rocket cost 4 to 5 times as much for that 20% extra deltaV. Not amazing in career mode. I could just add more boosters™ instead. (I hope it doesn't sound like ranting and the balance suggestions are useful.) Perhaps the NFLV engines and NFLV fuel tanks should have been separate mods in the first place, and then the engines part would have been an add-on to CE, if what you're saying about "the CE patch" is true, but since normally CE doesn't change the stock engines, the NFLV engines are still a stand-alone pack.

This is why I'm suggesting balance changes to the NFLV engines, and the revival of the cool-locking 'Osprey' and the 'Buzzard'.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Krzeszny said:

Besides, if this mod was made to work with Cryogenic Engines, it would be called something like "Cryogenic Engines - Liquid Fuel replacement engines (and huge fuel tanks???)" 

That doesn't quite roll off the tongue, though.  That said, since the latest rework, it's more or less on point. They are balanced to fit Nertea's vision of how KSP should be played, which happens to involve CE.

BTW, hydrolox actually does work rather nice, as long as you're not using it for first stages. Indeed, they save you a lot of upper stage mass. Costs might be a bit off, but it's not like the stock parts have anything resembling balance, either.

[GrandProtectorDark]

On 9/22/2020 at 11:10 AM, Krzeszny said:

It isn't said anywhere that NFLV is made to work with Cryoengines, so it probably should work without them.

NFLV isn't exactly made specifically to work with CE. It's made to synergise well together when both are installed.

 

On 9/22/2020 at 11:10 AM, Krzeszny said:

Still, why should all stock engines should be technically hydrolox and what patch does that

Restocks engine designs are based on an old concept from porkjet. Certain of those engines are modelled after hydrolox engines (and obviously the single/clustered SSME should consume hydrolox)

 

On 9/22/2020 at 11:10 AM, Krzeszny said:

Cryoengines mod apparently only adds new hydrolox engines without converting the stock engines.

 

9 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

I still don't know what patch you're talking about. I installed the Cryoengines mod and it only added new engines without changing the stock ones. There's a patch that allows cryogenic engines to burn LF/Ox but this can't be it.

https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/CryoEngines/tree/master/Extras

Must be using an old version, cus there's 3 patches in the extras folder.

9 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

What using hydrolox rockets changes basically is increasing the rocket size 2 times, giving 20% more deltaV but making the rocket cost 4 to 5 times as much for that 20% extra deltaV.

What matters for rockets is mass, not size or cost. Hydrolox is perfect for upperstages or assisted first stages. 

While the same amount of deltaV will need more tank, the stage itself will end up way lighter than an equivalent lfo stage. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by GrandProtectorDark

[jan Melantu]

3 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

What using hydrolox rockets changes basically is increasing the rocket size 2 times, giving 20% more deltaV but making the rocket cost 4 to 5 times as much for that 20% extra deltaV. Not amazing in career mode. I could just add more boosters™

Hydrolox gets balanced by

1. using it for very efficient upper stages that are much lighter, requiring a smaller first stage (a la Atlas V)
2. using it as a low-thrust, high efficiency core stage that's boosted by cheap solids (a la Ariane V)
3. not giving a damn about cost because you're that rich (a la Delta IV)

 

[Krzeszny]

2 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

While the same amount of deltaV will need more tank, the stage itself will end up way lighter than an equivalent lfo stage. 

20% more deltaV for the same weight isn't a lot lighter, but I can't argue - it is more efficient. Or am I wrong with the 120% efficiency? I tested it with the only equivalent engines, 'Terrier' and 'Hecate' with the same total rocket weight.

1 hour ago, jan Melantu said:

Hydrolox gets balanced by

1. using it for very efficient upper stages that are much lighter, requiring a smaller first stage (a la Atlas V)
2. using it as a low-thrust, high efficiency core stage that's boosted by cheap solids (a la Ariane V)
3. not giving a damn about cost because you're that rich (a la Delta IV)

I'm guessing that tanks, fuel and engines in real-life hydrolox rockets aren't 4 times more expensive than RP-1 rockets, as it is in KSP. LH2 is cheaper than RP-1 in the real world, and I don't think any real entrepreneur would pay for a rocket that's 4 times more expensive for 20% more efficiency because - as I've mentioned - they would probably want to use moar boosters™ instead. I might be wrong on this one, though. I haven't researched the pricing.

2 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/CryoEngines/tree/master/Extras

Must be using an old version, cus there's 3 patches in the extras folder.

Thank you for solving my problem. Everyone assumed I was using that patch. This extra patch isn't available on CKAN and I hadn't known it even existed

So to sum up what I think isn't quite right:

1. NFLV isn't fully stock-balanced. This was and still is my main point, not the Cryogenic Engines discussion that ensued.
   • 'Sphinx', 'Cougar', 'Lynx' and the deprecated 'Osprey' and 'Buzzard' work well with stock. The last 2 could be readded.
   • 'Angora' and 'Goldfish' are worse than the stock one-size-fits-all equivalent, 'Spark' (but they really should be better: one better ASL, the other one in vacuum).
   • 'Ocelot', 'Porpoise' and 'Otter' are overpowered, even for the asking price (for example, 'Otter' overpowers 'Valiant'), and 'Walrus' is both overpowered and overpriced.
   • 'Walrus' and 'Manatee' are redundant vs stock 'Skipper' and 'Mammoth'.
2. NFLV looks like a stand-alone engine+fuel tank pack. Nowhere does it say that Cryogenic Engines, the patch and ReStock+ are needed to make NFLV work as intended, which I think is a reason to balance NFLV to work better as a stand-alone mod.
3. Even if someone installed Cryogenic Engines, ReStock+ and NFLV through CKAN, they can't get the patch that makes the NFLV engines balanced without knowing to go to GitHub and I'm guessing, that the majority of CKAN-downloaded NFLV users don't know that they should.

[Nertea]

I'm busy with life, I will address this when I get back, but you sound a little aggressive! Remember that stock KSP is absolute garbage in terms of cost balance, there are a lot of screwy things outside of cost too (wolfhound lol, tiny radiators).

[GrandProtectorDark]

4 hours ago, Krzeszny said:

NFLV isn't fully stock-balanced

Your first mistake was to assume that stock has any semblance of proper balance. Especially career mode costs.

[Krzeszny]

 

On 9/21/2020 at 7:10 PM, GrandProtectorDark said:

Iirc, these 2 having similar stats is because they (and most of NFLV) serve as a set of LFO engines for when you have the Cryoengines patch installed, that converts all stock/restock engines that should technically be hydrolox.

You're right. The patch gets rid of the Walrus and Manatee redundancy for those using Cryoengines.

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

I'm busy with life, I will address this when I get back, but you sound a little aggressive!

Sorry  I'll pay more attention to what I'm writing.

[MashAndBangers]

I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me, but it looks like the SpaceX and Blue Origin engines were renamed in the configs, and the Metholox patch wasn't upgraded to match.  Is this a correct assessment? 

[hemeac]

2 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:

I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me, but it looks like the SpaceX and Blue Origin engines were renamed in the configs, and the Metholox patch wasn't upgraded to match.  Is this a correct assessment? 

The old SpaceX and Blue Origin engines from NFLV were deprecated and the new engines are based on Kerolox so the metholox patch was not updated.  Nertea had stated recently that a methalox engine mod in on his wish list.

[darthgently]

22 hours ago, jan Melantu said:

Hydrolox gets balanced by

1. using it for very efficient upper stages that are much lighter, requiring a smaller first stage (a la Atlas V)
2. using it as a low-thrust, high efficiency core stage that's boosted by cheap solids (a la Ariane V)
3. not giving a damn about cost because you're that rich (a la Delta IV)

 

I'll throw in here that if you can recover that upper stage via Stage Recovery or otherwise those costs can be recouped quite a bit.  I'm using kOS to make smart boosters with a reserve burn-back tank and on separation they burn back toward KSC and parachute nearer to it which recoups more funds.  The lower boosters typically don't bother burning back, just chute down from where they are separated (depends on horizontal distance mostly).  I'm looking forward to converting the upper stages to hydrolox, but I have a few things to tweak yet before making that big conversion.  I'm also playing with a script that will allow upper stages on separation to determine if, given their reserve fuel and current vector, it would make more sense to circle around semi-orbital or even orbital prior to returning toward KSC.  Because sometimes I find a sweet spot in my launch trajectory that my upper stage ends up nearly in orbit, or close enough, to make an air-scraping circuit around rather than burning retro back to KSC which is a very high cost at the point of upper stage separation

[Krzeszny]

This may be unnecessary to change it, but I think that 3 of the NF modules miss some modularity, mostly because of how much they have grown over the years. The rocket engines and the 5m+ fuel tanks, the orbital engines and the command pods - these part categories don't seem to synergize enough to be bundled together and feel more like separate mods.
The same could be said about the antennae and the probe cores as well, but they're almost guaranteed to be used on the same spacecraft, unlike the former examples.

Near Future Spacecraft could be divided into Near Future Command Modules and Near Future Orbital Engines.
Near Future Launch Vehicles - into Near Future Rocket Engines and Near Future Superheavy (or Near Future Heavy Something.)
Optional - near Future eXploration - into Near Future Communication and Near Future Probes.

The separation of these mods could be too much work, but it's just a suggestion.

By the way, what are some reasons to consider using the orbital engines from NF:S over the 'Poodle', the 'Terrier' etc?

Edited September 26, 2020 by Krzeszny
small changes

[The Dressian Exploder]

IDK about that but I would like to see moar pods in NFS if it does get split

[MashAndBangers]

In the near future....

 

Shuttle Enterprise resupplying the resupply vehicle with food and experiments, also taking experiments back to Kerbin for study.  Then the resupply vehicle heads to Munar orbit where it docks with the Skylab MK III station.  The Kerbals take the food and experiments, and then head down to the Munar surface to conduct science in the single stage lander.  Powered by the magic of LH2/LOX!

[Lunar Sea]

6 hours ago, MashAndBangers said:

In the near future....

 

Shuttle Enterprise resupplying the resupply vehicle with food and experiments, also taking experiments back to Kerbin for study.  Then the resupply vehicle heads to Munar orbit where it docks with the Skylab MK III station.  The Kerbals take the food and experiments, and then head down to the Munar surface to conduct science in the single stage lander.  Powered by the magic of LH2/LOX!

Wow how did you get the paint job on the shuttle? 

[MashAndBangers]

4 hours ago, Lunar Sea said:

Wow how did you get the paint job on the shuttle? 

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

On 9/23/2020 at 12:04 PM, Krzeszny said:

20% more deltaV for the same weight isn't a lot lighter, but I can't argue - it is more efficient. Or am I wrong with the 120% efficiency? I tested it with the only equivalent engines, 'Terrier' and 'Hecate' with the same total rocket weight.

I'm guessing that tanks, fuel and engines in real-life hydrolox rockets aren't 4 times more expensive than RP-1 rockets, as it is in KSP. LH2 is cheaper than RP-1 in the real world, and I don't think any real entrepreneur would pay for a rocket that's 4 times more expensive for 20% more efficiency because - as I've mentioned - they would probably want to use moar boosters™ instead. I might be wrong on this one, though. I haven't researched the pricing.

Thank you for solving my problem. Everyone assumed I was using that patch. This extra patch isn't available on CKAN and I hadn't known it even existed

So to sum up what I think isn't quite right:

1. NFLV isn't fully stock-balanced. This was and still is my main point, not the Cryogenic Engines discussion that ensued.
   • 'Sphinx', 'Cougar', 'Lynx' and the deprecated 'Osprey' and 'Buzzard' work well with stock. The last 2 could be readded.
   • 'Angora' and 'Goldfish' are worse than the stock one-size-fits-all equivalent, 'Spark' (but they really should be better: one better ASL, the other one in vacuum).
   • 'Ocelot', 'Porpoise' and 'Otter' are overpowered, even for the asking price (for example, 'Otter' overpowers 'Valiant'), and 'Walrus' is both overpowered and overpriced.
   • 'Walrus' and 'Manatee' are redundant vs stock 'Skipper' and 'Mammoth'.
2. NFLV looks like a stand-alone engine+fuel tank pack. Nowhere does it say that Cryogenic Engines, the patch and ReStock+ are needed to make NFLV work as intended, which I think is a reason to balance NFLV to work better as a stand-alone mod.
3. Even if someone installed Cryogenic Engines, ReStock+ and NFLV through CKAN, they can't get the patch that makes the NFLV engines balanced without knowing to go to GitHub and I'm guessing, that the majority of CKAN-downloaded NFLV users don't know that they should.

I'm almost positive that RP-1 isn't more expensive than Hydrolox; not only are the production processes for Hydrogen much less efficient and uncommon. But while RP-1 doesn't require too much special storage (If i recall the tankage must be a certain standard to prevent contamination, but that's with most everything for a rocket). The infrastructure to support Hydrolox requires much more setup, and operation is subject to a constant energy cost.

But in all honesty; depending on CKAN isn't a good idea in general. There's a slew of issues it brings, and while i can understand using it to get your feet wet with KSP modding i feel like you're well past that point.

That's besides the point though; especially since the Author himself said he'd get back to you in time. In the meantime however; most of your desired changes could easily be accomplished with some custom Module Manager patches if you wanted to dabble with that. The modding subfourm would be more than happy to help instruct you on how to make them, it wouldn't be too hard to reduce the cost of LOX/HydroLOX for instance. And you could easily add back in engines/tweak their cost (Though if they were hard-deprecated you'd need to grab their models from the last version that had them).

Then you could use a mod like Janitor's closet to remove anything you thought "Redundant", and as a bonus save a bit of RAM while doing so!

 

[Krzeszny]

I found a bug with the Adapter 75-L2 Lower Stage Engine Mount. It's not possible to mount an engine (any size) in the middle slot in any configuration (holding Alt or not.) The mounting slot for the engine is there but the 7.5m central slot blocks the smaller one. There's a workaround to mount it in the central 7.5m slot as seen here and move it with the move tool.

I'm not sure if this can be fixed at all, it might be KSP's fault altogether. 

Spoiler

Not a problem with the 75-L1 adapter because the shape isn't blocking the smaller middle slot.

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Krzeszny

[jimmymcgoochie]

10 minutes ago, Krzeszny said:

I found a bug with the Adapter 75-L2 Lower Stage Engine Mount. It's not possible to mount an engine (any size) in the middle slot in any configuration (holding Alt or not.) The mounting slot for the engine is there but the 7.5m central slot blocks the smaller one. There's a workaround to mount it in the central 7.5m slot as seen here and move it with the move tool.

I'm not sure if this can be fixed at all, it might be KSP's fault altogether. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Not a problem with the 75-L1 adapter because the shape isn't blocking the smaller middle slot.

 

I encountered this before, the solution is:

• Attach a (really small) part to the bottom node to block it;
• Attach the engine to the previously blocked node inside the ‘pit’ while holding alt;
• Remove the bottom node part.

Not ideal, but it works.

[Nertea]

On 9/20/2020 at 2:56 PM, Krzeszny said:

There are some balance problems with Near Future Launch Vehicles rocket engines, so I'll discuss them, starting with the meta:

Okay so I'm kinda back and am taking some time to dig into this tonight. I have a few comments upfront.

• You are treating a lot of 'realism' constraints as 'balance'. Statements such as The highest stock ISP ASL is 295 s just because there are no closed-cycle engines in (Re)stock KSP don't work for me - the visual look of an engine should, generally match the 'role' (e.g, an engine based on a vacuum engine in RL should be a vacuum engine in KSP) but assigning stats based on the engine model itself has never been the purview of any of my mods. For that, you want something like BDB. I know that some community members are also putting together a 'NF realism' patch which changes the balance paradigm of the NF mods to be BDB-alike, look out for that. Trying to compare expansion ratios is also a fool's errand between projects. NFLV is pretty accurate, but Restock certainly isn't. Stock is worse!
• Cost is always fair game, but it's a real garbage mess in stock.
• As some people have mentioned, the original inception of the engine part of the project was to ensure that LF/O engines were available in the presence of the CryoEnginesRestock package. That means you lose the Skipper, Vector, Mammoth and Rhino. However, this doesn't mean that the mod should be totally useless without the CryoEnginesRestock patch. There is a balance between providing uniqueness and ensuring those holes are filled, so the 1:1 replacements will be less differentiated.
• The overall concept for this engine set is to provide 1 lifter and 1 sustainer engine for each size class that are overall slightly better than stock, but usually with a trade (cost, dimensions, maybe Isp, maybe thrust, depends on engine). They come 1 tech level later than their corresponding stock engine. Unique roles are not intended. Do note that the 1.875m engines provided by MH have GARBAGE balance.
• The original engines (Buzzard, Osprey, etc) were really just overpowered. I think I took equivalent stock stats and added some magic Isp and thrust. Not great. As mentioned they will return, with better models and different stats, later, in CryoEngines. 
• I don't personally think the RS+ engines are well balanced with the exception of the  Corgi (too many cooks...)

So, on to the list, again, ignoring costs:

1. Angora: you might be correct here, compared to the Spark it is a bit lackluster. Currently it has a lacking TWR but a higher Isp. That Isp increase could be increased. 
2. Sphinx is a sustainer engine - it has a lower SL Isp because of this.
3. Cougar: the 'near future engine should be better' argument doesn't really hold water. This mirrors the Rhino but is better overall, particularly in atmosphere. 
4. Lynx: same comments as Cougar.
5. Ocelot' is actually the Skipper replacement. If you plot it up, its TWR and Isp are Skipper-alike with a buff to Isp. 
6. Porpoise actually has less absolute thrust than the Mainsail? 1300 vs 1500. It's also lighter and fits the basic concept of 1.875m lifiting engine.
7. Walrus has the second highest TWR of any engine, far more than the Skipper. It is vaguely the Vector replacement in that it will work will for clustering and has a lot of power in a small space
8. Orca is where I want it. Slightly better mainsail, yup.
9. Goldfish has better TWR in atmo than the Spark. Again, you get a trade... more efficiency or more thrust?
10. Otter Heh fine I can move the tech level, but that's, well, another crappy stock thing. Precision Propulsion is the end of that branch, so moving it is a little odd. 
11. Osprey was deprecated because it was OP and the model was bad.
12. Buzzard was just an OP engine. It was actually a BE-4.
13. Manatee is for replacing the Mammoth, so it is very similar. When you account for mass, it is actually closer to 20% more TWR. So if you have both, there is a choice of higher power or higher efficiency. 

Overall I don't see a lot of issues, will take a pass at costs for sure, but a lot of your comments revolve around the realism vs balance trade. 

On 9/26/2020 at 5:02 AM, Krzeszny said:

This may be unnecessary to change it, but I think that 3 of the NF modules miss some modularity, mostly because of how much they have grown over the years. The rocket engines and the 5m+ fuel tanks, the orbital engines and the command pods - these part categories don't seem to synergize enough to be bundled together and feel more like separate mods.
The same could be said about the antennae and the probe cores as well, but they're almost guaranteed to be used on the same spacecraft, unlike the former examples.

Near Future Spacecraft could be divided into Near Future Command Modules and Near Future Orbital Engines.
Near Future Launch Vehicles - into Near Future Rocket Engines and Near Future Superheavy (or Near Future Heavy Something.)
Optional - near Future eXploration - into Near Future Communication and Near Future Probes.

The separation of these mods could be too much work, but it's just a suggestion.

By the way, what are some reasons to consider using the orbital engines from NF:S over the 'Poodle', the 'Terrier' etc?

I already get enough requests to 'plz provide all in one package', so no more splitting. The ones you mention have always been that way though - NFS has always had mono engines and command pods, NFLV has always had big tanks and engines to cluster under them (though more engines recently). NFX has never had a scope change, it is too young! Overall though, I hope i've made the internals easy and clear enough for anyone who wants to delete pieces quite easily. 

On 9/20/2020 at 9:09 PM, kerbnub said:

What is the thinking behind the Scimitar engines in NFA? As far as I can see, they are just better versions of rapiers, replacing them entirely, and since they're unlocked at the same node, I have no reason to build rapiers. I think their rocket mode thrust should be nerfed and ISP buffed to have those 1.25 options similar to the two 2.5 multimode engines in NFA.

I'll check it out.