Screeno

The Mastodon is way too weak to warrant use over the mainsail in a launch situation.

Recommended Posts

Title.

The mainsail has almost the same thrust at sea level as the mastodon but the mainsail also has far better max isp in vacuum so the mastodon is redundant both as a launch engine and as an orbital engine.

The mastodon should really have a higher thrust ( thrust in the middle of the min and maxthrust for the mainsail (around 1400?) would be better then it's got a niche as a more powerful launch engine than the mainsail but with less efficiency) , it's supposed to be a launch engine, at the moment there is no point using it at all except for aesthetic purposes.

Also I should add the skiff is pretty weak in terms of thrust too, I made a saturn v replica and the S-II and S-IVB stages with a full tanks of accurate size had terrible thrust to weight ratios, something like 0.3 which is useless for an upper stage in the atmosphere.

It should probably have twice as much thrust as a swivel for what it is, it's a 2.5 m engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you build your Saturn V? Each stage should only consist of one tank (except the S-1C first stage). With the Mastodon, its price should be cut in half, cause it is WAY too expensive.

Share this post


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

How did you build your Saturn V? Each stage should only consist of one tank (except the S-1C first stage). With the Mastodon, its price should be cut in half, cause it is WAY too expensive.

yeah the stages were only 1 tank apart from the S-1C stage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Screeno said:

yeah the stages were only 1 tank apart from the S-1C stage. 

Good, cause all of the other replicas I have seen so far are atrocious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know- I understand it's supposed to be balanced with the rest of the parts, but we just got the biggest tanks yet and the engines are just as strong as parts suited for the 2.5m tanks? It may be a bit overpowered and unbalanced, but I would be ok with massively scaling up the fuel in the new Saturn V style parts, and equally, making the Mastadon significantly more powerful (like half of the mammoth engine's total thrust). If we already had a F-1 powered engine, then don't add an identical one- just retexture the mainsail!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC it unlocks really late in career mode too. Like stat-wise its somewhere between the mainsail and the skipper... so shouldn't it unlock before them rather than after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't disagree it's not quite as beefy as a Mainsail, I absolutely love the new Mastodons. And I think y'all are kind of missing the beauty of this engine by comparing it to a Mainsail in a single engine-to-engine basis.

The real nice part of the Mastodon are the variants, and how you can cluster them together. For example, this is my Sarnus-V rocket, turned sideways. As you can see, I have 5 Mastodons, with the outer 4 set to bare-variant, and the center one to mid-variant. And they're nestled nicely into the adapter, which gives me insane thrust, even with something this big.

drDIoGu.png

Mainsails don't come with variants, and are just too big to fit into the same adaptor

RT2HlmV.png

The same idea applies to the new engine plates. With the mid and bare variants of the Mastodon, you can easily mount 4 to a large engine plate. But the exact same engine plate can't hold 4 Mainsails without looking... well... terrible.

53H8umH.png

N3qP1S2.png

This is why I love the new Mastodons... Sure, they're not quite as powerful as a Mainsail... But when you can fit 4-5 of them into the same space 1 Mainsail takes up, it totally becomes my new favorite heavy lifting engine.  :cool:

Edited by Just Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new "Variants" thing is beast. I hated the fact that every single engine in stock (except the Vector) had a mounting plate larger than the nozzle. 

Once Tweakscale is up and running with the DLC parts, I can finally build a really, really convincing BFR/BFS. That Wolfhound is fantastic, especially without the mounting plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolfhound was intended as an analog for the Apollo SM engine, wasn't it?  That's why the huge nozzle bell.  I've read that the SM engine was originally intended for a much larger, heavier direct ascent lander/return spacecraft, and was grossly overpowered for the CSM/LEM stack -- but it was already developed, had the throttling and restart capability they needed, and would allow putting other stuff in the SM besides fuel tanks.  A very minor update of the same engine was to/will power the Orion SM, pushing a much larger, heavier craft than the Apollo.

I have to agree that a 400 Isp is a little high for an engine that doesn't require hydrolox or at least methylox, but I bet we'll see a lot of those on Duna/Eve/Dres missions in the future...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Wolfhound was intended as an analog for the Apollo SM engine, wasn't it?  That's why the huge nozzle bell.  I've read that the SM engine was originally intended for a much larger, heavier direct ascent lander/return spacecraft, and was grossly overpowered for the CSM/LEM stack -- but it was already developed, had the throttling and restart capability they needed, and would allow putting other stuff in the SM besides fuel tanks.  A very minor update of the same engine was to/will power the Orion SM, pushing a much larger, heavier craft than the Apollo.

I have to agree that a 400 Isp is a little high for an engine that doesn't require hydrolox or at least methylox, but I bet we'll see a lot of those on Duna/Eve/Dres missions in the future...

Yes, the Apollo SPS was originally intended to be used with Nova for Direct Ascent. They had already ordered the engine when they switched plans from direct ascent to lunar orbit rendezvous.

But the isp was 319 seconds, not over 400.

If Squad had wanted to make things interesting, they could have made the Wolfhound merely have very high vacuum TWR (other than the Rhino, the highest vacuum TWR is found on the freaking Puff monoprop engine!) and moderate isp, and made the Skiff the ridiculously-good-isp engine, but with poorer TWR (necessitating five of them on the Saturn V second stage).

One really neat option would have been to change up the Skiff's LF/O ratio. Make it a cross between the J-2 and an RL-10: isp over 400 s, but a poor TWR, and a higher LF/O ratio, so you'd have to pair a standard LFO tank with a LF tank to actually get the right proportions. That would more accurately represent the challenges of hydrolox without needing to add completely new fuel types or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2018 at 11:11 AM, ZooNamedGames said:

I don't know- I understand it's supposed to be balanced with the rest of the parts, but we just got the biggest tanks yet and the engines are just as strong as parts suited for the 2.5m tanks? It may be a bit overpowered and unbalanced, but I would be ok with massively scaling up the fuel in the new Saturn V style parts, and equally, making the Mastadon significantly more powerful (like half of the mammoth engine's total thrust). If we already had a F-1 powered engine, then don't add an identical one- just retexture the mainsail!

I kind of got the impression "maybe just me" that these parts were originally intended "or at least started out that way?" to replace the stock rocket part's. They gave them new name's so they could sell us DLC. Mastadon=Mainsail Skiff=Skipper Wolfhound=Poodle See the connection. Mk-3 should have replaced the MK1-2 and fuel tanks kept same name. I have Porkjets overhaul parts installed and if I did not think it would bust all kind of things in the future. I would fix the F###up node's on the new parts and rename them and give them the stats of the older counterparts. Having two of each engine with almost no difference in stats just clutters up my parts menu. Oh and that soviet engine seems under powered. No gimble  and the Reliant is more powerful better ISP  Should be mid power between Reliant and next engine.

     

Share this post


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

I kind of got the impression "maybe just me" that these parts were originally intended "or at least started out that way?" to replace the stock rocket part's. They gave them new name's so they could sell us DLC. Mastadon=Mainsail Skiff=Skipper Wolfhound=Poodle See the connection. Mk-3 should have replaced the MK1-2 and fuel tanks kept same name. I have Porkjets overhaul parts installed and if I did not think it would bust all kind of things in the future. I would fix the F###up node's on the new parts and rename them and give them the stats of the older counterparts. Having two of each engine with almost no difference in stats just clutters up my parts menu. Oh and that soviet engine seems under powered. No gimble  and the Reliant is more powerful better ISP  Should be mid power between Reliant and next engine.

     

No gimbal is intentional, to fit the IRL version. But they should have a SL one and a vacuum one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I knew that sorry maybe poor wording on my part. I meant that with no gimbal like the Reliant. Their is no compelling reason to use it instead of the Reliant. Yes it should have the two versions. Maybe different engine bell. Or just have different stats. Squad is obviously not afraid to clutter your parts list. Three identical Vostock's in a DLC that proudly features model and texture switching and has a part upgrade mechanic. Really just seems Lazy to me? They can say how hard this stuff is all they want. But a couple of days after release and there are already community patches to fix their bad node alignment and a recolour part mod using the texture switcher. Hell there was a mod on Spacedock the same day that 1.4.0 hit to ad the IVA to the new pod after squad screwed it up and was to Lazy to fix it themselves.        

Share this post


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

(other than the Rhino, the highest vacuum TWR is found on the freaking Puff monoprop engine!)

I get where you're coming from with this... but check out the TWR on the new Skiff - 300kN from 1t that can be bare mounted, means you can pack a lot of these guys on, and push a heck of a lot of fuel around in a reasonable time.  330s of ISP counts as vacuum engine to me - I'm finding a lot of small ships do really well with it just because of the reduced engine dead mass compared to all the other vacuum options with that much thrust.

I'm also finding the Cub to be an excellent engine for small landers - more thrust than you'd expect, excellent TWR (best of any small liquid-fuel engine), reasonable ISP, infinite radial-mount placement options, and even surprising performance at sea level.  It basically completely obsoletes the Twitch engine - the only drawback is the single-axis gimbal if you don't need more than two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fourfa said:

I get where you're coming from with this... but check out the TWR on the new Skiff - 300kN from 1t that can be bare mounted, means you can pack a lot of these guys on, and push a heck of a lot of fuel around in a reasonable time.  330s of ISP counts as vacuum engine to me - I'm finding a lot of small ships do really well with it just because of the reduced engine dead mass compared to all the other vacuum options with that much thrust.

I'm just saying, the specs should be reversed. The Apollo CM SPS had decent thrust but unremarkable isp; the J-2 was the one with wicked isp.

I'm bummed that we have to use the Kodiak for both the core and the upper stage of a Soyuz clone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, fourfa said:

I get where you're coming from with this... but check out the TWR on the new Skiff - 300kN from 1t that can be bare mounted, means you can pack a lot of these guys on, and push a heck of a lot of fuel around in a reasonable time.  330s of ISP counts as vacuum engine to me - I'm finding a lot of small ships do really well with it just because of the reduced engine dead mass compared to all the other vacuum options with that much thrust.

I'm also finding the Cub to be an excellent engine for small landers - more thrust than you'd expect, excellent TWR (best of any small liquid-fuel engine), reasonable ISP, infinite radial-mount placement options, and even surprising performance at sea level.  It basically completely obsoletes the Twitch engine - the only drawback is the single-axis gimbal if you don't need more than two.

Bare mounting engines sounds like a neat feature for stock parts like the Mainsail, skipper, reliant and so on that have a big bulky disk on their attachment node.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Bare mounting engines sounds like a neat feature for stock parts like the Mainsail, skipper, reliant and so on that have a big bulky disk on their attachment node.

We were going to get just that until the stock parts revamp was cancelled...

Share this post


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

We were going to get just that until the stock parts revamp was cancelled...

It’s still feasible. The mechanics are in place, we just need the parts as of this time.

Share this post


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

We were going to get just that until the stock parts revamp was cancelled...

Honestly, I'd sooner have paid $15 for them to resurrect and release the revamp than Making History. So far I've not really been interested in the Mission Builder.. the new 1 and a bit meter parts are kinda nice, but don't quite match the old textures (the blacks and whites are a different shade to the black and whites on the 1.25m parts - annoying) PLUS I can't quite get them to work properly in career mode... I keep finding cheaper/more efficient/equally capable designs for launch vehicles either side of the 1.8m parts (so a cheaper 1.25 design or a more capable 2.5 design) and I'm having trouble with the new engines for exactly the same reason. I honestly can't find much of a use for the K7 (whatever its called) engine, especially if you need the vernier control  engines... 4+the main engine = 5500~ funds but isn't any better than the titan replica engine which is less than half the price and has a better vac isp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides losing out on the great remodel. If you look at the numbers on the roadmap that porkjet released. I always had the feeling we were going to get a way better balanced tech tree for the stock career game. If squad could have worked on and implemented this sheet with the part upgrade mechanic Porkjet had started. I would have gladly paid for it. But Squad would never do that because half the community would be up in arms accusing them of charging for DLC to complete a unfinished game. And they would kind of have a point .

iINdJyL.jpg

     

Edited by Delbrutis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I still want a Single Boar.  The stats on that engine (by itself, no tank) are amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those revamped engines look cool!

 

WANT

Edited by EnderKid2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new engines are a bit of a mixed bag.

The Wolfhound is ridiculously OP - one of those cheaper, thrustier, more efficient type deals.

The Cub is significantly better than other radial engines, but is also much more expensive.

The Skiff is a little bit better than low-tier original engines: like if you compare Skiff and Skipper/Reliant, the Skiff rocks. It's pretty comparable to high-tier engines. Fairly cheap.

The Cheetah is exactly the same as original engines except a little pricier. For if you want two terriers worth of thrust but don't want two terriers.

The Bobcat is comparable to original engines, it produces ASL thrust quite cost-effectively and is a different power - for if you want 400kN rather than 240 or 650.

The Mastodon has one of those "worse and more expensive" deals going on. It's okay in Sandbox because who cares, but a frugal career player would probably use other engines instead.

The Kodiak has identical stats to the Reliant, except is more expensive. In practice, it produces ever so slightly (around 0.5%) more thrust ASL, and it produces 2-5x as much drag which tidily negates all the thrust advantage and then some. The nice thing to say is the Reliant is a fantastically good engine (other than lack of Gimbal) so even though Kodiak is worse than Reliant and so there's literally no reason to use it, it's still better than many other engines.

Edited by blakemw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has someone tried to include the Porkjet's legacy as alternative to the stock parts using the new switching options?

Edited by ndiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wolfhound and Skiff stats seem to be swapped. if you look at the thrust and ISPs it's pretty obvious they're using the wrong models.

Try using Wolfhounds on S2 and S3. Then use the Skiff on the Service Module...

Share this post


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.