Merge new engines with existing engines when possible

[KerikBalm]

The new Kodiak engine is nearly identical in stats and functions to the LV-T30

The new mastadon engine is very close in stats, and nearly identical in function to the mainsail

The Wolfhound is OP'd but is essentially filling the same niche as the poodle (but better)

The Skiff is in a niche close to the skipper (seems to be an intermediate between the LV-T45 and the Skipper, although it completely outclasses the LV-T45).

When these engines have nearly the same stats, the differences are just cosmetic, they should just make use of the new variant switching mechanic and combine these with the "classic" parts.

Place an LV-T30? you can select the classic variant to have it look the way it does now, or select another variant to have it appear like the Kodiak.

Same thing with the Mainsail/Mastadon.

The Wolfhound? That is way OP'd, just make it a cosmetic variant of the poodle.

The Skiff? IMO it needs rebalancing (its actually got the best TWR in the game, and 330 vacuum Isp, but its got low thrust for its physical size) too. Make it a cosmetic variation of the Skipper (with the ability to have a 1.875m profile, and possible keeping the 330 vacuum Isp - which would apply to the classic skipper variant too).

Does anyone agree?

Does anyone disagree and feel like presenting their arguments?

[Foxster]

Umm, on balance I'd rather have the variety, especially as the different engines become available in different places on the tech tree. 

One reason some engines might appear to fill similar niches is that it is hard to get rid of or drastically alter older engines because of how it would break players' existing craft. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Foxster

[KerikBalm]

On some of the engines, I can agree (notice I said nothing about the bobcat and cheetah), but come on, lets compare the Kodiak and the Reliant

Mass: 1.25 tons

Vacuum Thrust: 240 kN

Isp at 1 atm: 265

Vacuum Isp: 305 vs 310

Gimbal? No

Alternator? Yes

These engines are nearly identical, the only difference is 5 vacuum Isp. They might as well simplify the parts list, and have these be variations of each other

The Mastadon vs Mainsail are very similar too, although not identical in every stat except one like the Kodiak/Reliant. This seems to me like it just clutters up the parts list.

For the Skiff and the wolfhound, I'll grant you that they are not nearly identical to engines that we already have, but I also think that they are rather poorly balanced. The skiffs balance problems aren't as immediately apparent... but it has a sea level TWR(24.6) better than the mainsail(23.5) and vector(23.9) and nearly equal to the Mammoth(25.5)/Mastadon (26.6)

- The problem being that its thrust to cross section ratio is one of the worst in the game because despite its size, there's only one 1.25m engine lighter than it (the 909)

In a vacuum, it has the highest TWR(30.6) in the game of any throttlable propulsion (ie, not SRBs, and SRBs only beat it when they are nearly empty). Its Vacuum Isp is only beat by dedicated vacuum engines/the aerospike/the Rhino if you don't consider that a dedicated vacuum engine.

IMO, both the skiff and wolfhound have serious balance problems, and I think they'd be better as variants of existing engines if squad were to start going that way with the reliant/kodiak and mainsail/mastadon.

[Snark]

On a technical note:  Variants (as currently implemented) can't change stats, at all.  They change the mesh of the part, and the associated connector nodes, but that's it.  So unless you're proposing that they be changed to be actually identical, then this won't work, at least not as currently implemented.

Of course, one could argue that the "variant" functionality could and/or should have been implemented differently so that it could do stats-switching as well.  Certainly, in principle that would be technically doable.  It's a non-trivial ask, though-- it would have ripple effects through a lot of the way the game is put together (such as the fact that the game statically assumes a particular set of config at load time when loading parts).  Changing the plumbing of KSP to have dynamic stats-switching of parts would be a fairly large feature to implement.

Not arguing they should or shouldn't do that, here.    Just pointing out that it's a thing.

I agree that in its current form, the Kodiak doesn't really offer anything new in terms of gameplay-- it's practically a Reliant clone.  Which is why I find that despite playing a lot of KSP with MH over the last month, I've never had occasion to use the Kodiak even once, ever-- why would I, the Reliant is exactly the same and is available several tech tiers lower.

Other than the Kodiak, though, the other engines do have some gameplay differences to distinguish them-- enough that I do, in fact, have occasion to use them.

• Skiff is distinct from Skipper in having less than half the thrust.  It's distinct from Reliant/Swivel in being significantly higher tech, in exchange for a better TWR and somewhat better Isp.  It's also distinct in that its minimum size is 1.875m, which affects where it can be placed on a rocket.
• Wolfhound has significantly different stats than a Poodle.
• I'll agree that the Mastodon seems somewhat over-similar to the Mainsail, but it's not quite an identical clone (in the sense that the Kodiak is basically just a Reliant clone).  The fact that it has the variant-switchable mesh means that it can be clustered in ways that the Mainsail can't.

My take on the engines:

• Kodiak:  I like the idea of adding a new 1.25m engine to the lineup, so I'm glad that there's an engine here... just that unfortunately the one that they've currently got, has stats making it practically indistinguishable from the Reliant.  My preference would be to keep the engine but tweak the stats somewhat to make it fill a different niche.  Perhaps make it a higher-TWR, low-Isp engine, useful for booster stages.  Give it an Isp curve similar to a Reliant's (perhaps slightly worse), but significantly higher thrust.
• Skiff:  I think this fills a pretty good ecological niche on its own, I'm pretty happy with it.
• Wolfhound:  I think there's room for a high-Isp vacuum engine with a different set of stats from the Poodle.  I like the Wolfhound, though I agree that its 412 Isp is overpowered-- I'm fine with it being a bit better than the Poodle, but not that much.  Would like to see it lowered to something like 360 or thereabouts.
• Mastodon:  A bit too similar to the Mainsail.  Ideally, I would have liked to see them just turn the Mainsail into a variant-enabled engine... except that I expect that would have been technically hard to do, in order to maintain backward compatibility and allow players who don't have Making History to continue to play with Mainsails.  So I don't begrudge them this one, too much, even though it does seem like a bit of a wart to me.

 

[KerikBalm]

36 minutes ago, Snark said:

On a technical note:  Variants (as currently implemented) can't change stats, at all.  They change the mesh of the part, and the associated connector nodes, but that's it.  So unless you're proposing that they be changed to be actually identical, then this won't work, at least not as currently implemented.

Indeed, that is what I am proposing... at least for the Kodiak and Mastadon.

Quote

I agree that in its current form, the Kodiak doesn't really offer anything new in terms of gameplay-- it's practically a Reliant clone.  Which is why I find that despite playing a lot of KSP with MH over the last month, I've never had occasion to use the Kodiak even once, ever-- why would I, the Reliant is exactly the same and is available several tech tiers lower.

Indeed, so since variant switching is supported even without MH, I don't see why they can't do something like they did for the rockomax tanks, and give us variant switching while maintaining backwards compatibility. Let players choose if their LV-T30 looks like it does now, or the kodiak

Quote

Other than the Kodiak, though, the other engines do have some gameplay differences to distinguish them-- enough that I do, in fact, have occasion to use them.

• Skiff is distinct from Skipper in having less than half the thrust.  It's distinct from Reliant/Swivel in being significantly higher tech, in exchange for a better TWR and somewhat better Isp.  It's also distinct in that its minimum size is 1.875m, which affects where it can be placed on a rocket.
• Wolfhound has significantly different stats than a Poodle.
• I'll agree that the Mastodon seems somewhat over-similar to the Mainsail, but it's not quite an identical clone (in the sense that the Kodiak is basically just a Reliant clone).  The fact that it has the variant-switchable mesh means that it can be clustered in ways that the Mainsail can't.

 I agree with you that the Skiff and Wolfhound are significantly different from the current engines. I'm not arguing that they are stat clones of existing engines like the Kodiak. I'm arguing that they are not well balanced, and are pretty OP compared to the other engines. If one adjusts their stats to make them not OP'd (like nerfing the Wolfhound Isp to 360), they'll be much less distinct (ie wolfhound 360 Isp vs poodle 350 Isp), and I think it would be just overall "cleaner" and would help avoid clutter of the part list if they were merged with existing engines, basically as cool looking cosmetic changes. In fact, I think the poodle looks pretty terrible for what it is supposed to be, and I wouldn't mind too much if its model was thrown out and replaced with the wolfhound model (although its short length is nice for some designs). 

As for the mastadon variant switchable mesh and clustering, that also applies to the poodle/wolfhound (the wolfhound works on a 1.875m stack). But if the only significant distinction here is due to one having variant switching, and the other not (with the other stats being very similar), then including one as a variant of the other seems like a good idea to me.

Instead of having:

Mainsail w/ 2.5 tankbutt,

and

Mastadon w/ 2.5m/1.875m/no tankbutt,

Have:

Mastadon w/ 2.5m/2.5m Classic/1.875m/no tankbutt  (classic = mainsail mesh)

Quote

• Skiff:  I think this fills a pretty good ecological niche on its own, I'm pretty happy with it.

I think its OP'd like the wolfhound. Its the highest TWR liquid fuel engine, while having a way better vacuum Isp than any engine with a TWR over 23:1

Compare it to the Rhino, already an excellent engine, 22.65 TWR and a vac Isp of 340. This thing comes in with a TWR over 30, and a vacuum Isp of 330

This things SEA LEVEL TWR beats everything's vacuum TWR except for the Mammoth/Vector and the Mainsail/Mastadon. When comparing its sea level TWR to other sea level TWR, then its only 2 LFO engines that beat it (mammoth/Mastadon).

Its only drawback, as I said before, its its low thrust:cross section area ratio. When that doesn't matter (ie vacuum conditions/Duna), its only competition is going to be the 412 Isp wolfhound.

Both of these engines will make single stage and back tylo landers trivial, for instance.

Quote

Ideally, I would have liked to see them just turn the Mainsail into a variant-enabled engine... except that I expect that would have been technically hard to do, in order to maintain backward compatibility and allow players who don't have Making History to continue to play with Mainsails.  So I don't begrudge them this one, too much, even though it does seem like a bit of a wart to me.

Well, as they did with the tanks, turning old parts into variant enabled parts while maintaining backwards compatibility can be done, and was done.

The question is if they can make MH restricted variants. I think they could have if they had planned to do this... if they could do it now? I'm not sure (although variants could be added with a MM patch, so if they incorporated module manager or module manager functionality into the base game, they surely could)

 

[Bill Phil]

A stage with a Wolfhound can actually have less delta V than a stage with a Poodle, since the Wolfhound is so much heavier. It certainly appears to be a launch engine...

[Aegolius13]

I would prefer things to go in the other direction -- more (and more balanced) differentiation from the existing engines.  I bought MH largely for new gameplay features.  It's a little lackluster in that department, but reducing new engines to just re-skins would only exacerbate that problem.  

I don't have a great idea on exactly what I'd like to see, but I think it would involve giving each engine a clearer niche.  E.g., maybe the Kodiak should be more efficient than the Reliant, but more expensive and higher tech--or vice versa.  

I guess some of the problem is that these engines were probably designed to work with replicas of the historical rockets, rather than to mesh well with the existing engines.  Kind of the same "realism vs. gameplay"  argument pervading the Skiff v. Wolfhound discussions.  And while the old engines could potentially be tweaked without upsetting any replica business, that might not sit well with non-MH players. 

7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

A stage with a Wolfhound can actually have less delta V than a stage with a Poodle, since the Wolfhound is so much heavier. It certainly appears to be a launch engine...

Gotta disagree with that last bit.  The Wolfhound doesn't have the TWR or atmospheric ISP to work well as a launch engine.  I think it's a vacuum engine, just optimized for bigger craft than a Poodle.

[klesh]

7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

...Wolfhound... It certainly appears to be a launch engine...

 

A launch engine with an atmospheric ISP of 70?  Really?

[Bill Phil]

41 minutes ago, Aegolius13 said:

Gotta disagree with that last bit.  The Wolfhound doesn't have the TWR or atmospheric ISP to work well as a launch engine.  I think it's a vacuum engine, just optimized for bigger craft than a Poodle.

 

20 minutes ago, klesh said:

A launch engine with an atmospheric ISP of 70?  Really?

Simple. Launch with SRBs strapped to the side of the core, and load up the core with Wolfhounds. Activate the Wolfhounds once at altitude or activate them on the ground with low Thrust setting, and then move it up as it goes on. Definitely better suited as a launch engine. I don't quite know the curve, but once you're a few kms up you regain a lot of ISP and thrust.

Just tested in-game. Worked flawlessly. 23 tonnes into LKO. For the record: the ISP of the Wolfhound exceeds the ISP of the Poodle at about 10 km in altitude. Still in atmo. Definitely a launch engine, albeit with assistance.

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Bill Phil

[Aegolius13]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

 

Simple. Launch with SRBs strapped to the side of the core, and load up the core with Wolfhounds. Activate the Wolfhounds once at altitude or activate them on the ground with low Thrust setting, and then move it up as it goes on. Definitely better suited as a launch engine. I don't quite know the curve, but once you're a few kms up you regain a lot of ISP and thrust.

Just tested in-game. Worked flawlessly. 23 tonnes into LKO. For the record: the ISP of the Wolfhound exceeds the ISP of the Poodle at about 10 km in altitude. Still in atmo. Definitely a launch engine, albeit with assistance.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "launch" engine without running it at high throttle from the start, but that's just a question of semantics.  I've done similar stuff with engines that are mediocre to poor at sea level, like the Swivel and Rhino.  

But I still don't see why the Wolfhound would NOT be just as good (or better) as a sustainer or vacuum engine.  Yeah, its thrust may be overkill for smaller spacecraft,  but that's true of the Poodle, or any engine for that matter.  Just a matter of fitting the right size engine for the right ship (or clustering Wolfhounds for the really big stuff).

[Bill Phil]

15 minutes ago, Aegolius13 said:

I'm not sure I'd call it a "launch" engine without running it at high throttle from the start, but that's just a question of semantics.  I've done similar stuff with engines that are mediocre to poor at sea level, like the Swivel and Rhino.  

But I still don't see why the Wolfhound would NOT be just as good (or better) as a sustainer or vacuum engine.  Yeah, its thrust may be overkill for smaller spacecraft,  but that's true of the Poodle, or any engine for that matter.  Just a matter of fitting the right size engine for the right ship (or clustering Wolfhounds for the really big stuff).

When I refer to a launch engine, I'm also referring to sustainers. A launch goes from the pad or landing site to a target orbit (which can intersect the ground).

It has too much weight for me to use it as a vacuum engine on a transfer stage (if I want loads of delta V I go with a nuclear engine using the LF only tanks) or general lander, but its performance is so good that launching (or using it as a sustainer) with it, or landing on and launching off Tylo, is a definite use.

The game can be played any number of ways, but to me it seems that the Wolfhound is much better suited to launching than anything else. Well, except for maybe Tylo missions.