SQUAD

A "KSP Loading..." Preview: The Rockomax RE-L10 “Poodle” Engine Revamp

Recommended Posts

Just now, Tw1 said:

It's not awful, but it's barely recognizable as a poodle engine any more. At least the spark still had some of its orange middle bit? I hope this doesn't carry across to the others, which all have their own unique look.

In fairness, the Poodle was not the best representation of an actual vacuum rated rocket engine.

  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it. The old poodle made no sense having a tiny nozzle for a high efficiency vacuum engine.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RoverDude said:

In fairness, the Poodle was not the best representation of an actual vacuum rated rocket engine.

Yeah, the nozzle was way too small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really not at all a fan. I don't like the red bells, I don't like the double-nozzle shape, I don't like the fact that it looks virtually nothing at all like the original in any way (though to be fair the original was the worst engine model in the game).  

I like that it is a more realistic engine design, but that's about it. This one is frankly a major letdown.

rockomax_poodle_liquid_fuel_engine_by_gr

Why not keep some of the original in it, while giving it a new use. The Poodle excels as a landing engine, so why not extend the tankbutt into a short fuselage to attach landing gear to? And the naked variant could have a spherical aspect to it as well.

rockomax_mainsail_liquid_fuel_engine_rev

(Also, the mainsail's design can still be salvaged as a realistic engine without changing its appearance too much.)

You're not revamping these parts, you're replacing them. There's nothing except for the height of the engine that is the same visually between the new and old Poodles, and while the original was not good, I don't like this replacement either. I might change my mind if the color scheme were changed--a gray nozzle with orange or yellow plumbing to fit with the traditional Rockomax style. But even so I don't like that the engine has been split into two--I understand why it was done, but it just doesn't look right. A quad-engine might even look better than double, but it's not impossible to fit a single nozzle into the space of the Poodle, as Ven's Stock Revamp shows nicely, after all, what matters most isn't nozzle length, but expansion ratio.

Edited by GregroxMun
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tw1 said:

It's not awful, and I do like the logical nozzle change, but it's barely recognizable as a poodle engine any more. At least the spark still had some of its orange middle bit? I hope this doesn't carry across to the others, which all have their own unique look.

Old version had completely unrealistic model, huge combustion chamber and tiny nozzle. There’s not much to carry over, it really needed a complete remake. Color scheme wasn’t interesting either.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SQUAD said:

This veteran engine was originally based off the Payload Assist Module (PAM)

No it wasn't. It was based off a simplified diagram I had found of rocket engine operation - for some reason, they had drawn it as a huge spherical combustion chamber with a small nozzle attached, and I found it endearing, and the poodle ended up based on it.

 

15 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Old version had completely unrealistic model, huge combustion chamber and tiny nozzle. There’s not much to carry over, it really needed a complete remake. Color scheme wasn’t interesting either.

I don't remember specifically what the idea for the internals was at the time (there was not a lot of rocket science knowledge to go around on the team back then, so there probably wasn't much of an idea), but at least now I picture the internals being like the cross section GregroxMun showed, with the bell hidden inside a shroud of sorts.

 

 

As for the size of it overall, a big part of that had been the provided requirement that it be short and squat for purposes of sticking to the bottom of landers. The LV-909 had the same restriction

Edited by NovaSilisko
  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s named after RL-10 but looked nothing like it, and now we’ll be able to make (sort of) realistically looking (and performing) Centaur upper stage with a pair of RL-10s! 

1323px-Centaur_rocket_stage.jpg

Edited by sh1pman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed that when porkjet was going to replace the old poodle with the multi nozzle one, everyone was singing praises about it.

 

Now it's happened everyone is saying a multi nozzle poodle is wrong.

 

Edit: Still hoping engines which fill the role of the LV-T15 and LV-303 make it into the game.

 

iINdJyL.jpg

Edited by Frozen_Heart
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

It’s named after RL-10 but looked nothing like it, and now we’ll be able to make (sort of) realistically looking (and performing) Centaur upper stage with a pair of RL-10s! 

The Poodle originally had no letter-designation, only a name: Rockomax "Poodle" Liquid Fuel Engine. The "RE-L10" was added when names for designated engines and designations to named engines were added to all the engines in 1.0. Actually making it look more like a Centaur stage would endear the two-nozzle design to me, but the Centaur has two separate engines or one engine, not one double-nozzle engine, and I think an RL-10 is a good possibility for the LV-909 Terrier. (Hydrogen rocket stages when?)

6 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I've noticed that when porkjet was going to replace the old poodle with the multi nozzle one, everyone was singing praises about it.

Now it's happened everyone is saying a multi nozzle poodle is wrong.

 

While I do love most of the engines proposed by Porkjet, I would like to point out that I didn't like the Poodle being multi-nozzle even back then. And I'd also like to point out that Porkjet is a much better modeller and texture artist, who could make any engine look fantastic.

Edited by GregroxMun
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

It’s named after RL-10 but looked nothing like it

It actually wasn't, originally. I'm fairly sure it used to just be "Rockomax Poodle" or somesuch

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

(Hydrogen rocket stages when?)

I want to see different fuels in stock too. Probably never happening though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to @NovaSilisko's prior work, I think this a good replacement. The height being the same is the most important detail to maintain in my opinion, and they did that. It looks a good compromise between crisp new modeling and texturing but not too much greebling. I'll take it.

The two bells do require a slight different opening when integrated tightly in craft/interstages than the current single bell (slot instead of hole), but it's a minor price to pay for an updated model.

I don't have anything against the chosen bell colour per sé, but being a part from the core game set, I would've preferred it to keep to the core game part look, instead of MH. Matter of preference though, and not all that important.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

What issues would you foresee?

I'm curious about what you're doing about the colliders here - are you adding a new 2-nozzle footprint or continuing on with the old one for max comparability.

In addition, considering you get a number of comments about shininess in each post - I might suggest looking into your render setup, a single key light would help bring out the spec a little more than the almost pure ambient you have going on there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The collider roughly follows the twin nozzles and engine outline vs. the old cylinder.  This will not be swapped in place, rather the old Poodle will be (eventually) deprecated.  The main consideration was not messing with the vertical height because it's a solid low-profile 2.5m vac engine and folks use it for landers quite a bit.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the large empty ring frame for this rework, I expected to see at least a 1.875m variant. It looks like it would be a tight fit, but should work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's certainly a big visual change.  Some will like it, some won't.

Aesthetics are always very subjective, and personally i was never a huge fan of the old Poodle in that respect anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

The collider roughly follows the twin nozzles and engine outline vs. the old cylinder.

What about gimballing? With 2 engine bells, there's now rotational control, right?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallelujah!!! Super excited for the new engine. I'd love to see more plumbing and gimbaling hardware, but this seems to follow the detail level of the MH engines. I personally like the reddish nozzle and really glad you found a way to keep the height comparable.

You know what would be really cool???

A compact version - you could rotate the second engine by 90 degrees, nest them together and end up with four engine bells in a cross shape  :D 

Alternatively just a single bell compact version with half the specs that you could cluster - you'd done all the modeling already, it would be a cinch to create a second part.

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as there is a fully covered mount (so I can hide the tanks that may stick out), I am good.

Share this post


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

Hallelujah!!! Super excited for the new engine. I'd love to see more plumbing and gimbaling hardware, but this seems to follow the detail level of the MH engines. I personally like the reddish nozzle and really glad you found a way to keep the height comparable.

You know what would be really cool???

A compact version - you could rotate the second engine by 90 degrees, nest them together and end up with four engine bells in a cross shape  :D 

Alternatively just a single bell compact version with half the specs that you could cluster - you'd done all the modeling already, it would be a cinch to create a second part.

52 minutes ago, Tonka Crash said:

With the large empty ring frame for this rework, I expected to see at least a 1.875m variant. It looks like it would be a tight fit, but should work.

21 minutes ago, Dark Lion said:

What about gimballing? With 2 engine bells, there's now rotational control, right?

In regard to compact variants, I'd direct you guys here:

3 hours ago, RoverDude said:

That's the single variant as of now.  With the gimbal range, things get a bit snug with all of the hardware, and the bells together take up about 2.1m of space.

As for roll control, if you look at the model, the gimbal hardware is for the assembly as a whole, with those hydraulic/pneumatic/whatever struts connecting the ring to the engine assembly, so probably no individual roll control on the nozzles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the new poodle, I don’t mind the colour, and I’m glad RD found a way to have realistic bells with the same low profile.  I will add that a shrouded variant makes sense on a lander IRL to protect the mechanicals from flying debris kicked up while landing. 

I rather like that I have my rusty-looking old mining scows (made from oil drums and old swimming pools) meeting up with sleek and shiny craft made from new, re-engineered parts 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dark Lion said:

What about gimballing? With 2 engine bells, there's now rotational control, right?

The engine frame rotates, not individual nozzles.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now