SQUAD

A "KSP Loading..." Preview: O-10 "Puff" MonoPropellant Fuel Engine Revamp

Recommended Posts

Developed by Reaction Systems Ltd, the O-10 “Puff” is the only monopropellant reaction engine with throttle control, making it a favorite among players. As part of our efforts to modernize the part catalogue, the art team took up the task of sprucing up this engine for the upcoming 1.7 update. With new textures, including a  new emissive texture for the throttle animation, the “Puff” looks better than ever. 

tumblr_inline_pmgrl2CV1i1rr2wit_540.png

Click here for the high-res images

There’s more coming, so stay tuned!

  • Like 24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, Looks almost the same but much better in the same way. Plus that emissive looks great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting rework.
But to make Monoprop actually usefull, we would need a few more engines or even just an engine which ISP wasn't as bad as SRBs

Edited by GrandProtectorDark
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solid improvement! The model looks a bit crisper and more refined, did it change any? or is that accomplished entirely with texture work?

My only real complaint is that the opportunity wasn't taken to make it more friendly to surface mounting, like making the side it attaches on different. I've always had problems trying to surface mount this engine in a reasonable way without just resorting to all sorts of clipping.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks great, but will we also get a varient we can properly place at the end of a tank with a node?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the new look of it, much less "goofy" and much more... better. Still won't be using this thing since I don't build tiny stuff but nice for those who do use it.

Now if only the motor wheels could get some love too, the biggest ones having the biggest problems. Seriously why are they designed to look like near indestructible monsters with huge suspension travel when the suspension travel is in fact abysmal and they break ALL. THE. TIME. when used to transport stuff across slightly uneven terrain? Hint: planets and moons have uneven terrain, so the wheels are useless pretty much everywhere ever if you want a base to move more than 200m. Would be nice if I could end my criticism there but no, their design is also a giant half Square while almost everything we can stick them to is Round, we usually either have to clip them (which is not only causing some players skin to crawl but is the equivalent of deploying 30 crates of Kraken lures) or get stuck with a goofy looking joke of a mobile base. With wheels of such large diameter the entire motor and suspension setup could be mounted inside the wheel instead, very similar to how the TR-2L looks but you simply increase the diameter of the tire and make the wheel U shaped where the sides of the U are the outsides of the wheel and inside the hollow is where you put the motor and suspension. Since the biggest wheels "shouldn't" be steerable there is no need to hold them ridiculously far out from the structure, when a wide wheelbase is needed I'm sure players are perfectly capable of adding other extruding parts to put the wheels on. The ability to swivel a whole base on the spot is just about the only strong point of the current wheels but adding another version of the large wheels that actually Can steer properly would surely be much appreciated by many players, if their speed and stress capacity is similar to the fixed wheels they can also be mixed and matched on the same mobile base for epic visual winning and improved functionality.

Sorry for going on a major rant but I have HATED the XL3 wheels since the first moment I tried using them years ago and they've disappointed me countless times since, they look awful and perform awful but are the only option for moving anything of any slightly large size, aside from rockets and mining. If parts are being revamped left and right anyway just please DO something about these abominations. I'm also still waiting for a huge parts pack DLC, one less based on real world counterparts and more based on player freedom. I groan every time some nitpicker goes ape over the rivets on some obscure rocket part instead of just letting creative parts exist so those of us who don't give a rats tail about the real world can create interesting and beautiful things to put in wildly improbable locations. Before someone tells me I should download mods: I don't want mods and I don't want you telling me I should get them, you play your way I play my way. I want to PAY for a wide selection of parts and Contribute Funds for the future of KSP, as it stands the game can't possibly still be generating enough revenue to keep the studio healthy for much longer. Whether it has ever been healthy is subject to interpretation but you get the point, for all my harsh words I still love KSP and the creators who made it happen, I'm just very worried about the current direction and speed of development. Getting a publisher often means having more wriggle room with funding but when they eventually lose patience they come down HARD on underperforming studios.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's okay, but i'm waitnig for mammoth engine :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good! Very similar to the original but sharpened up a bit :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why's the emmisive just flat glowing red? The bigger the area it covers the more it should gradient from red to yellow to white otherwise the emmissive just shouldn't get that broad and that bright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I question whether monoprop would actually get hot enough to cause the metal to glow red.

Other than that, I like the new model

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The model like really nice.

The engine itself... Well I can't say as I don't think I've ever used it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I question whether monoprop would actually get hot enough to cause the metal to glow red.

Good thinking. But what temperature is needed to make it glow? 

"hydrazine decomposes on contact with the catalyst. The decompositionis highly exothermic and produces a 1000 °C (1800 °F) gas" (according to Wikipedia). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

The engine itself... Well I can't say as I don't think I've ever used it.

I tried it thinking that using a command pod as a fuel tank might be an advantage, but there's not nearly enough in there to get anywhere.

Share this post


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

Now if only the motor wheels could get some love too

I second that. Rovers and science in general should get more love.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

The engine itself... Well I can't say as I don't think I've ever used it.

4 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

I tried it thinking that using a command pod as a fuel tank might be an advantage, but there's not nearly enough in there to get anywhere.

I found it highly useful as an SSTO VTOL engine in munar gravity and lower. Less risk of a tailstrike from not turning horizontal quickly enough prior to ground contact, not to mention less of a risk of using up too much LF during the approach, nor do you have to lug around oxidizer if you're flying with nukes. Descend on main engines until you get to about 100 m/s, then turn horizontal and switch to the Puffs. Monoprop is heavy, yes, but you use most of it up during the landing and can burn the rest on takeoff in a vertical ascent to gain room and time for flipping vertical and lighting the main engines, which means you don't have to lug it around anymore on your way upwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I question whether monoprop would actually get hot enough to cause the metal to glow red.

I imagine people can go back and forth about that all day debating engine design, size, propellant choice, etc but to me the glow regardless of if it should be there should look nice which it presently does not.

In order to not look like "my first emissive animation" it either needs more color variation as you progress towards the hottest parts or the glowing area needs to be much smaller so that there is little to no pure red area.

Edited by passinglurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Good thinking. But what temperature is needed to make it glow? 

"hydrazine decomposes on contact with the catalyst. The decompositionis highly exothermic and produces a 1000 °C (1800 °F) gas" (according to Wikipedia). 

 Interesting, I was not aware of that fact. However, it's it only glow after prolonged combustion. Maybe that's already taken into account, I haven't seen the model in action.

Share this post


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

Good thinking. But what temperature is needed to make it glow? 

"hydrazine decomposes on contact with the catalyst. The decompositionis highly exothermic and produces a 1000 °C (1800 °F) gas" (according to Wikipedia). 

Black body, which is simplification enough for this case, radiates visibly slightly above 500 °C with a dull red glow. 1000 °C is perfectly enough for a nice orange glow.

And monopropellants in contact with catalysts get very, very hot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, my going assumption is that RCS is simply operated on tank pressure, where the Puff is using a catalyst. this explains the thrust and Isp increase, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

But to make Monoprop actually usefull, we would need a few more engines or even just an engine which ISP wasn't as bad as SRBs

I believe monopropellant engines in real-life are less efficient as well compared to bipropellants, but the advantage to me is the single resource requirement for both propulsion and attitude control, just like using Vernors permits using just LF+O for propulsion, attitude control, plus fuel cell power generation.

Having said that, I wish the Vernor models were smaller and less cumbersome to emplace, like the Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS port.

6 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

Looks great, but will we also get a varient we can properly place at the end of a tank with a node?

Yes please ^  This is my main complaint if you want to use just a single O-10 engine; aligning it with the center-of-mass can be difficult with the precision that is required.

Edited by Raptor9
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how this upgrade didn't completely change the character of the engine! Emissives definitely a bit much on there though.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lupi said:

Yeah, my going assumption is that RCS is simply operated on tank pressure, where the Puff is using a catalyst. this explains the thrust and Isp increase, doesn't it?

a cold gas propelled reaction control system would have an isp in the double digits. All kerbal rcs and monoprop engines should be assumed to be catalyzed just based on thier minimal performance. ISP is more easily explained by expansion ratio and unseen assumptions like chamber pressure and scale

Edited by passinglurker
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Why's the emmisive just flat glowing red? The bigger the area it covers the more it should gradient from red to yellow to white otherwise the emmissive just shouldn't get that broad and that bright.

If monoprop decomposition generates a 1000C hot gas, then it makes sense that the glow is red or slightly orange.

412px-Example_incandescence_colors_(temp

Edited by sh1pman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good revamp.I like it. It stays true to the original design while nicely adding some flair.

While everyone is arguing over the emmisive textures, I wonder - has the thrust vector been adjusted so that it points straight down like it has been done with the Twitch? Considering this thruster is pretty inefficient compared to LFO ones, you should be getting as much DV as possible. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

If monoprop decomposition generates a 1000C hot gas, then it makes sense that the glow is red or slightly orange.

 

sure at the hottest point but be it for physics or aesthetic it should taper off rapidly from that  point. my issue isn't so much the choice of color but rather the amount of area covered by a single color. If they want to cover a lot of area with a glow then it would need to transition from one color to another as you go from coldest to hottest, or alternately if they only want the dull red they need to be more constrained with it or it'll just look amateurish. Also on the inside of the engine bell a case could be made for whiting out the center with something a lot hotter looking than dull red.

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