Why not make Engines upgradeable ?

[Sirad]

16 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

This idea has more potential. However I don't like it much either. It would take the KSP "Lego" approach one level down: we wouldn't be rocket designers anymore, we'd be rocket engine designers. This would introduce a lot of complexity to an already highly complex game as well as changing its character quite a lot.

So this one I'd file under terrific ideas for mods, but not so much for base KSP.

Rocket designers ? Guess how long any engine gets tested/designed/redesigned right before it will be used for eh... 5 Minutes at best ? Well....

Erm... if that is too complex for someones playing style, He is free to stay with the basic configuration that would most likely represent the actual standard Engine values. So there is an Auto-Dumb-Down function built into it by NOT using the possibility to change out Engine parts. In That case both Players would be satisfied. In Your preferred case only you get satisfied. Good for you but there are more....

Quite any choice is possible. Maybe some Players only want 1 Part Fit-em-all-Rockets to play with ? No issue. they can mod them into the game. Missing complexity is not easy to get into the game. Dumbing it down is easyer. As i already stated: To much complexity can be safely ignored by not using it. So even all the naysayers will have their fair share of it.

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Sirad

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Sirad said:

Erm... if that is too complex for someones playing style

I wasn't thinking only about complexity in play, but also complexity in implementation. If you split engines into parts that means lots of new parts. It's not trivial to implement, debug, and playtest. Star Theory is a small team with limited time and budget, and I would much prefer that they focused on getting the core game right, then getting interstellar and colonisation right, and then maybe look at other stuff they might want to add.

 I'm not categorically against the idea of customisable engines, in fact I'd certainly enjoy tuning them -- but not at the expense of other more important stuff.

[Terwin]

13 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

Further, with good design you can actually make a system that is even more accessible to new players than the current one. There's no need to even expose stats like TWR, ISP and dV and make players use them in order to design successful missions. And none of this is hard to implement - all you're really doing is adding different 3d models and adjusting part stats.

So tell me, how does combustion chamber geometry affect the thrust, durability, maximum compression ratio, usable ignition sources, and fuel flow?

How much regenerative cooling do you need to have for a given engine bell material and and how does this change when you have super-chilled fuel?

How does the rocket nozzle shape and length affect isp for different combustion pressures?

How does blow-back from landing and take-off on unimproved surfaces affect the functioning of your engine?  What if you make the bell thicker or thinner?

How much ablator do you need for an ablativley cooled nozzle?  How does that affect engine pressure, isp, and fuel flow over time?

How fuel or oxygen rich does your mix need to be for a given combustion chamber material to not melt?  How does the choice of oxidizer or fuel rich affect isp and thrust?

What is the combustion chamber pressure for a given rate of fuel flow, and will that cause it to explode?

What percentage of your fuel should be burned by the turbo-pump and how does that affect the reliability of your engine?

What materials can you use in your turbo-pump for a given fuel mixture, and how does that change if you scale the pump up or down?

How much can you throttle a given turbopump before it stalls?

How much can you throttle a given combustion chamber before it goes out?  starts burning fuel in the pipes? explodes?

 

If you add realistic rocket engine design to a game, then that aspect will pretty much consume the rest of the game, as even the complexity of a KSP grand-tour pales in comparison.

 

If you want a rocket-engine-design game, that's fine, but I would rather not pay ten times as much and get a game that needs twenty times as much processing power for that one functionality.

 

(ksp can only be as simple as it is because we do not have realistic engines.  We have practically indestructible things that can support an entire rocket on a single vacuum-optimized nozzle with infinite restart and throttling, and it will not tear your ship apart if you have an over-expanded nozzle, use it as a heat-shield or try to take off after landing in a rock-strewn field which should have riddled your entire vessel with bullet-like ricocheted debris.  None of that stuff could be ignored if you were designing the engines however, so all of it would need to be in the game as well)

 

[Sirad]

12 minutes ago, Terwin said:

So tell me, how does combustion chamber geometry affect the thrust, durability, maximum compression ratio, usable ignition sources, and fuel flow?

 

 

Dont forget to add the Input of any Kerbal Worker of the 150.000 that are actually working at the Space Program and the impact of any given Stat of their Family, Education and actual Motivation to the success of the ongoing launch. Anyone mind Temperature, Wind, Air Pressure, actual manufacturing Quality of external supporters ? Hmm. Even Kerbol adds some DV to the side of the rocket that is shed by light..... And that is affected by the colour of the Rocket...

Well there are many ways to make a good idea complicated. The way is just somewhere between that.

[sh1pman]

6 minutes ago, Terwin said:

How fuel or oxygen rich does your mix need to be for a given combustion chamber material to not melt?  How does the choice of oxidizer or fuel rich affect isp and thrust?

No sane person would ever want to run the main combustion chamber oxygen-rich. It significantly lowers both Isp and thrust, because the exhaust gases are heavier. Real engines all run fuel-rich to some degree. 

[Terwin]

44 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

No sane person would ever want to run the main combustion chamber oxygen-rich. It significantly lowers both Isp and thrust, because the exhaust gases are heavier. Real engines all run fuel-rich to some degree. 

This is KSP, because different engines need different ratios, someone will want to try running an oxygen-rich cluster in the middle of a fuel-rich cluster to try for an after-burner effect.

It would need to be modeled in KSP especially because no sane person would do it in the real world.

 

47 minutes ago, Sirad said:

Well there are many ways to make a good idea complicated. The way is just somewhere between that.

If all you want is select sea-level/vacuum bells and engine size (0.65m, 1.25m, 2.5m, or 3.75m), then you should already be pretty much covered with the stock engines, and perhaps 1-2 mod engines to fill in gaps.

But you were talking about pumps, bells, and nozzles.  If we are not using the 'magic' ksp pumps then throttle-depth is one of the things you would use to choose a pump.  Nozzle selection would be reliant on what will or will not melt for a given fuel ratio, the type of cooling involved(if any), and how long the engine could burn with that nozzle/cooling before it started to melt.

Bells could be strictly limited to sea-level/vacuum, but any more depth than that and you get into some really sticky problems.  

 

In short, unless you want to get into serious engineering trade-offs in engine design, you are probably better off just using stock engines, with a few modded engines for any gaps you happen to find.  We do have kerbolized versions of most of the engines that have seen serious usage, if I remember correctly.   So unless you want to get down into the weeds, any engine design you want to try is probably either already present, or nearly so.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Terwin

[coyotesfrontier]

On 9/9/2019 at 10:27 AM, DoctorDavinci said:

Hmmmm, tell that to the Whiplash and the Juno jet engines .... I'm sure the Juno will feel better knowing that it is just as good as a Whiplash

Juno is still highly useful due to it's 0.625 form factor, no other jet is that small. Whiplash has a lower mass, cost, and higher fuel efficiency then the Rapier, and is good for atmospheric, non-spaceplane vehicles when high thrust or max speed is needed. The only useless part I can think of is the not-rockomax micronode, which is almost always outclassed by 4 octostruts attached around a single one, but that's a single part in a sea of useful ones.

[Concodroid]

Honestly, I'd just suggest changing specific values (more thrust for less efficiency, etc) but not something that can be upgraded. 

 

Or if it is, it's purely cosmetic.

 

Different thrust colors.

[Klapaucius]

On 9/10/2019 at 2:27 AM, DoctorDavinci said:

Hmmmm, tell that to the Whiplash and the Juno jet engines .... I'm sure the Juno will feel better knowing that it is just as good as a Whiplash

Well it is actually, for what it is needed for.  It was the perfect engine for this little plane:

https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Roald

Is a General Electric GE90 (which powers the 777) a better engine than a Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 (which powers the F-22)?  The question is meaningless because they serve two entirely different purposes.

[DoctorDavinci]

1 minute ago, Klapaucius said:

Well it is actually, for what it is needed for.  It was the perfect engine for this little plane:

https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Roald

Is a General Electric GE90 (which powers the 777) a better engine than a Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 (which powers the F-22)?  The question is meaningless because they serve two entirely different purposes.

Perhaps reading further ... yet another person

That makes 4 people, will we have more ... I bet we will so Imma keep score

Back to your regular programming

[Klapaucius]

1 minute ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Perhaps reading further ... yet another person

That makes 4 people, will we have more ... I bet we will so Imma keep score

Back to your regular programming

My bad, should've read down the thread more before commenting. Still, you kind of painted  target on your head with that one.

15 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

(Rather amusingly you picked as your comparison one of the two engines I find least useful in the entire game, the other one being the Panther... but obviously each of them has its niche too, it's just that I don't like to build the kinds of planes that need them much.)

 

The Panther has probably the best acceleration (from a standing start) of any of them up to about 300 m/s, but lacks the top speed of the Whiplash--which does way better above 400 m/s.  While I often turn it off, it also has the most radical gimbaling. Those two features make it perfect for stunt planes and general barnstorming.   I also paired Panthers and Whiplashes on this plane (https://kerbalx.com/Klapaucius/Shirley-high-performance-drag-and-distance-racer) for my own drag race challenge. The combination makes for brutally fast acceleration up to 1000 ms/. 

[DoctorDavinci]

26 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

My bad, should've read down the thread more before commenting. Still, you kind of painted  target on your head with that one

Yet on the other hand the ones taking a shot at the target have demonstrated their lack of understanding the context in which I made the statement ... Instead they lashed out trying to prove me wrong with details when the statement was made in jest

Funny how that works ... I guess they have something to prove

Anyways, off topic ... now back to your regular programming 

Edited September 10, 2019 by DoctorDavinci

[boolybooly]

I like the idea personally and mentioned similar in a previous post.

I have seen similar mechanics in other games, where research goes towards designing custom creations before making them. It creates a sense of manufacturing to add a preparatory step to the design process. 

IMHO it would be nice to be able to develope a line of engines and better still if it depended on the quality of your Kerbal scientists e.g. Its something which crops up repeatedly that I use an engine with a smaller shroud than the fuel tank diameter, it would be nice to resize an engine and change its native diameter as well as proportional thrust characteristics. It would also be nice to be able to make marginal improvements, like to ISP or shave mass off, by changing materials used since new resources are supposed to be a thing in KSP2. 

I don't think sharing is a reason not to do it. The same logic applies to sharing designs in career for which the tech is not unlocked, you cannot build it period. Shared designs would either be buildable in sandpit or not in career if the part was not unlocked. In fact an improved part might become a sharable blueprint which become a researchable research target if you have the scientists to do it, which could add a big incentive to sharing.

Edited September 10, 2019 by boolybooly

[Sirad]

Well

There goes more energy in pulling out the hair from a good suggestion than i thought of. I hopefully think that those who want KSP2 only a Boring Copy of KSP1 because everything else would change their prefferred gameplay to much, will not make their way into the coders minds. There is always something that gets added what anyone dont likes. Any addition can be ignored but something thats not in it, can not enter the reality of the game by missing it.

If i see it from my Point of view, there is also no need to put in Fairytale-Engines or similar fantasy stuff to Push a rocket. But hey, im totally free to ignore it and there is noone that forces me to use it. There is therefore no need for me to call myself more than one Person as 'we' and 'us' and tell others how this game should be played and what should not enter its possibilities. Even the fantastic engines can made modular. Whatever. The game lives from its possibilitys. If the naysayers want to limit the possibilities of gameplay for others, i can only hope that this is not the way the Company sees it.

KSP2 has to be something new and not just a bland copy of KSP1 and any suggestion should be welcome...

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Sirad

[Guest]

7 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

That makes 4 people, will we have more ... I bet we will so Imma keep score

Just a suggestion, maybe edit or add a note to that message since it was so obviously badly phrased?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Lu K. said:

My understanding is that KSP2 will be AAA

Not even close, Star Theory is a small team and the game is on a tight schedule and budget. It’s not as shoestring as KSP1 was but it’s still very much a niche/indie game.

[DoctorDavinci]

4 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Just a suggestion, maybe edit or add a note to that message since it was so obviously badly phrased?

Still beating a dead horse?

[Sirad]

8 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

if it results in funny results and/or explosions.

 

Yesssssssssss. Gimme more explosions!

[Guest]

Just now, DoctorDavinci said:

Still beating a dead horse?

Nah it’s just that this is creating a continuous distraction in the thread.

Since you clearly prefer being misunderstood to correcting the misunderstanding at the root, I’ll certainly let it drop. Carry on, my good Renaissance doctor

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lu K. said:

The only distraction here is these continuous attempts to hijack and derail a good discussion topic.

Fair enough. I’ll leave you to it. If Star Theory doesn't do this (and I don’t think they will) maybe one of you will make a mod of it.

[DoctorDavinci]

22 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Nah it’s just that this is creating a continuous distraction in the thread.

Hmmm, I seem to not be the one creating the distraction by repeatedly beating a dead horse

22 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Since you clearly prefer being misunderstood to correcting the misunderstanding at the root, I’ll certainly let it drop. Carry on, my good Renaissance doctor

Since you clearly like to tell people what to do I shall bid you adieu ... and as an aside, I have already clarified the context of my statement (a couple times) let alone it should be quite clear when reading it that it was said in jest

That is unless a person has the affinity for speaking to inanimate objects in the hope of making said inanimate object feel better 

Anyways, back to your regular programming

22 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

a good discussion topic.

Yes, it is ... lots of good ideas have come from this thread

Edited September 11, 2019 by DoctorDavinci

[Sirad]

28 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Yes, it is ... lots of good ideas have come from this thread

Yes. Even if my initial idea fell of the Table quite quick, i really like the idea of having an assortment of Engines that can be configured/extended/reduced whatever.

Adds much to the testing and optimizing if one wants. As i mentioned, anyone would be free to ignore that feature and fly with default parameters. Like driving in GTA5, you can choose to pick up a car and crash/explode anywhere you like. You can mod the car prior to explode or not. The Fun is the same--- And the outcome is the same. Police (or kraken) shows up and start to chase you anyhow...

Edited September 11, 2019 by Sirad

[Klapaucius]

14 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

This idea has more potential. However I don't like it much either. It would take the KSP "Lego" approach one level down: we wouldn't be rocket designers anymore, we'd be rocket engine designers. This would introduce a lot of complexity to an already highly complex game as well as changing its character quite a lot.

So this one I'd file under terrific ideas for mods, but not so much for base KSP.

 

Hmm. I actually like this idea. In essence, it is what we are doing now in the Breaking Ground DLC with props.  We don't get a prop engine out of the box like Simple Planes, rather we have to construct it.  You are correct that we would need to achieve a balance between too much detail, but there is huge potential in the idea.

What if it is something as simple as:  New Elephant Engine (making this up.) has TWR of X and consumes Y fuel per minute.  After doing more research, you can now bolt on a new part called the Supercharged Kerfficiency Aerospace Module (SKAM). Adding the part gives a 10% boost in efficiency and a 5% boost in power.  By keeping it as separate parts, that should still allow for sharing, which I do think is very important.

 

3 hours ago, Sirad said:

Well

There goes more energy in pulling out the hair from a good suggestion than i thought of. I hopefully think that those who want KSP2 only a Boring Copy of KSP1 because everything else would change their prefferred gameplay to much, will not make their way into the coders minds. There is always something that gets added what anyone dont likes. Any addition can be ignored but something thats not in it, can not enter the reality of the game by missing it.

....

KSP2 has to be something new and not just a bland copy of KSP1 and any suggestion should be welcome...

 

Actually, I think you have generated a good discussion. I've seen @Brikoleur's comments on a lot of posts, and he is not someone who just dismisses stuff out of hand.  What I see here is a back and forth and some evolving ideas on how to solve your initial issue while taking into account the needs of other players.  The more I think about it, the more I think there is something to this. It is just a case of getting the implementation right.

 

There is perhaps also room for doing a lot more with the advanced tweakables.

 

PS. Sorry for contributing to the off-topic discussion. Perhaps post asking a moderator to clear out the off-topic material so the thread can stay focused on your original point?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Actually, I think you have generated a good discussion. I've seen @Brikoleur's comments on a lot of posts, and he is not someone who just dismisses stuff out of hand.  What I see here is a back and forth and some evolving ideas on how to solve your initial issue while taking into account the needs of other players.  The more I think about it, the more I think there is something to this. It is just a case of getting the implementation right.

I didn't dismiss this out of hand either, I think it's a good idea -- I'm just less convinced that it belongs in the base game. It's already a quite a lot of work to build craft, if on top of that we would be building the engines, would it make for too much work? I honestly can't say. 

The main reason I wouldn't want to push for this in the base game is design and implementation effort on Star Theory's side. To make this work and make it fun is a big effort, comparable to, say, the Breaking Ground DLC although perhaps not quite that big. They have a lot on their plate already. 

(It could also be a DLC though. It's a nice idea for it, expanding the scope and possibilities of the base game while meshing nicely with it.)

[Sirad]

36 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

PS. Sorry for contributing to the off-topic discussion. Perhaps post asking a moderator to clear out the off-topic material so the thread can stay focused on your original point?

Well, my original Point was using Science Points to upgrade engines. This holds many obstacles not easy to overcome. By others who gave their 5 Cents to it it evolved. I just gave the car a shove and its running down the hill now. Actually i would think about an assortment of engines (not all, but some) that can be modified by adding some modules to it (one suggestion) or swap out parts (other suggestion) maybe 3,4,5 or 6 Different parts so there is a balance between complexity and playability. No need to add all Thousands of things that are Part of an engine to it to make it fun.

We have this game right now. Anyone ever Planned where to Place the Nozzles for the Orientation management for your Space station ? A lot of prior thinking has to be invested to build a good Space station actually in ksp1, so deep complexity already entered the game....

There has to be a balance between 'usability' and 'complexity' and there has to be the possibility to NOT use it if you dont want it.

Something like a Engine that has a basic configuration that represents the generic ISP etc. of the Current engines. You can Mod it with additional Parts if you research the needed Points/Parts in the Tech tree. Like swapping out the generic Turbo Pump with another one that has 5% more Pressure by having the disadvantage of having 10% more weight. So any Part could have a Bonus on one Side and a Drawback onto another side. HOW it is implemented (if this idea is worth implementing, what is in any case not OUR decision) is upon the Team that writes the code. If you make it short you dont even need any 3-D Modeling for the modules, the engines can have checkboxes like the way they have the gimbal Checkbox if the 'Other Pump' gets available. This way you could instantly see what comes out your modification. Actually you can modify the Engines already a lot. Gimbal yes no and gimbal range.

The idea has Potential (from my Point of view) and This wont shorten the fun for others because you can safely ignore it if you want to Play old style.

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Sirad