Why not make Engines upgradeable ?

[Sirad]

10 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

What about an "engine design building" (basically a static fire test block) similar to the VAB/BAE where you can put together your engine from individual components and test it to see if it works and how it performs, or just blows up.

You would have options for different nozzle shapes and sizes and materials, different injector types, different turbopumps, plumbing setups for the combustion cycle, etc, along with all the exotic interstellar options which might have to be tested on a space station or a planet without an atmosphere.

 

Hm i must admit that i start to drool over the thought of it.... :-)

eh... anyway. Badges must be given then by KSP2 for: Biggest Engine Test Explosion, most Kerbals killed while exploding, etc....

[Klapaucius]

55 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

What about an "engine design building" (basically a static fire test block) similar to the VAB/BAE where you can put together your engine from individual components and test it to see if it works and how it performs, or just blows up.

You would have options for different nozzle shapes and sizes and materials, different injector types, different turbopumps, plumbing setups for the combustion cycle, etc, along with all the exotic interstellar options which might have to be tested on a space station or a planet without an atmosphere.

This would offer a more interesting upgrade path as you'd start off with cheap components that might fail or perform badly (maybe your nozzle overheats and vaporises on a long burn), and over time move towards better performing and more expensive components.

Of course there would be preset designs to help new players.

Because the thing is that you don't always want optimum performance - as with the SpaceX Merlin, it's made to be cheap and easy to refurbish rather than perform at peak efficiency and cost a lot.

This puts R&D more in the hands of the player and wouldn't require science points - it's more like DIY research Kerbal style, limited by your budget and the amount of time you are willing to spend fiddling around on the test block.

 

I think an engine design building would make an excellent DLC, though probably too much for the base game.   Nate Simpson says he hopes KSP2 will have a long lifespan, so once the base game is released and kinks have been ironed out, there will be scope for addons.  I imagine DLCs will play a role there.

 

I do think there could be more limited tweaking in the base game itself.

[KerikBalm]

So a JPL DLC... I'm interested.

As to the main thread, its basically the KRnD mod, which is fun but OP.

Combined with Sigma Dimensions and scaling up the system, its alright.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

So a JPL DLC... I'm interested.

As to the main thread, its basically the KRnD mod, which is fun but OP.

Combined with Sigma Dimensions and scaling up the system, its alright.

You could all all kinds of stuff to that. Wind tunnel for example, to test craft aerodynamics under various conditions.

(It's a shame KSP2 won't be getting a better aero model, the stock one is unintuitive as well as being unrealistic. FAR is just better in every way, and unlike it's often made out to be, it's not even harder.)

[tseitsei89]

For me sharing crafts and attending different forum competitions has been a huge part of the game so I really like the idea that everyone has access to same pieces. So I'm not a big fan of this idea

[Klapaucius]

9 minutes ago, tseitsei89 said:

For me sharing crafts and attending different forum competitions has been a huge part of the game so I really like the idea that everyone has access to same pieces. So I'm not a big fan of this idea

Are you opposed to the original idea or are you referring to it being a DLC?

Edited September 11, 2019 by Klapaucius

[tseitsei89]

25 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:

Are you opposed to the original idea or are you referring to it being a DLC?

Well both pretty much, but I certainly dont want it to be in the base game...

EDIT: I also read through the thread quickly to see what ideas have been said about craft sharing and such. Pretty much the only proper idea I saw was just including the upgrades in the craft file but that is still bad IMO since everybody is no longer using the same part set. That is the main problem: I really like the idea of everyone having the same pieces to work with.

I mean, if I see a cool ship I want to replicate it and maybe try to improve it in some way. If I have different parts I obviously cant do that. Also I like forum challenges and there it is important that everyone is working with the same piece set.

Edited September 11, 2019 by tseitsei89

[Guest]

There were some suggestions that wouldn't have that problem though -- either make the tuning features tweakables on the engines or have engine components be part of the tech tree, and make it possible to assemble engines out of them just like we assemble craft. 

Those ideas are workable and if done well they could be a lot of fun. As stated though I think this would be better suited for a DLC or mod, because they expand on the base game (and also it's super important for Star Theory to be able to keep scope under control at this point, which they are -- there aren't going to be any robotics in KSP2 at launch either.)

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

not sure where you're coming from with this, or how it would even be possible for everyone to not be using the same parts?

upgrades just change stats, that's it.

Changing stats wreck designs.

[tseitsei89]

3 hours ago, Lu K. said:

not sure where you're coming from with this, or how it would even be possible for everyone to not be using the same parts?

upgrades just change stats, that's it.

Yeah... Changing stats of a part is essentially making it a different part. I mean if we both have an engine called Raptor for example but your Raptor has 350 ISP while mine only has 300 ISP, it is quite obvious that we have different parts. Your Raptor designs will not work with my part set because our parts are different and have different capabilities.

4 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

There were some suggestions that wouldn't have that problem though -- have engine components be part of the tech tree, and make it possible to assemble engines out of them just like we assemble craft. 

This would be fine because then we would all still have the same pieces unlocked via tech tree. Our parts just wouldnt be whole engines but rather parts of engines. But if I make a craft with some parts and share that craft, it will work similarly for other players.

But then again I dont really see a need for that. It would give some more room for optimization which is good but might be quite complicated for new players. It is a question of how fine details we want to go to. I would be okay either way

Edited September 11, 2019 by tseitsei89

[Pecan]

On 9/9/2019 at 8:36 AM, Sirad said:

Why not making any engine Upgradeable ?

So you can invest some additional Science Points (lets say 100) to have 1% more ISP out of one Engine to choose ?

This could be a good sink of any unspent Science Points later on...

 

This was in fact originally intended by Squad when the science mode was introduced.  There was quite a fierce debate about it on this forum simply because it would make comparing and contrasting engines impossible, let alone sharing them.  Just look at how many questions are asked about craft design or engine choice every week.

For a start you'd have to give designs for people using sandbox versus science/career modes, then for those that have certain amounts of 'spare' science points AND want to spend them on certain design improvements.  Nevertheless it would, as you say, be an interesting and realistic feature.  The developers themselves thought so and, regardless, of course you're allowed to suggest whatever you want.