Sirad

Why not make Engines upgradeable ?

Recommended Posts

If they were going to go down this route, my gut feeling is that you'd store the level of upgrade for each part in the craft file.

Downloaded/shared craft would only be usable if you have the levels of upgrade needed, similar to how it currently is with locked/unlocked parts.

In the editor, you'd be able to upgrade (maybe even downgrade!) individual parts, as well as have an option to upgrade all parts on the craft. (More or less treating upgrades as variants)

This would also avoid craft that have already been launched suddenly being magically better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lu K. said:

I'd rather get a lot more specific than that, similar to how the gran turismo series does car part upgrades. Separate engines into specific parts which can be changed or upgraded - turbopump, bell shape, combustion cycle, injector type, fuel type, etc etc. Then use a realistic model of how these choices affect engine stats. I want more focus and choice from my engines, not just these big things that you bolt onto a rocket and never think twice about. It offers a lot more to enthusiasts and also encourages new players to learn how rockets work. I haven't played simple rockets 2 yet but from what I've seen they at least offer a choice of combustion cycle.

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.

Share this post


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

Ah, well this is the right way, and just another way to think about upgrading engines! a real fine thought. Much more evolved than my initial idea. Engine could maybe be updated/assembled with Pumps, Sealevel or Vacuum Bells, nozzles etc. GREAT idea! This *is* a GREAT idea! The more you evolve in techlevel the better Parts you get for your Engines to change out, all with pro's and Cons.

You start with a excrementsty 1.25m Case with bad parts and can upgrade the Engine to your needs (for vacuum, for greater thrust, for better isp etc)

So the drawback of not being able to 'brag'bout'my'rocket' on steam is some minor detail that could be fairly ignored, from my point of view, because There will be enough possibilities to share unmodified or modified rockets. And crafts can not be shared if you dont have the required tech for all parts anyway.  Or the required Additional Packs. And all Parts for the Engines could be part of the Tech-Tree (if any exist) or be expanded by modding.

 

Yes I'd love to be able to dig into these specifics with engines, and this would also offer an interesting model when it comes to part failures. E.g. if your ignition system fails you simply cant restart your engine (without an engineer to repair it) or maybe your injectors fail so you lose a lot of power and efficiency or the throttle range is greatly reduced. This would provide more interesting events during flight and encourage players to learn how engines work without overly punishing them and completely wrecking the mission - you might just have to improvise solutions on the fly and potentially design for a small level of redundancy (e.g. have radial engines as backups, or a backup ignition system, etc).

You could start with SRBs to keep things simple - over time and through testing you can try different nozzle shapes, fuel compositions, and grain geometry to vary the thrust curves. These would all require some initial research and development which costs money, then with more research and in-flight testing the performance and optimisation increases.

In terms of realistic values for TWR and ISP I think these could be varied to make these decisions have a noticeable impact, perhaps just scale them up a little from real world values. There are also other potential effects, for example if you choose pintle injectors you get increased throttle range but suffer a higher failure rate until you do more research and testing to optimise design.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Sirad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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.

Well it depends how they implement it, as with everything. Gran turismo offered a lot of depth and customisation to enthusiasts (e.g. fully customisable gear ratios on the most expensive box, fairly technical suspension settings, etc) while still remaining accessible to people with no knowledge of auto mechanics. Basically you just offer a bunch of presets and stratified upgrades (e.g. level 1 turbo, level 2 turbo, etc).

So in KSP2 perhaps you would start with a basic engine which isn't optimised but runs ok in all situations - then you offer different types of specialisations which use pre-selected choices. Like the "vac optimised" preset uses nozzle shape C, injector D and combustion cycle B on fuel choice A. then your "kerbin atmospheric optimised" preset uses a different selection, and you have another preset for your super dense atmospheres, probably the aerospike design as we already have. But you always allow full customisation for the players who want that - so you can choose from any of these presets OR a custom setup.

With good design you can satisfy everyone, it has been done before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If we are sticking with the size presets of 0.625m, 1.25m, 2.5m and so on, you just offer engine preset configs for each size, and name them according to function rather than exposing stats. E.g. "1.25m launch engine," "0.625m space engine," "2.5m lander engine," etc, then have upgrade tiers for each preset (level 1, level 2, level 3, etc). This would reduce the part count as you then only need one engine part for each fuel tank size, and vary the stats and configs internally to that part. There is a lot of room to manuever here as you can offer unique designs like clusters of 9 engines which all run for launch then the single inner engine runs for landing to offer a much lower TWR (effectively increasing throttle range) - like what spaceX does.

This could also be expanded to pre-packaged launch vehicles like they have done with the twin boar (or using the bigger SRBs to launch small sats), and simply expose basic info like "will carry payload mass X to low orbit, payload mass Y to geosynchronous orbit, etc" which is the kind of thing launch vehicle companies put in their advertising. The idea would be to modularise everything and thus simplify it for the people who just want to launch rockets and not delve too deeply into design, and again offer full customisation like the current system has for more advanced players.

My understanding is that KSP2 will be AAA which means they want a large audience, and yeah rocket design is not for everyone (but lego-style rockets and little green creatures on strange planets using cool physics certainly can be).

Edited by Lu K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Terwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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/. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :rolleyes:

Edited by DoctorDavinci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by boolybooly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Sirad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Terwin said:

TIn 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.

KSP is about giving the player the freedom to create bad designs and see them fail and try to figure out why. It's a learning process. Offering less than perfect combinations for things like combustion cycle, nozzle shape and injector type can facilitate this - especially if it results in funny results and/or explosions.

This process has been copied over to colonies with the bae - you design a colony then test it and see if gravity wrecks it. Why not do the same for engines?

Unlike with cars, the average rocket enthusiast doesn't have the opportunity to open the hood of a rocket and play around and learn how stuff works. Games can fill that gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lu K. said:

if it results in funny results and/or explosions.

 

Yesssssssssss. Gimme more explosions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.