Should the new Poodle Variant be a separate part?

[VoidCosmos]

So we were having a discussion on the new Poodle engine variant that is going to be released along with the 1.10 Shared Horizon update. I was wondering, what you think about it? Should it be a new part or remain as a Poodle Variant? And also, should it have a compact Variant?

[Geonovast]

Moved to Suggestions & Development Discussion

Yes, I think it's different enough that it should just be a new part.

[jimmymcgoochie]

I like the new Poodle better than the current 2-nozzle version, I'm quite happy to have that as the only version but with a compact variant to fit on 1.875m stacks as well- though that would start stepping on the Skiff's toes in a big way.

[VoidCosmos]

39 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

Moved to Suggestions & Development Discussion

Thanks! 

[Lupi]

From a lore perspective, there is almost no blood relation between the canon poodle, and this model,  other than being vacuum optimised rocket engines.

Frankly, it looks like a monochrome Cheetah with a boattail.

 

From a game design perspective, I can understand the argument for making it a variant, but I think it was not the correct decision.

Especially if it gets the compact variant I would expect it to have. The community was not happy with the lack of variants on the mainsail and skipper as originally shown, requiring them to go back to the drawing board and perform surgery on the models to create those variants.

 

If it gets a compact variant (which it should!!), it should absolutely be its own engine, in a tech tree node above the poodle, because it'll be clusterable in a way the Poodle, Skiff, Wolfhound... and really, no other high power vacuum engine is.

 

Has anyone created a feedback item for this purpose on the bugtracker? If so, please link it. I have one in the subset of the tracker i'm in, but that's not a public section.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Lupi

[CobaltWolf]

Yes to both, with having a compact variant being a much bigger issue for me. The new engine is actually fairly nice, but it would be cool to be able to use it without the giant tankbutt.

[Cavscout74]

I saw this thread and was like "wait, what new Poodle variant...."  I don't know how I missed it.  Yesterday, I had looked at everything else on that KSP loading thread - including the new fuel lines - but somehow missed the new Poodle.  And I agree, definitely should be a new part (with compact variant).  As @Lupi said, it looks more like a 2.5m Cheetah variant than a Poodle

Edited June 18, 2020 by Cavscout74

[panzer1b]

I know its not a popular opinion, but i prefer it as a variant as we already have more then enough engines in the game and minor stats tweaks wouldnt really justify its existence.  If we need more engines, there are plenty of mods that provide so many engines to give you a 10 page list in game.  That and at this point the only thing i feel the devs should be adding with regards to new engines are things that dont just do something another engine already does.  A larger or smaller NTR would be useful, large ion, maybee even a 2.5m rapier (this honestly just to cut down part counts on the huge SSTOs people make), but as it stands, we have enough 0.6-3.75m engines burning LFO to choose from and all of them besides the wolf have more or less identical ISP between 300 and 350 (which isnt really a big enough difference to matter in most cases when compared to NTRs).  Maybee im just biased against LFO, maybee its because i tend to make more capital ships then anything (and on something that has a 100t dry mass i need every bit of ISP i can get), maybee i just dont make enough small scale ships where NTRs arent viable, but i still feel that adding more of them doesnt really serve that much purpose (besides asthetic considerations ofc as was teh case with alot of MH engines).

I can say the same thing on the MH kodiak engine too its a hair different but for all intents and purposes a reskin of the reliant (which i like the look of but dont use much as i dont use reliants like at all since NTRs are the only truly practical deep space engine in stock, and i just dont make any rockets that are small enough to justify the 1.25m engines with the exception of the vector which is mostly used as a booster engine when a rhino or the massive quadruple one doesnt quite cut it but i dont want side boosters).  Same with the mainsail vs the F1 analog.  Still, it makes some sense to have it a separate part so that the game can differentiate between DLC and non DLC engine somehow.

Anyways, what i really would like is a compact model (say old poodle form factor) of thie engine to fit as a drop-in replacement on ships that used the old poodle model (without having to extend the arss or anything like dat).  That and assuming it can be done in a resource efficient way, id also like to have a part variant that uses the legacy engine 3d model/texture just for those nostalgia ships (and anything thats a pirate craft as the new cleaner engines dont fit on those at all).  Same with 2.5m fuel tanks, give me back my refinery tanks (the new 2.5m tanks are ok on ships/rockets, but look like crap on refineries which actually fit the oil drum style perfectly).

[pandaman]

Mixed feeling for me.

Yes it looks a lot different so maybe it should be a new part...

But...

If the stats are the same then then it does make some sense to have it as a variant to save space in the parts list.  

[Superfluous J]

I don't see the big deal either way. I prefer it the way it is now though. Less parts in the list = better.

.No opinion on a compact variant. Sure?

[Misguided Kerbal]

I would like it as a separate variant, probably named something else. It doesn't even look close to the old one.

I mean, it's awesome, I guess, but really its just more work for the Restock guys.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Misguided_Kerbal

[RyanRising]

I’d prefer not to have two separate parts with identical stats on the part list - that is, after all, what variants are for. It does look different, but if that’s all it’s got going for it, I think grouping them together is not unreasonable.

Also, I’d love a compact variant. Clustering engines is fun! 

[Guest]

Different parts should be functionally different. If the difference is only cosmetic, variants are the way to go.

As a matter of fact I'd prefer they lumped together different size fuel tanks of the same diameter as variants too. There are so many parts at this point that finding the right one can get quite annoying.

[Bej Kerman]

The old poodle engine still exists, you just have to look in advanced then look out from the functions tab.

[Poodmund]

4 hours ago, RyanRising said:

I’d prefer not to have two separate parts with identical stats on the part list - that is, after all, what variants are for. It does look different, but if that’s all it’s got going for it, I think grouping them together is not unreasonable.
 

3 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

Different parts should be functionally different. If the difference is only cosmetic, variants are the way to go.

As a matter of fact I'd prefer they lumped together different size fuel tanks of the same diameter as variants too. There are so many parts at this point that finding the right one can get quite annoying.

I think a lot of the reasoning behind people voting for it to be a different part is so that it can have different performance values.

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Poodmund said:

I think a lot of the reasoning behind people voting for it to be a different part is so that it can have different performance values.

Is there a gap in the medium vacuum engine line that needs filling?

[Poodmund]

58 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

Is there a gap in the medium vacuum engine line that needs filling?

The Poodle had around 5 times the thrust of the Terrier so there is quite a large void here in this regard which you could slot another engine into whilst changing it's specific impulse and/or mass to balance it out.

When considering engine part performance you kind of have to disregard to Wolfhound as it is so anomalous and an outlier in its performance status compared with all the other engines, it's more comparable with the LV-N than any other bipropellant engine.

[VoidCosmos]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Is there a gap in the medium vacuum engine line that needs filling?

Yes

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Poodmund said:

The Poodle had around 5 times the thrust of the Terrier so there is quite a large void here in this regard which you could slot another engine into whilst changing it's specific impulse and/or mass to balance it out.

Fair. I've been using the 1.85 and 2.5 m engine plates with two or three Terriers to bridge that gap though so I haven't noticed.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Guest