Should ion engines be nerfed?

[mcwaffles2003]

The whole reason they were buffed was because running an ion engine with realistic thrust for days/weeks is not practical. But KSP 2 is allowing thrust while a vessel isn't being focused on so long burns aren't a problem anymore.

So should KSP 2 nerf the buffed ion engines to more reasonable values since it no longer has a reason to compensate?

[MechBFP]

Nerf the thrust, buff the ISP.

[mcwaffles2003]

5 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Nerf the thrust, buff the ISP.

The Isp is actually already at realistic values:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Comparisons

[AtomicTech]

I'm fine either way.

[asap1]

can't say on one hand I like the current ion engines for their convenience but also despise them for the high thrust levels

also I feel like ion engines are severely underutilized for larger crafts it would be great if larger ion engines could be added in ksp2 so as to allow a reasonable twr for larger craft without having to crank up the part count(note perhaps due to performance improvements in ksp2 this will not be necessary).

in addition I think more ion engines could be just a good idea in general.

[mcwaffles2003]

4 minutes ago, asap1 said:

can't say on one hand I like the current ion engines for their convenience but also despise them for the high thrust levels

also I feel like ion engines are severely underutilized for larger crafts it would be great if larger ion engines could be added in ksp2 so as to allow a reasonable twr for larger craft without having to crank up the part count(note perhaps due to performance improvements in ksp2 this will not be necessary).

in addition I think more ion engines could be just a good idea in general.

Once in orbit TWR won't matter as much anyways since the engine will be running while you're not looking

[Kerb24]

Ion engines are already torture to use, why make them weaker? I know it would be more realistic, but I don't fell like spending a few play sessions doing one burn.

[NovAlpha]

An unpopular opinion, but I'd actually like to see more powerful, more advanced variants of the current ion drive that can be obtained late-game. From the general gist of KSP 2's focus on futuristic technology it is likely that the technology we already have in the original KSP would have been further developed to meet the standards of interstellar travel, including ion engines. While realism is a fun and challenging aspect of spaceflight I can foresee a great reliance on ion engines in the late game as resources like fuel for delivery-craft become scarce as other automated spacecraft are added to planets to perform routine functions. Having the ability to make orbit-to-orbit spacecraft using ion engines would save a lot of time, resources and stress as your essentially receiving a service without investing too many of your colonies resources into delivering parts/metals/fuel between planets. If you wanted to nerf ion engines while still allowing the aforementioned functions then higher tiers of ion engines would allow you to do so in a balanced manner.

[Guest The Doodling Astronaut]

Ion engines are already not used enough in KSP. Why make them weaker to drive away more people to using them? I don't think realistic thrust is really a problem.

[Superfluous J]

If they were removed entirely, I'd probably not notice until someone pointed it out.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Ion engines are already not used enough in KSP. Why make them weaker to drive away more people to using them? I don't think realistic thrust is really a problem.

They aren't? I use them a lot...

[pandaman]

I'm not a 'realism is king' guy, but with the ability to continue burns in timewarp, then I think it would make perfect sense to reduce their thrust to a more realistic level.

As they are we get a very false impression of what they can do.

 

[magnemoe]

I say it depend a lot on how well KSP 2 predict trajectories for long low twr burns. 
This is not much of an problem for interstellar flight as your end velocity is so much higher than orbital one but say trying to get into Moho orbit might be messy. Here you probably need to start to match velocity outside Moho SOI then do tons of burns at Pe to circulate. 

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, pandaman said:

I'm not a 'realism is king' guy, but with the ability to continue burns in timewarp, then I think it would make perfect sense to reduce their thrust to a more realistic level.

As they are we get a very false impression of what they can do.

 

I'm not on the realism thing either, I just find it a bit ridiculous that you can get a kerbal to orbit from Duna on an ion thruster when the thrust of an ion thruster is supposed to be comparable to the weight of a piece of paper sitting on a table. A ship the mass of a car shouldn't get lifted from 5 ion engines...

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Kerb24 said:

Ion engines are already torture to use, why make them weaker? I know it would be more realistic, but I don't fell like spending a few play sessions doing one burn.

 

10 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Ion engines are already not used enough in KSP. Why make them weaker to drive away more people to using them? I don't think realistic thrust is really a problem.

 

They're a torture to use and not used that much precisely because Ion engine burns are usually hours to days long. By increasing their TWR in KSP1 they circumvented the need to have burns going on for hours in the background or under timewarp but KSP2 will have that capability already, the increased thrust is no longer needed.

From a gameplay perspective it would make sense to reduce their thrust back to the original values and use them to gradually introduce the player to the background and timewarp days or even months long burns that will be needed for late game interstellar and interplanetary journeys.

 

11 hours ago, Kerb24 said:

but I don't fell like spending a few play sessions doing one burn.

And you will not have to, the other way around, by having the ability of having them on while timewarping the overall IRL time you'll have to spend to do an interplanetary mission will decrease significantly since you'll have the ability of doing 100% of your burn under timewarp or while doing something else on another craft.

[MechBFP]

16 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

The Isp is actually already at realistic values:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Comparisons

For the starter one, sure.

[mcwaffles2003]

19 hours ago, MechBFP said:

For the starter one, sure.

I have no problem with incorporating better ion engines like those introduced in near future technology, but other things like their increased mass should also be reflected.

Essentially I just don't want to see the Isp go arbitrarily high as a payoff for reducing the thrust when reducing the thrust was evening out an imbalance that already existed.

[SciMan]

ISP's fine, mass is a bit high (the power conditioning electronics are what weigh the most, not the engine itself which is basically similar to the skinny end of a Cathode-Ray tube).

Thrust being lower would be fine if we get on-rails thrust enabled not-focused time warp, with the ability to hold an orientation (either a fixed orientation like plain old SAS currently does, or hold prograde/retrograde/normal/anti-normal/rad-in/rad-out like more advanced probe cores and pilots can do).

Even better would be the ability to tell the thing what you want your orbit to end up looking like, then it'll just do the best it can to match that most efficiently (like MechJeb's maneuver planner, but with the ability to combine funcitons all into one burn assuming it doesn't require the craft to teleport).

Oh and fix the dang LV-N Nerv while they're at it.
1. It shouldn't overheat under any circumstances, the fuel flowing thru it is what keeps it from melting (or if it does overheat, it should do so when NOT producing thrust, not when PRODUCING thrust).
2. It should be able to produce a small amount of power all the time (Tri-modal NTRs have been conceived already, and that's as simple as using the reactor core to heat a gas then running that gas thru a turbine and some radiators and then back to the core, aka a Brayton cycle heat engine).
3. It should have its thrust increased and mass reduced (right now I imagine it has 360 degree radiation shielding, which would make it heavy as heck like it is, also would make the fuel pipes have a lot of bends in them which would reduce thrust).

Edited September 22, 2021 by SciMan

[Sesshaku]

As someone who dabbled in RO and Principia. Let them as they are. Hour long maneuvres are a pain in the ass gameplay wise. And even if KSP2 allows for background thrust, most people will play on a mission to mission basis. Instead of having multiple missions at the same time.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

Hour long maneuvres are a pain in the ass gameplay wise. And even if KSP2 allows for background thrust, most people will play on a mission to mission basis. Instead of having multiple missions at the same time.

Background thrust is only half of the thing, the other being thrust under warp, that solves the problem for any kind of player.

They already confirmed months long burns for some end-game engines, if the game can't manage thrust on timewarp ion engine will be the last of our problems.

[mcwaffles2003]

13 hours ago, Sesshaku said:

As someone who dabbled in RO and Principia. Let them as they are. Hour long maneuvres are a pain in the ass gameplay wise. And even if KSP2 allows for background thrust, most people will play on a mission to mission basis. Instead of having multiple missions at the same time.

 

On 9/15/2021 at 9:15 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

The whole reason they were buffed was because running an ion engine with realistic thrust for days/weeks is not practical. But KSP 2 is allowing thrust while a vessel isn't being focused on so long burns aren't a problem anymore.

So should KSP 2 nerf the buffed ion engines to more reasonable values since it no longer has a reason to compensate?