Would you want procedural engine nozzles in ksp 2?

[Ryaja]

The actual engine would be a separate part from the nozzle or have a setting to change the nozzle, if you change your mind just post it.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Ryaja
Instructions

[jastrone]

yes but only if they are cosmetic. yes but options if they actually effect the power of the engine. 

[Ryaja]

@jastrone They would either be a slider or buttons with set presets in the engine or in separate nozzles from the engine itself, the would effect the power at different altitudes.

[JadeOfMaar]

21 hours ago, Ryaja said:

The actual engine would be a separate part from the nozzle or have a setting to change the nozzle, if you change your mind just post it.

My vision for procedural (chemical) engines is as follows:

1. The primary body: The combustion chamber, turbopumps and misc plumbing. This allows you to progressively unlock and access the combustion types/cycles like "Open cycle staged combustion, Full-flow staged combustion" however those work. Some engines are better (say: cheaper but wasteful) because they dump some of the propellant without burning it while others (more expensive, massive and prone to failure because they can efficiently use all of the propellant but involve far more moving parts. The base stats that you get to tweak are:
   • Chamber pressure (provides base thrust, heat production)
   • Combustion cycle (provides base efficiency, controls complexity and cost)
   • Material (who's to say we can't have a little material science handwavium to allow for an engine to run hotter and safely thrust harder? This is a gentle nudge in the direction of MetallicHydrogen. This also controls mass, complexity and cost)
2. Mount and fairing: When you want it to fit flush onto your procedural tank of any radius, and the stage under it (which should be same radius).
3. Nozzle: Everyone who visits this thread should know how this works, but for those who don't, see the tweakables below:
   • The throat diameter (the combustion chamber's exit. Note that if it reaches the combustion chamber's diameter, Isp drops like a brick in water.)
   • The exit diameter (the open end of the nozzle). "Nozzle ratio" is the exit vs throat. The greater the ratio, the greater the vacuum optimization, but you'll see diminishing returns if you push it.
   • Nozzle length (note that the overal nozzle volume will affect total mass).
   • Cooling method or Material (Regenerative; None; Ablative are the kinds I know and each has their use case. Your choice affects the engine's mass, cost and heat production).

Solid rockets have a place in this as well with points 2 and 3, but for point #1 you control length, diameter and grain/cavity shape which affect chamber pressure, heat production and the thrust curve. And you can eventually access Hybrid Solid where the solid fuel is pure alkali metal and the Oxidizer is a liquid, by which you can throttle and restart it, refuel it more easily, and gain some Isp from the high reactivity of alkali metals.

[Ryaja]

I was just thinking the burner and actual engine as one part with a nozzle that just snaps on

[darthgently]

28 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

I was just thinking the burner and actual engine as one part with a nozzle that just snaps on

Same here.  But I would like the procedural nozzle shape to control the actual performance in atmo and vacuum in a realistic way with maybe some default "atmo" and "vacuum" shapes defined.  But as for the cycle type and stuff that should just be part of the choice of engine in the editor to keep it simpler.  Though it would be interesting to have one engine in the editor that was fully procedural in that one could truly design and build all the main aspects as @JadeOfMaar describes

[JadeOfMaar]

2 hours ago, Ryaja said:

I was just thinking the burner and actual engine as one part with a nozzle that just snaps on

That's how it works with nuclear reactors and thermal nozzles (each separate parts) in KSPIE.

[Benzo Kerman]

I think procedural parts that have common uses, like wings or radiators, are cool- but engines should be unique. They should each have their own uses, and be needed in different scenarios. Also progression with procedural engines might be a little wierd- 'cause there might be a really late game planet with a very thick atmosphere or something like that, and if you could just make the nozzle really small on a normal sea level engine and get away with it (albeit at a low efficiency) it would just be a bit wierd. This of course, is as apose to having to spend more rescources on a more advanced engine capable of operating efficiently in such environments. I could however see some hilarious bugs coming from disproportionately sized engine bells...

[Ryaja]

They could also be at the very end of the get when you unlock them, on of the last tech nodes

[Axelord FTW]

Considering KSP1 already 'reuse' some engines with different configurations and bells, I think quasi-B9-Switch sort of system would do good in KSP2. If only to keep part count in the VAB lower. While were at it, a sort of 'Janitor' to have more control over part being shown or hidden in the VAB/SPH/OAB would be useful. If not I'm pretty sure a mod for that functionality will come soon enough.

Not all engines, of course, and certainly not early on in the progression. Engine optimization is a real thing.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Axelord FTW

[MechBFP]

On 5/21/2022 at 11:05 AM, Ryaja said:

They could also be at the very end of the get when you unlock them, on of the last tech nodes

This would be my preference, if anything at all. Engines being procedural simply removes a lot of the puzzle/challenge aspects out of designing a ship, assuming it isn't just cosmetic changes of course.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 5/19/2022 at 6:52 PM, Ryaja said:

The actual engine would be a separate part from the nozzle or have a setting to change the nozzle, if you change your mind just post it.

Fully procedural might be going a bit far, but being able to build engines from separate components would be cool. As it has already been brought up, KSPIE has the reactor/nozzle config choice, why not expand on this? Maybe as tech advances we could unlock new turbopumps, combustion chambers, injection systems, etc and properties of already engineered ones. Then after we build the engines we could save the assembled configurations of them as a special category of sub-assembly.

[Xelo]

On 5/31/2022 at 1:33 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Fully procedural might be going a bit far, but being able to build engines from separate components would be cool. As it has already been brought up, KSPIE has the reactor/nozzle config choice, why not expand on this? Maybe as tech advances we could unlock new turbopumps, combustion chambers, injection systems, etc and properties of already engineered ones. Then after we build the engines we could save the assembled configurations of them as a special category of sub-assembly.

It would be really cool!... for those who know how to use it.
Its gonna take a very skilled game designer and either an extra 3 tutorial videos or a long wiki binge in exotic rocket engine structures for a player without such a background to make such a mechanic both accessible to everyone and meaningful.
So this probably is within the realm of modding. So as for this development team, its probably not worth the time to  test, implement, and balance modular rocket engine components against everything else in the game.
If they figure it out, i would defs appreciate such a thing in an dlc or a later major update thoh.

[mcwaffles2003]

9 hours ago, Xelo said:

It would be really cool!... for those who know how to use it.
Its gonna take a very skilled game designer and either an extra 3 tutorial videos or a long wiki binge in exotic rocket engine structures for a player without such a background to make such a mechanic both accessible to everyone and meaningful.
So this probably is within the realm of modding. So as for this development team, its probably not worth the time to  test, implement, and balance modular rocket engine components against everything else in the game.
If they figure it out, i would defs appreciate such a thing in an dlc or a later major update thoh.

Personally, in any game largely about engineering/creating, more parts and nuance the better. Especially with how I assume the subassembly and new physics LOD to work this kind of addition would fit perfectly. My assumptions being that whole regions of parts will become whole rigid pieces to reduce the intensity required from the CPU by making it so overall there are less objects to calculate for rigid body dynamics. I see no reason why engines themselves couldn't be put together from many parts and compiled into a subassembly and then treat that subassembly as a single part as opposed to a compilation of many parts. At worst, I could see there might be difficulty in balancing, as though I didn't play it much, in Simple Rockets you could have some really OP engines right off the bat, but then again, I don't recall the game having a tech progression system anyways.

 

This all said, I doubt this is the direction the devs will go but I agree and can see it as a possibly prime region for modding, similar to my views on making other possibly compound components like space telescopes, but I digress.

[shdwlrd]

Procedural nozzles and separate engine components shouldn't be a stock option. It's really complicated for someone who has little to no exposure rocket engine design, or the thrust equation. 

This is a good idea for a mod. Someone who is familiar with rocket engine design and the thrust equation could make some really useful and niche designs beyond what is stock.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Procedural nozzles and separate engine components shouldn't be a stock option. It's really complicated for someone who has little to no exposure rocket engine design, or the thrust equation. 

Wouldn't KSP 2 make a great introduction to how engines work?

[shdwlrd]

22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Wouldn't KSP 2 make a great introduction to how engines work?

Yes and no. The basic narrow nozzle for atmosphere and wide nozzle for vacuum is fine for KSP. But start throwing in the combustion chamber size, combustion rate, throat diameter, bell length, bell diameters, bell shape, fuel mass, fuel mixture, exhaust velocities, exhaust temperature. See how quickly designing a rocket engine can get very complicated for someone who has never seen or even thought about how a rocket engine even works.

[t_v]

20 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Yes and no. The basic narrow nozzle for atmosphere and wide nozzle for vacuum is fine for KSP. But start throwing in the combustion chamber size, combustion rate, throat diameter, bell length, bell diameters, bell shape, fuel mass, fuel mixture, exhaust velocities, exhaust temperature. See how quickly designing a rocket engine can get very complicated for someone who has never seen or even thought about how a rocket engine even works.

I’ve said this on the topic of computer systems within pods and I’ll say it here: this really matters on how it is implemented, and if people can choose to avoid those systems. Having features that allow people to customize their craft more and learn about space flight as a result is fine (and the devs get to choose which features they decide to implement that with) but the problem comes when people are forced to interact with those non-core systems. 
 

So, putting aside the topic of “is it worthwhile to add this” which is almost entirely subjective, I think that this could work, as long as people can still slap on an engine and it works. Some people would have fun customizing their engine nozzles and cones and even the internal mechanics of the engine if things go that deep, but others will want to just drop an engine on their craft and have it work. So, just like pods should have default software with the modular computers thing, engines should have default sizes that work so that players who do not want to interact with that system can get by reasonably well. Thus, the argument of “too complex for beginners” is mitigated because beginners do not have to worry about using those systems until they feel ready to do so.

[Bej Kerman]

39 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Yes and no. The basic narrow nozzle for atmosphere and wide nozzle for vacuum is fine for KSP. But start throwing in the combustion chamber size, combustion rate, throat diameter, bell length, bell diameters, bell shape, fuel mass, fuel mixture, exhaust velocities, exhaust temperature. See how quickly designing a rocket engine can get very complicated for someone who has never seen or even thought about how a rocket engine even works.

It just has to be a side feature, like choosing to customise an existing engine when you're familiar with how it works. We don't exclude interstellar travel just because there's some people who haven't even heard of an orbit, do we?

[mcwaffles2003]

As to the conversation over whether it's appropriate to include the feature in stock due to the difficulty ramp. It would be difficult to introduce this kind of mechanic midway through the game after players understand orbital mechanics and if anything it would have to be at the start. Honestly if the basics of a rocket engines mechanics were implemented before anything else I think that would actually be a nice fit. It would give players an idea of where thrust, Isp, fuel flow, etc come from and why they exist. This would make for great early game exploration just seeing what the right mix is to get a rocket as high as you can. For instance a player might assume a large throat with a low expansion ratio nozzle might get them far but thrust and Isp would fall due to a lack of pressure in the combustion chamber and a lack of pressure leads to a lack in temperature leads to a decrease in exit velocity yada yada yada.

 

Anyway, people could play around with this kind of thing to find out how to make a rocket go far before they attempt to get to orbit. Then they could deal with learning orbital mechanics. Then learn about transfers, then colonization...

 

I cant wait to play this game guys...

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

As to the conversation over whether it's appropriate to include the feature in stock due to the difficulty ramp. It would be difficult to introduce this kind of mechanic midway through the game after players understand orbital mechanics and if anything it would have to be at the start. Honestly if the basics of a rocket engines mechanics were implemented before anything else I think that would actually be a nice fit. It would give players an idea of where thrust, Isp, fuel flow, etc come from and why they exist. This would make for great early game exploration just seeing what the right mix is to get a rocket as high as you can. For instance a player might assume a large throat with a low expansion ratio nozzle might get them far but thrust and Isp would fall due to a lack of pressure in the combustion chamber and a lack of pressure leads to a lack in temperature leads to a decrease in exit velocity yada yada yada.

 

Anyway, people could play around with this kind of thing to find out how to make a rocket go far before they attempt to get to orbit. Then they could deal with learning orbital mechanics. Then learn about transfers, then colonization...

 

I cant wait to play this game guys...

Above all else, it means no waiting for the devs to fix possible holes in the part lineup.

[Ryaja]

Just some further clarification, I was just talking about the nozzle. Either the nozzle is a separate piece or you could just right click the engine and change at which atmospheric pressure it would be optimized.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Ryaja said:

Just some further clarification, I was just talking about the nozzle. Either the nozzle is a separate piece or you could just right click the engine and change at which atmospheric pressure it would be optimized.

Sorry, I went a bit beyond the scope.

[shdwlrd]

27 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

Just some further clarification, I was just talking about the nozzle. Either the nozzle is a separate piece or you could just right click the engine and change at which atmospheric pressure it would be optimized.

Yep, but someone always have to run over the line and take things to the farthest depths the topic can go. Personally I wouldn't want to selectable nozzles. It's one more step that I can miss and screw up my mission. I'd rather have a tag that says the engine is tuned for one or the other or acceptable for either.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Yep, but someone always have to run over the line and take things to the farthest depths the topic can go. Personally I wouldn't want to selectable nozzles. It's one more step that I can miss and screw up my mission. I'd rather have a tag that says the engine is tuned for one or the other or acceptable for either.

It's not a major fail point, you just need to adapt the atmospheric stage engines for atmospheres, choose the best parameters for the job, and choose otherwise for transatmo and vac.