Jump to content

KSP 1 DLCs in KSP 2


Recommended Posts

I'm not asking for it to be "literally the stats of the Poodle, in a long 1.25m form factor, but with 800s vacuum specific impulse".

I'm only asking for a moderate increase in thrust to weight ratio. Because whenever I build a craft with the LV-N as primary propulsion, and design it to be able to get to Jool, the TWR of the entire craft drops to dang near 1/10 of 1 G, or 0.98 m/s2.

I don't want to use the engine for a lander. I want to use it to not take half an hour to complete the average trans-jool-injection burn from Kerbin, which works out to closer to 1h of IRL time spent sitting there twiddling my thumbs waiting for the remaining Delta-V in the maneuver node to tick down to the point that I start needing to worry about when to cut the engines, this discrepancy between IRL time and in-game time happens because I need so many LV-N engines to even get that piddling 0.1 Kerbin twr, and furthermore adding to the hassle I then have to faff about with splitting up the node without having any adequate tools to do so, and no idea if I'm going to be on course until I have advanced time to the point that I wish I could have done a correction some time in the past, and now once I escape Kerbin's SOI I have to set up and perform ANOTHER course-correction burn of say 5 minutes IRL time in order to actually encounter Jool's SOI at all, let alone get close enough to Jool proper to be able to set up encounters with it's moons, at which point I have spent the fuel I "saved" by splitting the node, and then some.

Additionally, I did say I wasn't picky, I'd take "the same thrust" if they took roughly a metric ton off the engine's mass.

In that state, it would still have a much worse TWR than any vacuum-rated chemical engine (as it should), but at least it's not on par with the (admittedly overpowered) ion engine anymore.

In fact, when I'm using ion engines in their intended role (for small probes, not crewed vessels), guess what? My craft usually have a HIGHER TWR than my Jool-bound motherships that I never actually fly because I don't have the patience to sit thru an hour of "doing nothing but you aren't actually doing nothing because you just know that if you left it alone either the Kracken would take over your craft and pull it off course or wiggle it apart, or you'd miss the end-point of your burn". Attentive waiting is something I hate doing. I know KSP 2 will allow on-rails thrust, that's some help.

But the real help would be to make flying craft that have the LV-N Nerv as primary propulsion not like pulling teeth. And for that IMO the only solution is a performance increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SciMan said:

I'm only asking for a moderate increase in thrust to weight ratio. Because whenever I build a craft with the LV-N as primary propulsion, and design it to be able to get to Jool, the TWR of the entire craft drops to dang near 1/10 of 1 G, or 0.98 m/s2.

1. You aren't giving a balanced solution to your problem. You literally are asking for an OP engine which shouldn't be available in the early game. The entire point of the Nerv is that you sacrifice TWR for efficiency - if your ship has a very very low TWR, well, that's just space travel, folks.

2. Read MechBFP's reply.

Edited by Bej Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least we can all agree that the heat production of the LV-N Nerv isn't a reflection of how these things work IRL, right?
I feel pretty safe saying that it is my opinion that that particular "mechanic" is a bad mechanic, especially considering the existence (and unsolved-ness) of the "stock heat bug" that makes everything on your craft overheat if a deployable radiator gets too hot (but still within the limits of the deployable radiator itselves thermal tolerances, only fix is to shut down all radiators on the craft and wait an eternity for things to cool off without the assistance of a radiator, and if you had any science experiments on your craft you can say goodbye to those because they will have overheated and exploded).
None of the chemical engines in the game produce heat like that (that you have to get rid of using radiators).
The Mainsail engine used to, but they changed it so it doesn't anymore. I think the LV-N Nerv should have gotten the same "fix", but for some reason it didn't.
None of the NTR engines from either vanilla or any of the modded NTR engines should produce heat, but they all do, simply because someone said "lol look at this funny looking engine IDK how it works lets make it super hot for literally no reason because nuclear bad or something".
And then everyone followed the example of the LV-N without taking a step back and thinking "Wait, does it ACTUALLY work like that?" (the answer, obviously, is no, it does in fact not work like that, if an NTR was to produce heat that affects the rest of the rocket at all, it would be when it's NOT producing thrust, the OPPOSITE of what it does right now).

Now to address the concerns raised by the post above this one:
1. In KSP 1 that logic makes no sense. The LV-N Nerv is very much anything but an "early tech" engine in the KSP 1 tech tree, IIRC it takes what 300 science points to unlock, meaning you have to (in career mode) have a fully upgraded Research Center to be able to even see that tech tree node. Not to mention that in Career mode it costs an arm and a leg per each.
Maybe this logic works in KSP 2, but then again even in KSP 2 I'm expecting the stats to be somewhat more forgiving.
Even IRL, NTR powered craft don't do "split maneuver nodes" or "get into a highly elliptical orbit before doing the actual ejection burn", at least in 90% of the studies they've been subjected to. In the 10% that they do that, they're usually trying to do the whole thing with only one set of NTR engines (dropping just fuel tanks instead of whole rocket stages), in a bid to reduce the amount of enriched uranium they need to send into orbit or something like that (in other words it's not a concern that needs to be considered in the KSP universe as far as I'm aware).

2. That does help, but not enough, and yet again it only works in KSP 2 (according to the information we know about KSP 2), but when trying to use it in KSP 1 you need to install a mod or two to let you do that.
So, failing the addition of such functionality to KSP 1, what would you have me do? Sit at my computer for an hour without experiencing the feeling of actually getting anything done? That's not why I play video games. I play video games to have FUN, not to sit staring at my screen for something to go wrong for an hour.
Once again, "yes, you can do that in KSP 2". But that doesn't solve it in KSP 1, and I'm apparently going to be stuck with KSP 1 for quite a significant amount of time, so I feel that "maybe the OP engine is making up for the lack of a powerful game mechanic", which in my mind makes the engine not as OP as you would initially think it is (it's not OP, it's compensating for something else not in the game).

EDIT: So with this all in mind, despite my brain knowing that the LV-N Nerv is the best choice of engine, I don't use it.
Instead, I "downgrade" for the sake of my sanity to a KR-2L Rhino engine which is a chemically fueled engine with respectable vacuum specific impulse, HIGH THRUST COMPARED TO PART COUNT (aka I don't need to use say 50 of them to move my typical mothership around), an acceptable thrust-to-weight ratio for an engine intended to be used as an upper stage or orbital transfer stage engine, and the fuel tanks used with it are also quite large (allowing easy access to long burn times, if needed) and also have a superior mass fraction (the best in the game in fact).
When you do out all that math, the LV-N Nerv comes out a lot less further ahead than you'd think it does. Which is my ENTIRE problem with the state of the LV-N Nerv.

And you know what? So what if it's overpowered with my proposed modifications?
Atomic engines ARE overpowered, even in real life! That's the ENTIRE REASON that NASA has been so interested in them!
And it's not like shaving a ton of dry mass off the engine would increase the overall craft's TWR by all that much in any case, since the engine weighs what 3.5 tons already? I'm not saying it should weigh 1.5 tons. I'm saying it should weigh 2.5 tons (or less if we're being incredibly generous).

I have play-tested the LV-N with the changes I propose (no heat production and 1 ton less dry mass, all other stats unchanged), and let me tell you it doesn't change much, it just removes a bunch of tedium. Craft propelled by the LV-N with my proposed modifications now have a TWR that means that (assuming they start from a high orbit of say 500km around Kerbin) they don't need to split up maneuever nodes in order to reliably intercept the SOI of another planet. And you still have the limitation of not a good choice for propellant tanks when flying a craft using the LV-N (stuck with a bunch of spaceplane parts, which are always heavier than a cylindrical rocket fuel tank of similar capacity).

The only reason they haven't been the go-to orbital engine for several decades now IRL is because of politics and economics and a bunch of other reasons that aren't "directly a consequence of the laws of physics" which is where all my arguments are aimed at (the physics of the KSP 1 LV-N Nerv are WRONG).
Also, the designs for the reactor cores of NTR engines are some of the most abuse-tolerant things I can think of as far as a nuclear reactor goes.
They can even be made to be sub-critical when fully immersed in seawater, and have a pressure vessel that can easily survive reentry and impact in one piece (in KSP terms that means that at least the proposed US NTR programs "flight ready" versions of engine reactor cores had extremely high impact and thermal tolerance specifications).

Edited by SciMan
I'm tired of pretending the LV-N shouldn't be a good engine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SciMan said:

At least we can all agree that the heat production of the LV-N Nerv isn't a reflection of how these things work IRL, right?
I feel pretty safe saying that it is my opinion that that particular "mechanic" is a bad mechanic, especially considering the existence (and unsolved-ness) of the "stock heat bug" that makes everything on your craft overheat if a deployable radiator gets too hot (but still within the limits of the deployable radiator itselves thermal tolerances, only fix is to shut down all radiators on the craft and wait an eternity for things to cool off without the assistance of a radiator, and if you had any science experiments on your craft you can say goodbye to those because they will have overheated and exploded).

Not sure what you are referencing with this. The NERV overheating is easily avoidable with a single radiator, which is hilarious unrealistic considering the heat a nuclear reaction creates.

Things exploding is an issue with the heat system and time-warping, which shouldn't be an issue with KSP 2 since you need to burn during timewarp as a core game mechanic.

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been able to keep a cluster of 7 LV-N's cool (aka no overheat gauge showing) with even a large array (12) of the largest deployable radiators.

And that only further cuts into my thrust-to-weight ratio.

But the thing that gets me is that everyone has this misconception that nuclear reactors should get hot.

They shouldn't get hot. The stuff going thru the nuclear reactor should get hot, but the reactor (and therefore engine the reactor is part of) shouldn't get "crazy overheat that heats up other parts of your vessel and maybe makes it explode"-hot.

It's almost like they invented a technology to keep rocket engines cool specifically because they get so hot, but it uses the very propellant that the rocket engine heats to incredible temperatures in order to keep itself cool.

If what I just said makes no sense, maybe I should use a lot less words. "It's almost like they invented regenerative cooling because rocket engines get hot". The LV-N should have regenerative cooling, but it acts like it does not. This is extremely strange considering the whole point of a liquid fueled rocket engine is to make the reaction (or reactor) cool enough that it doesn't melt itself.

Yes, the LV-N (and all nuclear thermal rockets) should have regenerative cooling. In other words, it's cooled by the fuel flowing thru it.
The fact that the LV-N gets hot in use tells me that either "Kerbals are somehow smart enough to assemble a nuclear reactor, but not smart enough to design regenerative cooling" (highly unlikely), or that the LV-N is a "testbed" engine (like the IRL Nerva test engines were) that is most certainly NOT flight ready and shouldn't ever see the black of space.
Now despite me mentioning the NERVA program in a negative light there, that program was literally a few months of continued funding and development away from producing a fight-ready example of a nuclear thermal rocket engine suitable for use on the 3rd stage of the Saturn V (such a vehicle would have been called the S-N) when it was cancelled, don't let my mentioning of "testbed engines" misdirect you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 10:54 PM, MechBFP said:

Those DLC are for KSP1, not KSP2. 

Your question is equivalent to something like “Will we get the Tribunal and Bloodmoon DLC from Elder Scrolls 3 for free in Elder Scrolls 4 or will we have to pay for it?” Its a nonsensical question.

They could recreate that exact same content for KSP2, but don’t count on it.

 

That reasoning is flawed. Those two dlc for Elder Scrolls add hours of gameplay with new quests, characters, and storylines. The dlc for KSP merely add parts. The reason this question is valid is because a lot of the parts in the dlc have become almost essential to KSP players. I for one would probably stop playing the game if they got rid of those big Saturn V fuel tanks and the newer upper stage engines. My point is that if they don’t at least add something similar to the dlc parts in KSP2, the community’s gonna riot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SciMan said:

1. In KSP 1 that logic makes no sense. The LV-N Nerv is very much anything but an "early tech" engine in the KSP 1 tech tree

It will completely be early tech in the KSP 2 tech tree and having anything like what you're asking anywhere near this part of the tech tree would disrespect the balance and progression of the game. Specific impulse or thrust, that's the choice before you get to metallic hydrogen engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SciMan said:

But the thing that gets me is that everyone has this misconception that nuclear reactors should get hot.

They shouldn't get hot. The stuff going thru the nuclear reactor should get hot, but the reactor (and therefore engine the reactor is part of) shouldn't get "crazy overheat that heats up other parts of your vessel and maybe makes it explode"-hot.

So there are two options here:

1) You think you can turn off all the heat generation of a nuclear reactor like a light switch.

or

2) You plan to burn your engines practically forever.

Which is it?

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SciMan said:

At least we can all agree that the heat production of the LV-N Nerv isn't a reflection of how these things work IRL, right?
I feel pretty safe saying that it is my opinion that that particular "mechanic" is a bad mechanic, especially considering the existence (and unsolved-ness) of the "stock heat bug" that makes everything on your craft overheat if a deployable radiator gets too hot (but still within the limits of the deployable radiator itselves thermal tolerances, only fix is to shut down all radiators on the craft and wait an eternity for things to cool off without the assistance of a radiator, and if you had any science experiments on your craft you can say goodbye to those because they will have overheated and exploded).
None of the chemical engines in the game produce heat like that (that you have to get rid of using radiators).
The Mainsail engine used to, but they changed it so it doesn't anymore. I think the LV-N Nerv should have gotten the same "fix", but for some reason it didn't.
None of the NTR engines from either vanilla or any of the modded NTR engines should produce heat, but they all do, simply because someone said "lol look at this funny looking engine IDK how it works lets make it super hot for literally no reason because nuclear bad or something".
And then everyone followed the example of the LV-N without taking a step back and thinking "Wait, does it ACTUALLY work like that?" (the answer, obviously, is no, it does in fact not work like that, if an NTR was to produce heat that affects the rest of the rocket at all, it would be when it's NOT producing thrust, the OPPOSITE of what it does right now).

Now to address the concerns raised by the post above this one:
1. In KSP 1 that logic makes no sense. The LV-N Nerv is very much anything but an "early tech" engine in the KSP 1 tech tree, IIRC it takes what 300 science points to unlock, meaning you have to (in career mode) have a fully upgraded Research Center to be able to even see that tech tree node. Not to mention that in Career mode it costs an arm and a leg per each.
Maybe this logic works in KSP 2, but then again even in KSP 2 I'm expecting the stats to be somewhat more forgiving.
Even IRL, NTR powered craft don't do "split maneuver nodes" or "get into a highly elliptical orbit before doing the actual ejection burn", at least in 90% of the studies they've been subjected to. In the 10% that they do that, they're usually trying to do the whole thing with only one set of NTR engines (dropping just fuel tanks instead of whole rocket stages), in a bid to reduce the amount of enriched uranium they need to send into orbit or something like that (in other words it's not a concern that needs to be considered in the KSP universe as far as I'm aware).

2. That does help, but not enough, and yet again it only works in KSP 2 (according to the information we know about KSP 2), but when trying to use it in KSP 1 you need to install a mod or two to let you do that.
So, failing the addition of such functionality to KSP 1, what would you have me do? Sit at my computer for an hour without experiencing the feeling of actually getting anything done? That's not why I play video games. I play video games to have FUN, not to sit staring at my screen for something to go wrong for an hour.
Once again, "yes, you can do that in KSP 2". But that doesn't solve it in KSP 1, and I'm apparently going to be stuck with KSP 1 for quite a significant amount of time, so I feel that "maybe the OP engine is making up for the lack of a powerful game mechanic", which in my mind makes the engine not as OP as you would initially think it is (it's not OP, it's compensating for something else not in the game).

EDIT: So with this all in mind, despite my brain knowing that the LV-N Nerv is the best choice of engine, I don't use it.
Instead, I "downgrade" for the sake of my sanity to a KR-2L Rhino engine which is a chemically fueled engine with respectable vacuum specific impulse, HIGH THRUST COMPARED TO PART COUNT (aka I don't need to use say 50 of them to move my typical mothership around), an acceptable thrust-to-weight ratio for an engine intended to be used as an upper stage or orbital transfer stage engine, and the fuel tanks used with it are also quite large (allowing easy access to long burn times, if needed) and also have a superior mass fraction (the best in the game in fact).
When you do out all that math, the LV-N Nerv comes out a lot less further ahead than you'd think it does. Which is my ENTIRE problem with the state of the LV-N Nerv.

And you know what? So what if it's overpowered with my proposed modifications?
Atomic engines ARE overpowered, even in real life! That's the ENTIRE REASON that NASA has been so interested in them!
And it's not like shaving a ton of dry mass off the engine would increase the overall craft's TWR by all that much in any case, since the engine weighs what 3.5 tons already? I'm not saying it should weigh 1.5 tons. I'm saying it should weigh 2.5 tons (or less if we're being incredibly generous).

I have play-tested the LV-N with the changes I propose (no heat production and 1 ton less dry mass, all other stats unchanged), and let me tell you it doesn't change much, it just removes a bunch of tedium. Craft propelled by the LV-N with my proposed modifications now have a TWR that means that (assuming they start from a high orbit of say 500km around Kerbin) they don't need to split up maneuever nodes in order to reliably intercept the SOI of another planet. And you still have the limitation of not a good choice for propellant tanks when flying a craft using the LV-N (stuck with a bunch of spaceplane parts, which are always heavier than a cylindrical rocket fuel tank of similar capacity).

The only reason they haven't been the go-to orbital engine for several decades now IRL is because of politics and economics and a bunch of other reasons that aren't "directly a consequence of the laws of physics" which is where all my arguments are aimed at (the physics of the KSP 1 LV-N Nerv are WRONG).
Also, the designs for the reactor cores of NTR engines are some of the most abuse-tolerant things I can think of as far as a nuclear reactor goes.
They can even be made to be sub-critical when fully immersed in seawater, and have a pressure vessel that can easily survive reentry and impact in one piece (in KSP terms that means that at least the proposed US NTR programs "flight ready" versions of engine reactor cores had extremely high impact and thermal tolerance specifications).

You're proposing, KSP1 solutions to a KSP1 problem under a KSP2 discussion.

 

KSP2 will have a system to allow for propulsion under warp, and interplanetary and interstellar engines that have an even worse TWR, if anything I'd like to see some engines, like the Ion engine, nerfed back to more realistic values and fill the role of "trainer" for how most of the mothership will work in the late game.

Make some practice with the "burn under warp / in background" system with small probes and early interplanetary missions to have a smoother transition and learning curve between KSP1 like mission and huge built in orbit motherships.

Same thing goes for heat management, KSP1 heat system is barely used at all, in KSP2 we know is going to be one of the main design constraints for the big motherships, I think it's safe to say that in the sequel the system is going to see a lot more attention and use from the Devs.

 

BTW I fail to see how any of this has anything to do with KSP1 DLCs in KSP2.

 

12 hours ago, BowlerHatGuy2 said:

My point is that if they don’t at least add something similar to the dlc parts in KSP2, the community’s gonna riot.

The new engines and parts not that much, the new engines arent as iconic as the Terrier or the Mainsail so I don't think there's going to be much noise if all the niches and use cases are reasonably filled with engines and tank sizes.

The scenario editor is not even worth mentioning, everyone collectively forgot about its existence a couple of months after it was released.

The main concern I thing goes with the robotics, prop engines, and KIS/KAS-like functionality of Breaking Ground, that is more a matter of functionality, I don't think anyone is going to specifically miss the "Probodobodyne Experiment Control Station" or the "G-01L Alligator Hinge" if we get and equivalent robotic system and EVA deployable ground experiments.

Edited by Master39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Making History engines may not be as iconic, but they ARE excellent "gap fillers" for the most part.

The Cheetah particularly is an excellent engine for either oversized 1.25m upper stages, pretty much any size of 1.875m upper stage (its intended niche) or even smaller 2.5m stages, since with respect to most statistics it's almost exactly "half a Poodle" (but longer in length obviously, which doesn't matter much on upper stages).

And the Bobcat is a good engine for using alongside solid rocket boosters, if you want to make a 1.875m Titan III or Titan IV with a Centaur upper stage, or something like that.

Even the Kub (the vernier engine from MH, to be used with the Bobcat) on its own has pretty good vacuum specific impulse and higher thrust than the Spark or Swivel, which makes it great for things like landing rovers on other planets or moons that don't have an atmosphere, or you know for use as the "jump jets" of a rover (personally I skip the wheels entirely and just hop around suborbitally instead, because it's a lot faster and I don't have to worry as much about flipping over because of the stupid rover wheels).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 4:01 AM, Master39 said:

The new engines and parts not that much, the new engines arent as iconic as the Terrier or the Mainsail

I can't live without the wolfhoud, I also would hate to lose the 1.875 meter parts. Engine plates>decouplers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

I can't live without the wolfhoud, I also would hate to lose the 1.875 meter parts. Engine plates>decouplers

As I said:

On 5/27/2022 at 10:01 AM, Master39 said:

so I don't think there's going to be much noise if all the niches and use cases are reasonably filled with engines and tank sizes.

 

If there's something filling the same niche as the Wolfhound nobody is going to care if it isn't the same model and name. The same can't be said about the Poodle, the Terrier or the Swivel.

Edited by Master39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 2:04 AM, MechBFP said:

So there are two options here:

1) You think you can turn off all the heat generation of a nuclear reactor like a light switch.

or

2) You plan to burn your engines practically forever.

Which is it?

Well, to be realistic, the LV-N should overheat after thrusting, and you should have radiators on standby to cool it after a burn. This would be rather complicated to model.

You'd also have to pre-heat it before thrusting, and again, a radiator would be useful there.

Anyway, want more TWR? That's exactly what the LANTR is for.

Fwiw, I never had issues with lv-ns overheating, except in earlier 1.0x versions.

Maybe it's the clustering that is the problem, because all my designs that I can remember have 2  or less lv-ns per nacelle, and don't overheat.

I remember some 4x clusters, I don't remember if they had heat problems.

Anyway, 1.0 m/s/s I consider to be pretty decent.

The LV-N has been nerfed a lot from it's earlier iteration of 2.25 tons (3 now).

And there are more advanced plans for higher TWR NTRs (project timberwind).

If we have to deal with radioactivity in ksp2, I wouldn't mind a "timberwind" style thrust upgrade.

Of course, we don't know if ksp2 will have part upgrades 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2022 at 6:42 AM, Master39 said:

If there's something filling the same niche as the Wolfhound nobody is going to care if it isn't the same model and name.

I think that the wolfhound and making history parts should be kept in because they are needed for re-creations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

I think that the wolfhound and making history parts should be kept in because they are needed for re-creations

Recreation of IRL rockets or recreation of KSP1 crafts?

Because while I don't have anything against parts being similar their IRL counterparts (except maybe when it hampers their versatility ex: see all the Big-S parts) I may have a problem with them keeping in a part or it's performance just to maintain familiarity with KSP1.

KSP2 needs to be it's own game, if that means that the Vector or the Rapier gets turned into 1.875 parts (random example) or the Wolfhound gets replaced with another, similar engine filling the same niche to follow the artistic vision or the balancing needs of the new game the devs need to feel free to do so.

KSP1 was already crippled enough by backward compatibility having a bigger priority over gameplay balance, artistic vision and new features, KSP2 shouldn't go down the same path.

 

A good example is the fact that Devs already talked about both Hydrogen and Methane as fuels, that alone will break "how things used to be" and change performance and stats for many engines and tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Recreation of IRL rockets or recreation of KSP1 crafts?

Because while I don't have anything against parts being similar their IRL counterparts (except maybe when it hampers their versatility ex: see all the Big-S parts) I may have a problem with them keeping in a part or it's performance just to maintain familiarity with KSP1.

KSP2 needs to be it's own game, if that means that the Vector or the Rapier gets turned into 1.875 parts (random example) or the Wolfhound gets replaced with another, similar engine filling the same niche to follow the artistic vision or the balancing needs of the new game the devs need to feel free to do so.

KSP1 was already crippled enough by backward compatibility having a bigger priority over gameplay balance, artistic vision and new features, KSP2 shouldn't go down the same path.

 

A good example is the fact that Devs already talked about both Hydrogen and Methane as fuels, that alone will break "how things used to be" and change performance and stats for many engines and tanks.

I get your point, but I disagree

21 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Big-S parts

Big S parts should've been a variant of the elevons and wings for more Mk3 shuttles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rutabaga22 said:

I get your point, but I disagree

Which of the two points?

The recreations you're talking about are recreation of IRL rockets (like the Soyouz booster part) or recreation in KSP2 of KSP1 craft files?

Because those two are two very distinct and different arguments, and I don't understand which one you are trying to bring forward.

 

1 hour ago, Rutabaga22 said:

Big S parts should've been a variant of the elevons and wings for more Mk3 shuttles.

They're very badly designed parts, made with a single and very specific use case in mind that could be replaced by the (already confirmed) procedural wing system and still allow shuttle replicas without cluttering the part list with overly specific single-use parts.

My problem with making history is that is filled with such parts, like the premade Eagle lander or the Soyouz side booster. Parts that should be replaced by a small subset of more versatile parts that could also be used for a replica.

Same goes for some other stock parts, like the Mammoth or the Twin Boar, give me a good engine clustering system, not pre-made single part subassemblies that only have one very specific use case.

But that argument is only valid if the recreation you're hinting at is of IRL rockets, and not about having the same exact part list in KSP2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

I have always considered this an important part of ksp and would hate to see the Irl inspired parts to be gone.

Not gone, but redesigned to better serve the gameplay.

Let me pick 2 examples, one good and one bad:

The bad one is the FL-C1000 tank (Soyouz side booster) a side booster tank with integrated Sepratron. It's not like you can't find another use for it, but if you do let's say, use it as a nosecone tank for a big 1.875 spaceplane SSTO it doesn't look like a spaceplane nosecone but like someone glued a Soyouz booster to a plane.

 

The good example, from making History, it's the RK-7 Kodiak (the Soyouz 4 nozzle engine) it does its job perfectly in the replicas when needed but it's a very versatile engine with the 3 model variations to choose from. I've used it on X-15 like rocket planes and it doesn't look out of place at all.

 

If they replaced the FL-C1000 with a small set of adapters, tank nosecones and Sepratron alternative models I don't think anyone would complain as long as you can build a reasonably accurate Soyouz side booster with the replacement parts.

 

To me, after years spent in trying to make the perfect Apollo-like lander it felt a bit like cheating when they decided to go with a perfect 1:1 Kerbalized replica all-in-one part for the lander and it's a completely useless part, cluttering the command modules tab if you're not building an Apollo replica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Master39 said:

it's a completely useless part, cluttering the command modules tab if you're not building an Apollo replica.

I love that module! I like it for space stations and other large orbital constructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the less it has in common with the first one in terms of parts, planets, etc, the better. I want a new game with new things to explore. 
Starting in the same planetary system (Kerbol)  actually annoyed me a bit as a result, but since everything is going to be re-designed it is generally going to be okay I guess, but since the planets are going to have similar gravity, atmospheric pressure, etc, it really does take a bit away from the gameplay since I have already solved those problems involving those variables. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MechBFP said:

In my opinion the less it has in common with the first one in terms of parts, planets, etc, the better. I want a new game with new things to explore. 
Starting in the same planetary system (Kerbol)  actually annoyed me a bit as a result, but since everything is going to be re-designed it is generally going to be okay I guess, but since the planets are going to have similar gravity, atmospheric pressure, etc, it really does take a bit away from the gameplay since I have already solved those problems involving those variables. 

Then it wouldn't exactly be Kerbal, would it? There's literally no point in starting anywhere else when it's supposed to start with the same challenges. Setting it somewhere difficult doesn't exactly make it easier for the new players that KSP 2 is supposed to be helping.

Edited by Bej Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then it wouldn't exactly be Kerbal, would it? There's literally no point in starting anywhere else when it's supposed to start with the same challenges. Setting it somewhere difficult doesn't exactly make it easier for the new players that KSP 2 is supposed to be helping.

It didn't have to be difficult, just different. Think Galileo's Planet Pack, for example.

I get why they are doing it, doesn't mean I have to like it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...