Developer Insights #17 - Engines Archetypes

[bigyihsuan]

23 hours ago, Intercept Games said:

you won’t see massive statistical changes to most engines in KSP2 from KSP1, despite the naming change from Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer to Methalox.

If the engines actually had methalox, would their stats actually be similar to what we have now? What about tankage, etc?

[WarriorSabe]

I, hm. Methalox for all of them? That really doesn't... make sense. The diversity of engines being adapted at the very least should have some be kerolox

[The Aziz]

5 minutes ago, Tangle said:

Oh G-d, only methalox? Guess there aren't gonna be any engines older than 2010 in KSP2...

 

The making of the 4x RS-25 into a really big F-1B is a... really weird decision.

Let's start with the fact that there's no RS-25 or F-1B engines in KSP. Never were. And then...

3 minutes ago, ChubbyCat said:

So is the Mammoth II replacing the original mammoth, or will they exist alongside each other? It would be only slightly disappointing to not be able to create accurate SLS recreations anymore. 

Where's the problem? You could make fairly accurate shuttles using Vectors, but now for whatever reason, putting four on the bottom of 3.75m stack is something impossible?

[Tangle]

8 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Let's start with the fact that there's no RS-25 or F-1B engines in KSP. Never were. And then...

Where's the problem? You could make fairly accurate shuttles using Vectors, but now for whatever reason, putting four on the bottom of 3.75m stack is something impossible?

Say goodbye to your Saturn V, R-7, N-1, or Shuttle replicas (note that the first methalox rocket made it to space a few days ago), because the ISP and TWR will be tuned as if it's a methalox rather than kerolox, hydrolox, etc engine. The Vector is very much an RS-25, and the problem with the Mammoth being gone is unless the company- in their infinite wisdom- decides to add a part that's a good-looking 3.75 engine adapter you can't build SLS anymore.

14 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

If the engines actually had methalox, would their stats actually be similar to what we have now? What about tankage, etc?

Their ISPs would be somewhat improved, with thrust and tankage size becoming worse to compensate.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Tangle

[shdwlrd]

Well, looks like the mysterious LF is methane. Ok. At least we have an answer now. Now, what is going to happen with the tanks? Are they going to have fuel switching? Is there going to be one tank for each single fuel type?

PS. I can't believe that a bunch of gamers can't suspend their ties to the real world and allow the rules and realties of a fantasy world to take precedence.

Edited December 16, 2022 by shdwlrd
Adding a quote from another thread

[Strawberry]

14 minutes ago, ChubbyCat said:

So is the Mammoth II replacing the original mammoth, or will they exist alongside each other? It would be only slightly disappointing to not be able to create accurate SLS recreations anymore. 

Replacing, but we've seen engine plates in the sls recreation video so youll still be able to get a plate of four vector engines.

[Alaygrounds]

I agree with some others in that the Mammoth II is somewhat peculiar, and I don't really like that you won't be able to easily make faithful replicas. With the old system having engines be sort of like real ones while being different in their own ways was useful. Here it seems like you're forced to do your own things. 

 

[Strawberry]

Many of the engines do still share the aesthetic similarities though? You can still very much make a vehicle to resemble historical vehicles, and with tools like part painting you can make them even more accurate. Of course your vehicles will differ in performance from the real deal, but that was always the case. Vector engine at vacuum has like a third less performance then the RS25, and even if the performance was the same, due to the fact that Kerbin is not Earth theyd still perform differently.

[Tangle]

Just now, Strawberry said:

Many of the engines do still share the aesthetic similarities though? You can still very much make a vehicle to resemble historical vehicles, and with tools like part painting you can make them even more accurate. Of course your vehicles will differ in performance from the real deal, but that was always the case. Vector engine at vacuum has like a third less performance then the RS25, and even if the performance was the same, due to the fact that Kerbin is not Earth theyd still perform differently.

Not gonna lie, I'm very afraid that the part painting will be as unwieldy/imprecise/no suggested color schemes as Gratuitous Space Battles 2's part painting was.

[Strawberry]

1 minute ago, Tangle said:

Not gonna lie, I'm very afraid that the part painting will be as unwieldy/imprecise/no suggested color schemes as Gratuitous Space Battles 2's part painting was.

We saw the ui in the early access reveal video, from the looks of things you'll only be able to change the base and accent color. We dont know if there will be the alternate paint schemes like there was in ksp1. Suggested colors seems like a nice feature though as finding good colors can be surprisingly hard.

[Jarin]

25 minutes ago, Tangle said:

Say goodbye to your Saturn V, R-7, N-1, or Shuttle replicas (note that the first methalox rocket made it to space a few days ago), because the ISP and TWR will be tuned as if it's a methalox rather than kerolox, hydrolox, etc engine.

Aside from changing the text-string in game, I'm pretty sure the article said the engines will be balanced against KSP1, not against real-life.

[NoMrBond]

Given that later, higher-tech engines could just be straight up better than earlier ones, how will KSP2 handle this?

Could the engines be improved or diverged to fill niches with variants (e.g. LR-87-3 on kerolox, LR87-5 on hypergols or LR-87-LH2 on hydrolox) or an upgrade system (e.g. S-3D->H-1->RS-27) to keep them relevant as surrounding technologies improve?

 

[The Aziz]

39 minutes ago, Tangle said:

The Vector is very much an RS-25

Visually, only, yes. None of the parameters match though. Change of the name from LiquidFuel to Methane or Hydrogen or Bananas ain't gonna change that.

47 minutes ago, Tangle said:

unless the company- in their infinite wisdom- decides to add a part that's a good-looking 3.75 engine adapter you can't build SLS anymore.

 

[InnerGinger]

58 minutes ago, ChubbyCat said:

So is the Mammoth II replacing the original mammoth, or will they exist alongside each other? It would be only slightly disappointing to not be able to create accurate SLS recreations anymore. 

Hopefully they can exist along side each other it would be unfortunate if we lost the mammoth engine from ksp 1

 

On 12/15/2022 at 1:44 PM, Intercept Games said:

The relationship between the Mammoth (now Mammoth-II) 

How ever i think this implies that is the plan. which is unfortunate if true

 

[Tangle]

1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

Visually, only, yes. None of the parameters match though. Change of the name from LiquidFuel to Methane or Hydrogen or Bananas ain't gonna change that.

 

Hence "good-looking".

[610yesnolovely]

1 hour ago, Tangle said:

Oh G-d, only methalox? Guess there aren't gonna be any engines older than 2010 in KSP2...

... to begin with.

In my imagination Kerbals are 21st century level tech before they look up and go "You know, we should send Jeb to see what the Mun is made of" and suddenly decide to go to space. This also explains why they skip probes and just go head long until somebody later says "You know, may be we _shouldn't_ send Jeb first to see what Duna is made of".

For KSP2 that still makes sense, but also means mods can make KSP more realistic and/or historically Earth based progression and whatever you want and still make a bit more sense with stock.

Edited December 16, 2022 by 610yesnolovely

[Drakenred65]

Well they are trying to keep it basic.

 

after all in reality you had

Gasoline

alcohol of varying distilates

hydrogen

and Kerosine.

And let’s not get into the “Diesel” motors or some of the weird stuff that Scott manly goes on about in his discussion  of other propellants.

Methane  is recent but it’s what you hear about, and for various reasons may well be the future of chemical reaction systems.

 

trying to build a tech tree tree that does not end up a massive grind fest with them trying to slot every fuel combo ever in would be ridiculous. Expecting the average gamer to “get it” when suddenly there’s 5 times the motors and fuel combinations than there are in KSP 1 is not going to cut it. Never mind what you can build SRB.s  out of.

[regex]

On 12/15/2022 at 10:44 AM, Intercept Games said:

 

“But Chris!”, you say, “I thought KSP2 was about MORE than just Methalox?”. That’s absolutely true, and we’ll be looking to follow the same general rules when creating archetypes through other fuel types as we reveal things through Early Access.

I certainly hope we get switchable fuel tanks instead of a raft of individual tanks cluttering up the choices (and even more hopefully, this goes along with procedural tanks so we can create stuff with unique shapes). I recall coming back to KSP after a couple years and wondering why the nuclear engine wasn't giving me more delta-V; I forgot it only used liquid fuel, which also severely limited my aesthetic choices.

Edited December 16, 2022 by regex

[Sidneyia]

Hear me out: don't do this. Don't add these labels to the engine description.

First of all, I like the idea of moar realism, taking into account the nozzle sizes as well as retaining the old KSP vibes of not having super big engines to and on. Having said that, KSP is a game that is proud of teaching without lessoning. That is proud to say that you "learn by failing". Keep these 4 archetypes, but don't tell them to the player. Let the player discover it. Let them fail. Let them look at the Thrust and ISP values to figure it out. Otherwise you are taking out part of the fun. It's like playing a game and look for the "best build" or the "meta" on the internet. You just copy. You don't learn. And certainly, you will never reach that moment of "eureka! Now I understand!"

[The Aziz]

1 minute ago, Sidneyia said:

KSP is a game that is proud of teaching without lessoning.

Which is exactly what KSP2 aims not to be from the very beginning since it was announced.

[regex]

5 minutes ago, Sidneyia said:

KSP is a game that is proud of teaching without lessoning. 

Oh crazy, that must be why there was a push to add more quality tutorials and an encyclopedia of sorts later in development.

[shdwlrd]

9 minutes ago, Sidneyia said:

Don't add these labels to the engine description.

I really wish I had something like this when I started playing KSP. It took me weeks to figure out what roles the engines played and years to find out some of my roles were wrong.

[DrCHIVES]

Always a special treat to get a write up from the legend himself!  So glad he is on the ksp2 team.  It's technical insights such as these that can give ease to any doubt that some people had regarding making ksp2 "too easy".  

Thanks @Nertea

[TheTennesseeFireman]

1 hour ago, WarriorSabe said:

I, hm. Methalox for all of them? That really doesn't... make sense. The diversity of engines being adapted at the very least should have some be kerolox

I’m guessing this is being done with an eye towards the resource system. Methalox makes a lot more sense when it comes to harvesting in situ resources, since you’re far more likely to find methane than kerosene on any given body. And for an average player, the functional difference between Kerolox and Metholox would be so minimal that it’s not worth having a whole extra set of engines for minor performance tuning.

[Kerb24]

After reading this, the week KSP 2 is released I'll start trying to make a simple real fuels mod.