On the vector and reliant engines, their issues and suggested solutions

[Strawberry]

In ksp1, two of the worst engines from a game design perspective are ones no one care much about.  The reliant and vector are the most underpowered/overpowered engines respectively. This post will focus on these two engines, what's wrong with them, and what can be done to fix them. If you don't care about the why feel free to skip to the end and get the what I think should be done. 

The reliant engine is one of the earliest engines science mode gives you access to, and it happens to be one of the hardest to use. The reliant main's gimmick is that it has no thrust vector, in no way is this communicated to the player in an easy way. The description and name fails to mention anything about the lack of thrust vectoring, despite this being critical information for a player (especially a new one) to know. This engine can also often be unlocked before you get wings or side decouplers, meaning that a new player can unlock it easily before they can unlock ways to get around its gimmick. What does this engine have to make up for its general unintuitiveness? Compared to Swivel, it has a good bit going for it, around a third more thrust, and 15 more isp at sea level. These advantages get thrown out of the window when the vector engine gets unlocked.

The Vector engine while not the most powerful engine, is the most overpowered engine. It outclasses both reliant and the swivel engine with ease. It has far higher surface isp then the reliant engine, with a whopping 295 compared to reliants 265. But at least reliant has higher thrust right? Vector has a whopping 1000 kn of thrust at vacuum, this is nearly double the thrust of the kickback SRB. On top of all of this, it has the highest thrust vectoring of any engine. The combinations of these stats make it far more powerful then its two brothers, so what can we do to fix this?

The first changes I'd suggest is to make reliants gimmick more clear, first off a rename. The name reliant doesnt really suggest that it doesnt suggest that it has no swivel, so why dont we rename it to "Swivelless". This reflects the lore of it being an older model of the swivel engine, and makes its main gimmick clear from the beginning. I'd also suggest upping the thrust to around 250 to 350, this would allow it to fill the role of essentially a liquid fuel SRB, high thrust, with okay efficiency. I'd also suggest making it available slightly later on the tech tree, probably around the same time you get 2.5 meter parts, this way players get there hands on it when they're ready to play with it. The Vector engine has one simple change to make the engine not overpowered, drastically reduce its thrust. The vector engines thrust should be reduced to somewhere in the ballpark of 100 KN, meaning that in order to use it you need to partner it with a high thrust engine. To compensate for the reliant being available on later on in the tech tree, this engine should also be available far earlier, about the time you'd unlock reliant in ksp1. These changes would mean that the Vectors high gimbal but low thrust, and Reliants lack of gimbal but high thrust would make these two engines be wonderful partners to one another, and give these engines distinct niches.

[SolarAdmiral]

I don't mind the Reliant's name, it fairly portrays something older, more established. But I agree something needs to be done with it. I've almost never used it.

 

From the engines update it seemed like the Swivel is being moved into the sustainer category while the reliant is a booster. Maybe we will see a greater difference in their stats, better vacuum performance on the swivel and better thrust on the reliant. (I'm thinking we might even see the unthinkable, gimballing on the reliant. As it is now intended as the main small size booster engine.)

[snkiz]

I think the reliant is fine for what it does. Early game you make do with what you have, comprises have to made. Latter on it's a matter of choosing the right engine for the job. At that point the reliant is nothing more than a dumb liquid booster. The vector is just silly from a balance perspective. It's just the right amount of out  of wack that it has to be on purpose, unlike the wolfhound that got nerfed real quick.  When I play more or less stock, fair. I find even into mid game I am often just short on thrust or isp on a rocket. It forces me to think smarter, and make hard choices. Or do strange things to solve a problem. Given that I think the balance is the one thing that was thought long and hard about. If you find there's a part you aren't finding useful, ask yourself if it's really the part you need. And if you don't have that part how do you duck tape the one you have in something that will pass. 

The engines, out of necessity are going to get a balance pass. How much? they say they don't want to mess with the og stuff to much, But the Nerv is now gonna need specialty fuel, the terrier's model doesn't match it's performance, it' intended use doesn't match it's common use. there's many little things. They also need to slot in new parts. What I hope is they are not to dogmatic, and make changes where they need to be made. An keep the challenge of working with what you have and thring that don't quite meet your desires in the early game. Without resorting to obvious arbitrary omissions.  This is why I'm Leary of some QOL, or 'this is to hard' changes like procedural wings. There's no challenge when I can just make whatever shape wing I want.  But at the same time, at some point you get tired of the same lego bricks, so... 

 

[Strawberry]

5 hours ago, SolarAdmiral said:

I don't mind the Reliant's name, it fairly portrays something older, more established. But I agree something needs to be done with it. I've almost never used it.

 

From the engines update it seemed like the Swivel is being moved into the sustainer category while the reliant is a booster. Maybe we will see a greater difference in their stats, better vacuum performance on the swivel and better thrust on the reliant. (I'm thinking we might even see the unthinkable, gimballing on the reliant. As it is now intended as the main small size booster engine.)

The thing about reliant's name isnt that its not a bad name, its just not a good one. While the current name does have a purpose and character, the main gimmick of the engine is so noteworthy that the first thing people engage with the engine for it should make that clear.

 

For clarification, I think that both Swivel and Reliant should become boosters, and Vector should become the main sustainer for small engines. Swivel would just be the early game booster as its easy to use, and Reliant would become the later game sustainer because its harder to use and requires more thought.

[SolarAdmiral]

26 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

For clarification, I think that both Swivel and Reliant should become boosters, and Vector should become the main sustainer for small engines. Swivel would just be the early game booster as its easy to use, and Reliant would become the later game sustainer because its harder to use and requires more thought.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I just don't think that's the direction they're going to go.

They were pretty clear in the engines post that the Reliant is a booster, the swivel is a sustainer.

That being said though, the vector was also listed as a sustainer. So I could see it working out and I'm interested to see how they balance it all.

[Strawberry]

29 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I just don't think that's the direction they're going to go.

This is why this is a suggestion, the dev team seems to be interested in going away from engines being straight up upgrades and Vector definitely fulfills that role currently. While the dev team is probably focused on later engines, I hope they can take a look at this one. 

[Drakenred65]

Ok guys, trying to solve KSP 2 s “problems” by complaining about problems from KSP 1 and proposing solutions when we don’t know what they are going to do in KSP 2 is kind of a total waste of time at this point. There not going to go ZOMG THAT PERSON IR RIGHT!!! CANCEL EARLY RELEASE FOR THREE MONTH AS WE NEED TO REDO EVERYTHING!
.

.

. Unless you already have a copy of KSP2, in which case post it on you tube, link it,  and then we can discuss it. 
 

 

[Strawberry]

16 hours ago, Drakenred65 said:

Ok guys, trying to solve KSP 2 s “problems” by complaining about problems from KSP 1 and proposing solutions when we don’t know what they are going to do in KSP 2 is kind of a total waste of time at this point. There not going to go ZOMG THAT PERSON IR RIGHT!!! CANCEL EARLY RELEASE FOR THREE MONTH AS WE NEED TO REDO EVERYTHING!

Every suggestion here is based on speculation on what ksp2 is going to do, we do not know. That being said, if they did already consider this, oh well they can just ignore this suggestion that's easy. That being said, considering that Swivel is counted as a sustainer, Reliant is still named reliant, means that I don't think the perspective has been considered. The devs are probably much more focused on balancing the later game parts so I wont fault them for forgetting the earlier parts. This suggestion is by no means a hard to implement suggestion, changing the thrust and name of an engine is only a few lines of code, and I dont think doing this mild amount of work would be unworthwhile because early game rocketry is something you want to give lots of care and attention.

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, Strawberry said:

Every suggestion here is based on speculation on what ksp2 is going to do, we do not know. That being said, if they did already consider this, oh well they can just ignore this suggestion that's easy. That being said, considering that Swivel is counted as a sustainer, Reliant is still named reliant, means that I don't think the perspective has been considered. The devs are probably much more focused on balancing the later game parts so I wont fault them for forgetting the earlier parts. This suggestion is by no means a hard to implement suggestion, changing the thrust and name of an engine is only a few lines of code, and I dont think doing this mild amount of work would be unworthwhile because early game rocketry is something you want to give lots of care and attention.

Did you happen to miss this dev diary?

They specifically call out the reliant and vector engines. They tell you their new roles and hint at any changes made to them.

 

[jimmymcgoochie]

People complaining that the Vector is OP is pretty ironic, since the real life equivalent (the RS-25 aka SSME aka the Space Shuttle engine) is one of the most OP rocket engines ever made and is a late-game engine in KSPwhereas the Reliant is more like an early ethalox/kerolox ballistic missile engine and has the performance- and lack of gimbals- to match.

KSP2’s Reliant is a booster engine, emphasising thrust over efficiency, whereas the Swivel will be the more rounded sustainer engine for use in core stages, potentially with Reliant-powered boosters. The Vector is considerably more advanced than either and suggesting that it’s in any way equivalent to the Reliant is completely missing the point from both a historical and gameplay progression perspective.

The Vector is not for rockets, it’s a space shuttle engine and should be treated as such.

[Bej Kerman]

On 1/31/2023 at 9:21 PM, Strawberry said:

The Vector engine while not the most powerful engine, is the most overpowered engine. It outclasses both reliant and the swivel engine with ease. It has far higher surface isp then the reliant engine, with a whopping 295 compared to reliants 265. But at least reliant has higher thrust right? Vector has a whopping 1000 kn of thrust at vacuum, this is nearly double the thrust of the kickback SRB. On top of all of this, it has the highest thrust vectoring of any engine. The combinations of these stats make it far more powerful then its two brothers, so what can we do to fix this?

It needs fixing?

The RS-25 was specifically developed to have a ridiculous amount of thrust and efficiency, ergo the KS-25 will have a ridiculous amount of thrust and efficiency.

It's probably worth noting that the stock parts were balanced for 2.5x scale planets in KSP 1 and that might skew the perception of how OP it feels.

[Strawberry]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

It needs fixing?

The RS-25 was specifically developed to have a ridiculous amount of thrust and efficiency, ergo the KS-25 will have a ridiculous amount of thrust and efficiency.

This is a game, not real life. While in real life some engines in straight upgrade, its healthiest for the game if every part has a niche. That doesnt mean that some parts cant be as a whole stronger, but it means that every part should have a reason for using them. The NERV engine for example, is (I'd argue) as a whole stronger then other deep space engines, but there's a reason to use other engines so it's not an issue. The vector however, outclasses basically any other small engine in every single niche, so if you're a sandbox player or in late game science, its trivial to let the other small atmospheric methalox engines just rot in the VAB while you use this one engine because it outclasses all the other.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Strawberry said:

This is a game, not real life. While in real life some engines in straight upgrade, its healthiest for the game if every part has a niche. That doesnt mean that some parts cant be as a whole stronger, but it means that every part should have a reason for using them. The NERV engine for example, is (I'd argue) as a whole stronger then other deep space engines, but there's a reason to use other engines so it's not an issue. The vector however, outclasses basically any other small engine in every single niche, so if you're a sandbox player or in late game science, its trivial to let the other small atmospheric methalox engines just rot in the VAB while you use this one engine because it outclasses all the other.

KSP isn't a typical game, it's a game that also serves as a simulation that approximates real life. If you've got an engine that outclasses the others but you don't want it to outclass the others, tough luck. That's just the march of technology.

I hope you enjoy seeing methalox engines rot, because you'll see a whole lot more of it when you get to metallic engines and torch drives that render them completely obsolete.

[Strawberry]

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP isn't a typical game, it's a game that also serves as a simulation that approximates real life. If you've got an engine that outclasses the others but you don't want it to outclass the others, tough luck. That's just the march of technology.

I hope you enjoy seeing methalox engines rot, because you'll see a whole lot more of it when you get to metallic engines and torch drives that render them completely obsolete.

Did you read the engines archetype dev diary? They've made there desires to keep every engine having a niche pretty implicit in the whole thing ("The Way Too Useful region is a story for later in Early Access with more exotic engines , which have their own, unique challenges for building and flying."). This is a game about little green spacemen, not real life, and while realism is a good guide design, it shouldnt be taken as gospel, and having parts just sit in the VAB is just bad. The devs have already explicitly said that they want to rebalance the vector engines (again see that dev diary), these are just my suggestions on how I think it should be done.

[Bej Kerman]

33 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

having parts just sit in the VAB is just bad.

Well parts will sit as soon as far future tech comes around, especially the engines that work in atmosphere. You can't avoid things becoming obsolete.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Strawberry]

40 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Well parts will sit as soon as far future tech comes around, especially the engines that work in atmosphere. You can't avoid things becoming obsolete.

Yes you can? For example we know that nuclear technology will produce radiation and produce heat, this means that nuclear ships need additional space and shadow shields, things that methalox engines dont need. This allows methalox to have the niche of being compact in regards to nuclear engines. We don't know what the unique challenges for building and flying will be for metallic hydrogen and other torchships, but they will definitely have some.

[Bej Kerman]

46 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Well parts will sit as soon as far future tech comes around, especially the engines that work in atmosphere. You can't avoid things becoming obsolete.

Yes you can? For example we know that nuclear technology will produce radiation and produce heat, this means that nuclear ships need additional space and shadow shields, things that methalox engines dont need. This allows methalox to have the niche of being compact in regards to nuclear engines.

For very niche cases where you really can't take the slight size increase and somehow don't have anything better to use than methalox engines, sure. But for general use, you can't avoid obsolescence. Rockets today don't use the engine used on Goddard's rocket, even if you insist they might have a niche use that somehow avoids obsolescence.

[Strawberry]

10 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

For very niche cases where you really can't take the slight size increase and somehow don't have anything better to use than methalox engines, sure. But for general use, you can't avoid obsolescence. Rockets today don't use the engine used on Goddard's rocket, even if you insist they might have a niche use that somehow avoids obsolescence.

This is a game and should be balanced as such, my point there is that you can easily add enough drawbacks/upsides to things to where everything has a niche even if some things are better. For example an orion drive isnt going to be nearly as good at precise maneuvering then a terrier engine. A big part of rocket design is having to think about what to use, and having to make conscious decisions and weighing pros and cons while making a spacecraft is far more interesting then just selecting the hyper torchship 9000.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Strawberry

[Kerbart]

In KSP1 the Vector was introduced late into the games' lifecycle, and it's a typical Career engine. Yes, it's severely overpowered and a testament to the engineering of it's real-world equivalent. It also delivers relative little thrust (compared to, for instance, the Mainsail), so you will always need a handful of them, and it is outrageously expensive. THAT limits its use in Career, and using it in reusable craft mitigates that.

For all we know, money is not going to be a game mechanic in KSP2, so we'll probably find out, if there's a Vector equivalent in the game, how it's use is going to be limited to prevent it from being the only engine worth using.

[Bej Kerman]

46 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

This is a game and should be balanced as such

Again, this isn't some game about fighting monsters and you've got 50 niche swords to pick from, KSP needs to at least reflect reality on a surface-level so as to achieve its goal of demonstrating roughly how spaceflight works in the real world. Tech has to become obsolete.

47 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

For example an orion drive isnt going to be nearly as good at precise maneuvering then a terrier engine.

But a metallic engine or something similar could probably achieve that same maneuverability with a similar Isp. Either way, you might as well just use RCS thrusters, which themselves will probably get late-game alternatives like in Near Future.

48 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

A big part of rocket design is having to think about what to use, and having to make conscious decisions and weighing pros and cons while making a spacecraft is far more interesting then just selecting the hyper torchship 9000.

By the time you can make a hyper torchship 9000, you'll probably never touch methalox engines again. Why bother when metallic engines work in an atmosphere as well and are much more efficient? Unless you're doing miniaturization and don't need anything bigger than the rocket Goddard built, of course.

[Strawberry]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, this isn't some game about fighting monsters and you've got 50 niche swords to pick from, KSP needs to at least reflect reality on a surface-level so as to achieve its goal of demonstrating roughly how spaceflight works in the real world. Tech has to become obsolete.

If a person hasn't figured that out yet and needs ksp2 to teach them that tech becomes obsolete, I don't think that they will be capable of learning that tech becomes obsolete.  Also I dont think its unrealistic to assume that we will still be using chemical engines in the future, there's a reason why we use them today, they have many qualities that make them attractive.

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

By the time you can make a hyper torchship 9000, you'll probably never touch methalox engines again. Why bother when metallic engines work in an atmosphere as well and are much more efficient? Unless you're doing miniaturization and don't need anything bigger than the rocket Goddard built, of course.

We don't know the balancing factor for metallic engines, but metallic hydrogen is incredibly energy consuming, and has high capital costs, so even with metallic engines you'll still want to use methalox engines for a lot of cargo. I dont think this will be the only downside, but I do think it will be a big one.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Strawberry

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Strawberry said:

Also I dont think its unrealistic to assume that we will still be using chemical engines in the future, there's a reason why we use them today, they have many qualities that make them attractive.

Like the fact nothing else has been approved for spaceflight yet?

1 hour ago, Strawberry said:

We don't know the balancing factor for metallic engines, but metallic hydrogen is incredibly energy consuming, and has high capital costs, so even with metallic engines you'll still want to use methalox engines for a lot of cargo. I dont think this will be the only downside, but I do think it will be a big one.

With metallic engines, all its flaws will be more than accounted for with its high ISP. Don't think that just because an engine weighs a bit more and needs extra power generation that a massive increase in ISP won't be able to reduce the wet mass enough to account for it. To make a comparison with already-known technologies, "the engines found on boosters are bulky and consume a lot of power, so the rockets you see on fireworks might still have uses because they aren't nearly as big and heavy".

[Strawberry]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Like the fact nothing else has been approved for spaceflight yet?

Also that chemical engines are good jack of all trades and are also very cheap.

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

With metallic engines, all its flaws will be more than accounted for with its high ISP. Don't think that just because an engine weighs a bit more and needs extra power generation that a massive increase in ISP won't be able to reduce the wet mass enough to account for it. To make a comparison with already-known technologies, "the engines found on boosters are bulky and consume a lot of power, so the rockets you see on fireworks might still have uses because they aren't nearly as big and heavy".

This isnt "needs a little more energy production", this is the difference between a few solar panels and several fusion power planets. We don't know specifics but metallic hydrogen production is likely going to be a massive power hog. Not only that, but metallic hydrogen production facilities are assumingly much more expensive then methalox production facilities, meaning its much easier to make methalox in larger quantities then metallic hydrogen. This means youll want to use metallic hydrogen sparingly, such as on science missions, instead of for things like cargo.

[darthgently]

Don't forget that we have almost no idea how we might feasibly contain metallic hydrogen in a "tank".  Probably more energy requirement in some type of active magnetic bottle or something

Edited February 5, 2023 by darthgently

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Strawberry said:

10 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Like the fact nothing else has been approved for spaceflight yet?

Also that chemical engines are good jack of all trades and are also very cheap.

Chemical engines, in the grand scheme of things, are utterly terrible. Not at all a jack of all trades.

Just now, Strawberry said:

this is the difference between a few solar panels and several fusion power planets.

Yes, and the difference is more than made up by the additional ISP. Your dV will go up even with the added power production.

1 minute ago, Strawberry said:

Not only that, but metallic hydrogen production facilities are assumingly much more expensive then methalox production facilities, meaning its much easier to make methalox in larger quantities then metallic hydrogen.

Probably not a problem for colonies that are millions of kilometers, if not light years, from the nearest bank or political border that has an associated currency.

2 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

This means youll want to use metallic hydrogen sparingly, such as on science missions, instead of for things like cargo.

Not really. As I said, chemical engines are steaming trash. The benefit of metallic hydrogen in making rockets smaller can't be overstated, and this just gets better the more efficient you get.