Why aren't the Vectors HydroLox fueled?

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

There's not?

 

No. There's not. One petition that didn't get accepted means they are ignoring feedback, because, that's not feedback. That's a petition. Two totally different things. 

As to why they didn't accept it, probably could have been that they already contracted the voice actor/actress that we've heard in the videos. 

[Periple]

8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

As to why they didn't accept it, probably could have been that they already contracted the voice actor/actress that we've heard in the videos. 

Or perhaps they felt that the voice actress they chose was more in tune with the general light-heartedness of the game. 

One thing I like about KSP2 so far is the general aesthetics. It's fun and a little silly while at the same time capturing the majesty of spaceflight. The silliness and big explosions take some of the sting out of failing while the majestic rocket sounds, the music, the beautiful planets, and the way space looks makes successes rewarding.

Scott Manley is amazing but I can see how you'd feel that his gravelly Scots accent is at odds with backwards-Spanish countdowns and little green creatures smashing buttons in a panic when things are starting go haywire. 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Apology accepted, 

But my point stands, there is no proof they are listing to feedback.  And they missed a golden opportunity to  make these changes.

 

Note that I never claimed that they listen to feedback, just that one proposal from you not being included in the game is not proof of the developers ignoring it.

No, the Scott Manley petition isn't enough either, it takes a prolonged series of cases, maybe things that are more agreed upon, it's a behavior you can't extrapolate from a couple of cherry-picked examples. 

 

It doesn't even make sense to claim so, a portion of the community is advocating for a thing in the game, another one is against it, how does that even count? The devs are listening only if they do exactly what you like? Only when they side with your point of view? Or it's some sort of jolly lose-lose situation that can be used as proof they're not listening regardless of what they choose to do?

Or it's a case that we can even spin around and use to say that they are listening afterall, if you look at it from the right angle you could say that they went with the perfect compromise, there's realistic fuels (Methane and Hydrogen), most engine still use the same fuel, there's engine using a different fuel (nuclear with hydrogen), and generic names like "oxidizer" and "monoprop" for people that liked those. It's the perfect compromise and, as such, nobody is going to be happy with it. You could use it as proof that they're listening and choosing the middle ground between all the sides in the argument.

But that's not what I'm trying to say here, my point is that you can use the same single instance of a single suggestion to say whatever you want depending on how you spin the narrative.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Master39

[Tweeker]

57 minutes ago, Master39 said:

 

Note that I never claimed that they listen to feedback, just that one proposal from you not being included in the game is not proof of the developers ignoring it.

No, the Scott Manley petition isn't enough either, it takes a prolonged series of cases, maybe things that are more agreed upon, it's a behavior you can't extrapolate from a couple of cherry-picked examples. 

 

It doesn't even make sense to claim so, a portion of the community is advocating for a thing in the game, another one is against it, how does that even count? The devs are listening only if they do exactly what you like? Only when they side with your point of view? Or it's some sort of jolly lose-lose situation that can be used as proof they're not listening regardless of what they choose to do?

Or it's a case that we can even spin around and use to say that they are listening afterall, if you look at it from the right angle you could say that they went with the perfect compromise, there's realistic fuels (Methane and Hydrogen), most engine still use the same fuel, there's engine using a different fuel (nuclear with hydrogen), and generic names like "oxidizer" and "monoprop" for people that liked those. It's the perfect compromise and, as such, nobody is going to be happy with it. You could use it as proof that they're listening and choosing the middle ground between all the sides in the argument.

But that's not what I'm trying to say here, my point is that you can use the same single instance of a single suggestion to say whatever you want depending on how you spin the narrative.

The example of someone suggesting Scott Manley  as a voice actor, but the studio  choosing not to ignore that suggestion  is a perfectly clear example of ignoring the community.  Making all the engines run on MethaLox is another. Not re-balancing the engines is another.    And it's not as if these are things that just popped up, many of these suggestions have been around for quite a few years.    

[Periple]

28 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The example of someone suggesting Scott Manley  as a voice actor, but the studio  choosing not to ignore that suggestion  is a perfectly clear example of ignoring the community.  Making all the engines run on MethaLox is another. Not re-balancing the engines is another.    And it's not as if these are things that just popped up, many of these suggestions have been around for quite a few years.    

Soliciting feedback and listening to suggestions does not mean automatically implementing and incorporating the feedback and suggestions, doubly so when the feedback and suggestions aren't unanimous. 

They went into a quite a bit of detail about why they picked the fuel types they did, how they rebalanced the engines, and why they rebalanced them that way. You may legitimately disagree with where they eventually landed, but just from that it's very clear that they did listen to feedback and suggestions and take them very seriously indeed. 

[Guest]

First thing first, @Tweeker , I've just received independent confirmation that that line was indeed there the first time around, so I owe you an apology.

I'm sorry for not giving your comment the attention it deserved while accusing you of doing the same, and of having accused you of sneaky edits.

I've edited my previous comments to reflect that, while still preserving the original.

 

That said, back to the topic.

33 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The example of someone suggesting Scott Manley  as a voice actor, but the studio  choosing not to ignore that suggestion  is a perfectly clear example of ignoring the community.  Making all the engines run on MethaLox is another. Not re-balancing the engines is another.    And it's not as if these are things that just popped up, many of these suggestions have been around for quite a few years.    

Still not enough to prove a behaviour.

I understand those two are matters that you deem important, but in the 80 pages of KSP2 forums they're nothing but a drop in the ocean.

And it's not true that they have not touched the engines, they've changed things, a lot of things, probably balancing several different opinions and ideas while doing it, the final result is not what you'd like but it's there nonetheless.

They nerfed the vector, buffed the nuclear engine, two very popular requests in the community, and removed the generic "Liquid Fuel" to replace it with a more realistic Methane.

That often happens with changes driven by community feedback, for any game, I've managed smaller situations (a pretty popular Towny Minecraft server) im which we had to adapt the gameplay to our community feedback constantly, and it was an exercise in patience and constant compromises. By the time a feature or change goes from a community request to an actual feature in game the final result is going to feel "watered down" compared to the extreme positions the suggestions usually start with.

In KSP you can see they in the differences between Remotetech and the CommNet update, the stock implementation is a far cry from the harsh difficulty of the original mod.

But that doesn't mean the devs didn't listen to the feedback or suggestions of the community.

They're not the exact changes you would have personally liked, but you can't use that as proof that they're not listening. Not yet.

 

It takes a continued behaviour over several updates to confirm that they're ignoring feedback, right now that proof simply isn't there.

 

 

[Chilkoot]

7 hours ago, Tweeker said:

the Vectors are now  Methalox powered, which doesn't make much sense it they are modeled on the RS-25

(emphasis added)

This was raised this in a recent ESA video and the presenter asked Intercept about it - I think it was Matt Lowe, but I've been binging content and can't recall lol.

Intercept's response:  the engines in KSP 2 are meant to reflect general real-world technology, but are no longer meant to mirror specific engines or concept engines.  Fuel types, ISP, gimballing control and other parameters are designed for a balanced game experience, and not to reflect capabilities of particular real-world engines.  This decision helps fill in some gaps and reduce overlap in the original engine selections present in KSP 1.

Another significant design change is that air-breathing jet engines now run off methane, while nuclear (thermal) engines use hydrogen as a propellant.   This will impact the design of interplanetary space planes, as we will now need to carry a 3rd propellant type for high-ISP vacuum engines on SSTO's.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Chilkoot

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Chilkoot said:

This will impact the design of interplanetary space planes, as we will now need to carry a 3rd propellant type for high-ISP vacuum engines on SSTO's.

4th, if you consider that monopropellant doesn't seem to be optional anymore.

[Chilkoot]

8 minutes ago, Master39 said:

4th, if you consider that monopropellant doesn't seem to be optional anymore.

Yeah, that's a doozy.  I wonder if it's just the reaction wheels in command pods that are nerfed or if it's all reaction wheels?

[MarcAbaddon]

With the lower density of Hydrogen we can probably also expect nuclear powered vessels to be fairly large.

For reaction wheels we'll just need to see how well the extra ones do.  For simple vessels and missions you can also just rely on engine gimbaling. If you don't go full thrust you can usually turn your vessel to the around pointing without wasting too much delta-v in unintended directions.

[Baleine]

I feel like @Tweeker is quite enthusiastic about how the game should be, and I really think it's great to see people dedicated to make the game go in a direction they really wants to, even if it's just by suggesting, making researches, etc…

I am really happy that people are enthusiastic about the game, because that means that means the game will be better, because those people will buy the game and be a voice for a largely silent part of the community (like myself). And although I'm silent for the most part of the time, I want this game to thrill me, give me challenge, and nice experiences, like any other KSP player, and certainly like the most enthusiastic gamers that bother getting on this forum.

 

The tricky part is that not everyone has the same point of view on every things, so it's quite dubious that everyone will be happy with what gets into the game and how it will be set. Sometimes, that may be seen as an infuriating outrage, but the other options could be seen as infuriating for another part of the community. That's why that kind of game is hard to develop. Nobody agrees on where the balance between « realistic simulation » and « fun to play » is.

I think we should all remember it's gonna be an Early Access and that many thing may change in that time, if we voice it properly. And if you believe that whatever happens, the dev won't listen to you, then, you are losing your time here. You will just get on the nerve of some other game enthusiasts, which will be counterproductive.

I see the amount of energy you are capable to draw to state your arguments. You have passion, which is what we need to have to give feedback that matters (to us, anyway).

The problem that is coming with passion is that it's not always easy to keep rational, to see everything, and we resent when the dev / publisher / editor make a decision we don't understand like :
 

4 hours ago, Tweeker said:

The example of someone suggesting Scott Manley  as a voice actor, but the studio  choosing not to ignore that suggestion  is a perfectly clear example of ignoring the community.  Making all the engines run on MethaLox is another. Not re-balancing the engines is another.    And it's not as if these are things that just popped up, many of these suggestions have been around for quite a few years.    

The problem there is that we don't know the reasons for those choices. If we are not faithful to the team giving birth to KSP2, then we will never accept their decision as the sensible one.
Why didn't asked Scott Manly to voice the tutorial? I don't know, but they have a reason.
Why did they switched all existing engine to MethaLox? They give us a reason, it was probably not a very good one in your point of view, but it exists.

Will any of these thing change?
That's the big question. Either nobody will listen and we will get « robbed » of 50$ on friday, or we can throw our arguments in a proper manner through the EA, and hope for the best.

And, worst-case scenario (well not really the worst), they don't accept our suggestions, and mods could still make the game like we like.

 

I hope I didn't offend you while you read this. I really think you are what makes this community a place for enthusiasts.
Keep it up

[Profugo Barbatus]

I'm not sure why so many people are still confused/hung up around the liquid fuel rebrand. They wanted to give it a real name to ground it in a bit of science, methalox is a known option for widespread simple ISRU (IE, Tier 1 colony fuel production), is decently performant, and doesn't step on the toes of Liquid Hydrogen, which is what your RS-25 would be running off of IRL anyway. Oil derived fuels like Kerosene aren't a great idea for a 'baseline' engine what with them trying to stick to general principles of availability.

Its all a game of 'close enough' while being simple enough for all skill levels of rocket surgeons. I'm sure Intercept trusts modders to put every fuel under the sun in the game inside of the first month, for those of us who want every little detail to be perfect.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Profugo Barbatus

[Tweeker]

9 hours ago, Master39 said:

First thing first, @Tweeker , I've just received independent confirmation that that line was indeed there the first time around, so I owe you an apology.

I'm sorry for not giving your comment the attention it deserved while accusing you of doing the same, and of having accused you of sneaky edits.

I've edited my previous comments to reflect that, while still preserving the original.

@Master39 Thank you for acknowledging the situation and addressing it directly and honestly, I am happy to accept your gracious apology. 

Now back to the subject at had, I'm not saying Intercept isn't listening, but I am say I don't see any evidence that they have listened to community feedback. I will note that in another thread "where to submit your feedback"  they said that they are listening to community feedback thru "channels" but the only specific place they mentioned was thru the games launcher. Think about that for a second.

They went to the game's forms where people are posting feed back to tell them they could give Intercept games feed back by buying the game   and  submitting feedback thru the game. If there are criticisms people have that are keeping the from buying the game how are they supposed to express these to Intercept?  Thru some vaguely defined "channels"? I'll post something in the relevant thread later, and we'll see if they listen, as I've said before they're free to prove me wrong.

And back to the original topic,   "Why aren't Vectors HyroLox fueled?"

It's a simple direct observation about something that is factually wrong,

1) The Vector is a SSME, {KS-25 =RS-25}.

2) The Vector should  therefore be HydroLox  fueled.

3) There is Hydrogen in the game, and there is Oxygen{or atleast  Oxydizer} in the game

So why not make the engine that is supposed to burn Hydrogen and Oxygen burn the Hydrogen and Oxygen that is in the game?

 

[EnderKid2]

Because the Vector is not an RS-25, it's a KS-25. It looks a lot like an RS-25, but it isn't.

[Empiro]

For the same reason that there's no HydroLox or MethoLox in KSP 1 (or even RP-1 since "Liquid Fuel" doesn't exactly have a real-life analogue). It's basically not a area where the developers want to increase complexity in. I'm sure there will be plenty of mods that add fuel types for enthusiasts who want the most realistic and customizable experience.

[mcwaffles2003]

18 hours ago, Tweeker said:

But my point stands, there is no proof they are listing to feedback. 

But there is... Devs come one the forums and have taken and implemented suggestions from several users here. Heres a comment where Nate agreed to change terrain around the KSC

 

[Tweeker]

2 hours ago, Empiro said:

For the same reason that there's no HydroLox or MethoLox in KSP 1 (or even RP-1 since "Liquid Fuel" doesn't exactly have a real-life analogue). It's basically not a area where the developers want to increase complexity in. I'm sure there will be plenty of mods that add fuel types for enthusiasts who want the most realistic and customizable experience.

There in lies the problem, they added MethaLox to the game. 

Before is was "Fuel" and "Oxidizer"  which was not any specific thing, and therefore not specifically wrong for and engine. Now it's CH4 and OX which is specifically wrong for this particular engine. especially in light of the fact that they also added Hydrogen.

 

[Baleine]

There is something I don't understand here.

You keep saying that it's wrong for vectors to use MethaLox, but your only argument is that the real life motor that inspired them is using HydroLox?

If I understand that correctly, then I would just say that they chose to bend realism, which is a frequent decision game designers make

[Guest]

In a corner, the new methane jet engines are sweating profusely, feeling lucky that nobody noticed them yet.

 

[GoldForest]

18 minutes ago, Master39 said:

In a corner, the new methane jet engines are sweating profusely, feeling lucky that nobody noticed them yet.

 

 

Tbf, methane turbine engines do exist and are being made and tested today. Methalox RS-25 wasn't even considered afaik. 

[Tweeker]

Oh, believe me, I noticed.

But one thing at a time.

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

 

 

Tbf, methane turbine engines do exist and are being made and tested today. Methalox RS-25 wasn't even considered afaik. 

[Periple]

I thought the Engine Archetypes developer insights essay was very interesting. It goes in-depth into why they made the decisions they did.

In my opinion their reasoning makes perfect game design sense. It's not the only possible design of course, and where you land depends a lot on where you want to strike the balance between realism and approachability.

I think I would personally have started by matching fuel types with engine families -- booster, sustainer, orbital are methalox, deep space is hydrolox, nuclear is hydrogen only -- but I've no doubt they thought about that and eventually decided it didn't work for the gameplay as well as omitting hydrolox altogether and keeping hydrogen for nuclear engines only. Who knows, after enough iteration maybe I would have ended up there too.

But I do think it's important to remember that these decisions are based primarily on gameplay: they won't make something more realistic if they feel it detracts from the gameplay.

[Tweeker]

The problem isn't they are using Methalox, it's that they are using simulants of real engines that aren't Methalox engines. If they want to use Methalox that's no problem, If they want to have booster sustainer and orbital engines, no problem. 

The problem comes in when they start using simulants of real world engines, that are visually and thematically designed to look like an  equivalent of a real world engine . It's very easy to  look at a Vector, or any other HydroLox burning engine, and know it's burning the wrong fuel.  And knowing that it's wrong detracts from the game.

 

[Periple]

30 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The problem comes in when they start using simulants of real world engines, that are visually and thematically designed to look like an  equivalent of a real world engine . It's very easy to  look at a Vector, or any other HydroLox burning engine, and know it's burning the wrong fuel.  And knowing that it's wrong detracts from the game.

I don't doubt that it does that for you, and perhaps some other players as well. 

However, making it burn the right fuel has an impact on gameplay. If the designers have determined that they believe that the impact is negative, then it becomes a judgment call: which is more important, burning the right fuel for the right-looking model, or avoiding the negative gameplay impact? From my point of view, for a game like KSP, it's easy -- gameplay comes first.

Of course there would be another way to avoid that: change the model and the name so it doesn't reference the RS-25 anymore. However, that also has a negative impact -- you're no longer able to build a Space Shuttle that looks like a Space Shuttle. 

They could certainly have made a category of hydrolox engines, but they chose not to, because they felt it would negatively impact gameplay. I think many players would have been upset if they had gone and replaced all the engines based on hydrolox-burning counterparts with purely imaginary ones. Either way I don't think it's an obvious call at all.

[Baleine]

I don't think the average player would notice.

It's like I said before, you are a real space Sim enthusiast and that kind of thing is really bothering you. But if you think about the average player, how many will notice that and on that number, how many will be bothered?

Not a lot in my opinion. I sure don't care about that, and won't care if they change the fuel later.

Since the devs explained their choice on that matter and it's clear they won't revert that on a whim, do you think we need to argue further on this topic?

Edited February 23, 2023 by Baleine