Make the O-10 Monopropellant Engine smaller

[GusTurbo]

I noticed that after downloading .24, the 0-10 had gotten much larger than when we had seen it in Scott Manley's preview video. See below:

Before:

(Scott Manley's preview video)

After:

(in-game, from this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86717-Monoprop-SSTO)

I think it looked better at the smaller size, and made more sense, given its level of thrust. Right now it just looks off, and I'm having trouble coming up with applications for it, because the size and thrust are so incongruous. Was this change made intentionally? If so, what was the justification. I'm big on aesthetics, so I'm kind of struggling with this one. I like the part in principle, it's really just the size that gets me.

[SciMan]

I too am confused by the change in size of the O-10 MonoPropellant Engine.

In KSP, the 24-77 radial liquid fuel engine has exactly the same thrust level and weighs 3 times as much.

However, that engine is actually smaller than the O-10. That doesn't make logical sense.

Shouldn't an engine that uses 2 propellants take up more room for the same thrust, even if we're only considering the plumbing and not stuff like turbo-pumps?

That's one of my main problems with the current scaling of the part. It made more sense in the preview video the OP linked.

Also, I took a look thru the part's config file, and I found the line "rescaleFactor=2" in there.

That line would either not exist or the value would be set to 1 if the part hadn't been rescaled.

So, either commenting it out or setting it's value to 1 should put it back where it was in the preview vids.

[Northstar1989]

I too am confused by the change in size of the O-10 MonoPropellant Engine.

In KSP, the 24-77 radial liquid fuel engine has exactly the same thrust level and weighs 3 times as much.

However, that engine is actually smaller than the O-10. That doesn't make logical sense.

Shouldn't an engine that uses 2 propellants take up more room for the same thrust, even if we're only considering the plumbing and not stuff like turbo-pumps?

That's one of my main problems with the current scaling of the part. It made more sense in the preview video the OP linked.

Also, I took a look thru the part's config file, and I found the line "rescaleFactor=2" in there.

That line would either not exist or the value would be set to 1 if the part hadn't been rescaled.

So, either commenting it out or setting it's value to 1 should put it back where it was in the preview vids.

So, you mean to tell me they actually re-scaled their own engine (with corresponding decreases in texture quality over designing it for the large size in the first place) to a less realistic and sensible size, rather than just leaving it at the better size in the first place?

That's just sad...

I want to see them change it back- not force players to mod configs to do so (which would DQ the part from many challenges)

By the way, it's NOT just a matter of aesthetics- if you're running FAR (like I am), then the larger size actually causes it to generate more drag- making it strictly inferior to the 24-77.

Regards,

Northstar

[Pursuedtank]

Apparently it's a problem that squad will fix. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86395-The-Grand-0-24-Discussion-Thread?p=1281714#post1281714