Tweeker

If the fix functions the same on shuttle, but opens up more options how is it a bad thing? Why are you so afraid of even talking about it? It would be better to start over, clean sheet, but I don't think that idea would get too far, people are far too attached to thing. Even suggesting the smallest change is bound to get some push-back. I'm not sure how it would work, balancing only by thrust and weight, it seems less dynamic to me. I think ISP is too important to put aside.

The bad decision was rolling it out as a special case engine. Clinging to it obsessively rather than finding a way to fix the problem solves nothing. It limits the options for space planes to the one "correct" choice.

The vector is different because it was a band- aid, not because it is some special high tech wonder engine. Changing all the other engines to justify this isn't the answer. Changing the vector to align with the way all the rest of the rocket engine function is the better choice. There are a few obvious substitutes, for example people used to use the skipper as a shuttle engine before the vector was rolled out. the only complaint was the thrust structure clipping thru the sides, now with the compact version that is not a issue.

I'm not taking this a gospel, ,but it is as good a place as any to start, I mean isn't it better to provide constructive commentary now than to wait and see what we get and then poodle about it.? . (not poodle--apparently there is an auto correct for b!tch)

I think the values are based on "stock values, as they mostly match the current stats, So I think it is safe to assume that Vector is getting a nerf. And that the 909 is getting a buff. (which really messes with it balance vs the poodle. I also note that the LV-series are really over represented, If the upgrades are based on series or family it would be best to put to make the lv-t303 and the lv-t15 in a different family. I can't tell for sure if the buffs are based on a number, or a percent, but I think that percentage is the way to go, that way smaller engine don't receive a bigger boost, this is reall important when considering clustering, For example the 303 looks like it goes from 25 to 40 in Thrust or about a 40% swing, the Swivel on the other hand only appears to have a 20% swing in thrust I also think I is better to have a sytem where each engine has an early nerfed, then a "stock" version, then an advanced "buffed"version. That way the max stats change less vs the current ones. Also, I notice there is nothing for SRBs Making the power head a ghost mesh, and mounting the Vector by the throat makes no sense, when all he rest of the engines mount above the powerhead. . The vector should not be a special case engine. Changing the mounting plane of the engine mount makes more sense as it open up more engine options for the shuttle.

The vector is already being changed as part of the engine re-vamp, it's getting a thrust nerf, and it is getting a power-head, instead of being a magic nozzle. So it is just a matter of how much thrust change, and how much taller the engine will be. Unless you are objecting to Squad re-vampire the engine.

Not at all. the vector could have it's thrust nerfed to 400-450KN and still be useable as a shuttle engine. Changing it so it attaches in the same way as all other rocket engine is a good and needed change as well. And once again it would not keep you from using it as a shuttle engine> If you make these 2 changes it in no way detract rom you ability to builda shuttle in KSP, and as a bonus: 1) since now all the engines mount the same you can use other engine in the shuttle as well. and 2) You get a Bigger, Better SRB. I see no down side.

There are 2 things I see right now with the compact engines, 1) The compact engines need to generate a fairing above them , kind of and egg shape that will meld into whatever they are under. This is because when they are clustered under a tank, they will hang out, and we all know how crazy that drives some people. 2) There needs to be an inter-stage, because if you cluster without an engine in the center it becomes hard to stack under this, for example in the case of the clustered upperstages. an inter-stage would make this cleaner and easier. I had a chance to mess around a little, and I came up with this, I knew that in circle packing if you are at a ratio of 1/2 the most you can pack is 2. I didn't know how to figure it for asymmetric iterations, So I did it practically, using 909s for Poodles, and Sparks for 909s. This is only slightly better than the cluster of 12. But it is interesting, It changes my thinking somewhat. If the poodle is buffed to 300, or 310 thrust, (with weight change to match so TWR is the same) Then the situation becomes: 2 poodles = 600Kn, 12 9029s = 720 Kn and a 2-4 cluster such as above becomes 840Kn Interesting. and if you consider the poodle vs 909s on 1.25 m tanks you find that you can still out perform the poodle, but now you have to cluster more than 5 909s and to accomplish this, and you are noticeably over hanging the edges. So now I think maybe 300 to 310 isp. On the whole I would agree with you once your in space it doesn't matter what you use for transfers, so use the lightest thing you can, The problem is the poodle is basically a 4X 909. It has a slight thrust and TWR advantage but not enough to really make it distinct. I have always said that it need more thrust to accomplish this, I still think that, but now I really think 300 - 310 Isp would be a really interesting place for the poodle to be.

I can agree with that.

If the engines where square, yes. But circles don't fit neatly togeher If you cluster 4 your parts will clip. You could slide the engines farther out, but then the mount will hang out past the edge of the tank. And that opens up a whole can of worms so best to stick with what can be fit completely under the tank. The best way to think of it is as a circle packing problem http://www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/cirincir/ In our case we can just concentrate on the example where r=2 and r=4, or 1/2 & 1/4 of the diameter of the fuel tank.

I'm full on board with the idea of being able to upgrade parts via the tech tree. There were some topics that floated around about the idea a few years back: in one of them. I aid the following, which I still stand by. The big challenge, from a game design standpoint Is balancing the thrust range of single engine vs clusters, for example For example a cluster of compact LV909s vs the Poodle. First you need to establish a paradigm for what size the full size version is vs the If you assume The compact is 1/2 the width of the full sized, (which seems to fall in line with the artwork from the first page) then the tightest you can cluster a poodle compact,1.25m Poodle under a 2.5m stack, is 2. otherwise you get part clipping. A compact Lv-909 on the other hand will fit 12. This suggests that the Poodle need to be bigger thrust wise, some where above 6x larger than the LV-909. for example using the current Stats,you get the following comparison: 2X poodles, 500KN 12X 909s 720KN This clearly illustrates the problem, I suggest a thrust of 400 KN based on current stats.This gives you:. 2X poodles, 800KN 12X 909s 720KN Making a poodle cluster better than 909 cluster, and preserving the poodles niche. Not knowing the starting and ending stats of both makes it hard to throw out exact numbers. for the upgrade system. When people discussing the Vector people often point out that it is supposed to be used to make a shuttle analog, so it make sense that the stats should reflect this.

What you actually what you said was: Pretty much nothing worth paying attention to. If, instead you said something constructive, even if it is a different opinion it might lead to an actual discussion.

I'd like that too, I thought that maybe, we where almost finished with this and could get back to discussing the Thrust and performance, but I'm sure that will turn into another big thing Back on page 4 I posted Some thought on The thrust & ISP changes, So in an effort to get back on topic I'll repeat them. As far as the rest of the engines rest of the engines go, I don't think a new art pass is needed, and I don't like the art I have seen. Some of the new engines seem a bit redundant, the 303 for example is almost exactly on top of the spark, thrust wise, It seems like the Isp will make it more space tuned, But still it is too close to the spark's niche. For a longtime this was my main complaint about the LV-T 30 & T 45. They where essentially snow clones of each other I am glad you are pushing the farther apart, and very glad that one of them is is being pushed up to the 300 kN range. I am not entirely sold on the LV-T 15, It makes sense that it is a fractional size of the other 2 engines, but the ISP wise the quoted stats are extremely bad. I am glad you are nerfing the Vector, it still needs to be nerfed more more, but it's getting closer to where it needs to be. I wish you would ditch the Twin Boar and Mammoth entirely, and replace them with a bi- and quad- adapter, and add more adapters as well, maybe a 5 way for Apollo type applications, I think having adapters that you could mount whichever engine you choose, would be much more versatile than having dedicated dual and quad engines. The poodle really needs a buff, it's main problem is the way it relates to the 2.5m parts, While the poodle can be viewed as basically a 4X version of the LV-909, the other the equivilant parts don't follow this trend,. The small fuel tank in the 2.5m range is 9X heavier, The capsule is 5X heavier, The lander can is the best of the bunch at being just over 4X heavier than the 1.25m version. The result of this is that it's TWR in a stack moves in a very granular way. If it was 50% -60% larger it would give you a lot finer adjustment. Buffing the LV-909s thrust will make the poodle shortcomings that much more obvious. Consider tweaking the poodle instead.

If you want to build a shuttle that looks real the then you need an engine that looks real, that was the whole reasoning behind introducing the vector, So it is fair to compare it to the real world equivalent. Back on page 3 I posted a over lay of the silhouette of the new compact vector, overlaid on an RS-25 In case you can see from just the outline there is the powehead of a compact vector overlaid below, You can see how much bigger I needs to be. So if your going to have to translate it to hide the pumps etc on the new, compact model what difference does it make how far you have to translate it? I'd like that too, I thought that maybe, we where almost finished with this and could get back to discussing the Thrust and performance, but I'm sure that will turn into another big thing.

Well your complaing now about the idea of a full height Vector, saying that the only way it can be used is by having the power head cut off. If you know how to use the translate tools then you should have no objection to fixing the Vector, But you've been ranting and raving against the idea for days.

Exactly ! there is no reason the Vector should be any different than any engine. Squad created a problem when they gave us a hacked-off engine, rather than a proper engine mount.

Because the engine re-vamp adds machinery to the top of the Vector. (and rightly so) So your shuttle will have the gimbals, and powerhead hanging out the back.

The funny thing is your going to be upset if Squad doesn't change the mount.

The MK3 engine mount is going to have to be changed, you might as well get used to the idea. You seem to have made up your minds, but really you need to make peace with the idea. Otherwise you'l be right back here in 6 months or a year ranting and raving at Squad over the change. It is really for the best that you accept this.

I am glad you can see my point on the Rhino,. I understand why you want the Vector to appear realistic when mounted to the Mk3 shuttle engine mount, But there is no reason that the MK3 shuttle engine mount could not be changed to have recessed mounting points. In that way you could mount the Vector and have it look right in this one situation, and It would not have to behave differently than the rest of the rocket engines. There is no good or compelling reason for the Vector to be the way it is currently.

If you look at most of the compact engines, they are the same height, or taller. The Vector, and Rhino on the other hand are noticeably shorter and narrower, Making these 2 compact engines as tall as their full sized counter parts would cause no problems. All the other compact engines are no narrower than the width of the engine bell. There is literally no reason for then to be so much shorter or narrow than the rest of the engines. Bringing them in line with the rest of the engines creates no problems.

The engines where standard turbo-jets, except there where bypass ducts installed from the middle of the compressor section(I don't remember what stage) to the afterburner. At high speed the afterburner supplied all of the thrust, with the core engine only running to turn the front 1/2 of the compressor. So ramjet-ish

I've said almost exactly the same things, Espically about the 2.5m SRB, If there was a 2.5m SRB with about 2000-2500 thrust, 15,000 solid fuel, and gimbaling The space plane people could build much better shuttle replicas.

Once again, This is not about putting large diameter engine bells under smaller stacks. It is about how these engine behave when clustered. look at the mammoth: The engine bell, and powerhead if you could see it, would stick out past the edge of the tank {blue line}, There is a fairing that covers the powerhead, {red line} and it almost inline with the engine bell. There is no need to cut the engine any further. Here you can see the result if you cut the Vector "only" to the edges of the engine bell Not much difference And if you cluster entirely under the tank there is, once again, no issue. So tell me, why does the powerhead need to be cut down more than this?

For the second time, nobody is saying each engine must only be paired with a certain sized tank. The vector really is the genesis of the whole problem, It does not act like the other engines. Instead of representing the machinery as being present on top of the nozzle it is assumed to exist somewhere else. As long as it is only used only on the shuttle it is not a problem. anywhere else it doesn't function in the same way as the other rocket engines. Instead of fixing the problem, {the vector} you want to re-make all the other engines in this mold. It would be very simple to fix the vector, and it wouldn't break the shuttle to do it. 1) add the machinery to the top of the vector. 2) make the mounting plate so that any engine you mount on it is recessed so the power head is hidden.