CaptainTurbomuffin

After 1.0, jet engines no longer produce a constant thrust. The more speed you have, the more thrust you get. As a result, when trying to make a VTOL, you get the lowest possible thrust. As part of making intakes unique, the currently useless engine nacelle could solve this problem. Just like in real life, the engine nacelle could generate airflow. As a result, with an engine nacelle, you could start with higher thrust, due to the velocity curves. This could also be useful with cruising planes, as you could take-off and accelerate to your cruising speed faster. For example, if the nacelle provides a mach 1 airflow, your engine's performance will be as good if you were flying at mach 1. After exceeding mach 1, the nacelle becomes useless. (This would mean that you get a constant thrust until mach 1, wich is inappropriate. There could be a slight increase in thrust as the real airflow increases, within mach 1)And the best VTOL engine? The new Basic Jet Engine is really small, it could fit in an 1-m cargo bay *cough* , ( Also, how about an 1 m in-line VTOL container? ) making it an ideal choice for VTOLs, in size. With the nacelle, it should have enough thrust to lift things up. I say it should have at least 90kN thrust, with the nacelle. Of course, there's a problem. The vel.curves of the BJE are so low that even if the nacelle provides a mach 1 airflow instead of no airflow, you still get a thrust of 84 instead of 70. Based on the Vel.Curves, the max. thrust you can get is 119kN, at mach 1.67. If the vel.curves would give much more thrust, the BJE could have real use. I don't want much. here are the old vel.curves, and the ones I would like to see. (note that I count with 70 as stationary thrust. In theory it's 80, but in practice1, it won't go over 70. I don't know why, could someone explain this to me?) I am not suggesting values, I just show an approximate suggestion of something I would like to see. [TABLE=class: cms_table_grid, width: 128] [TR] [TD=width: 64]mach number[/TD] [TD=width: 64]current thrust[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]70[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]0,35[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]67,2[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]1,05[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]84[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]1,67[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]119[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]2,15[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]77[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]2,3[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]35[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]2,5[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE=class: cms_table_grid, width: 192] [TR] [TD=width: 64]mach number[/TD] [TD=width: 64]desired thrust (approx)[/TD] [TD=width: 64]desired thrust with a nacelle (approx)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]70[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]100[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]0,35[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]85[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]105[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]1[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]120[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]123[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]1,5[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]110[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]113[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]1,8[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]55[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]58[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: right]2[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]0[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Diagram: As the devs say, they want the BJE to be a subsonic cruising turbofan. Than why it is that it performs better at more than 2 mach than the normal, cruising speed? And that it's the best at mach 1.7? As you can see, I just moved the vel.curves towards a SUBsonic engine, rather than a sonic engine. Also, I ran a few tests in-game1, and I found out that even if I am an experienced pilot, I could hardly exceed mach 1, using a simple BJE plane. So, if most players can't even exceed mach 1, why do we even have thrust beyond that? A subsonic engine? <...> If you look at the diagram, you'll see that my suggested values aren't so OP. Than let's have a try! Use my test mod, and try the new BJE yourself! Note that I'm not a modder, and I don't even know much about programming, but I could make a simple mod with these changes. Because I couldn't mod the nacelle thing, there's a second engine, with the nacelled stats. If you are a modder, and you could mod that, feel free to do that. Conclusion: -BJE beomes a sub-sonic engine from a sonic engine -Engine nacelle improves airflow -No intake air from the nacelle -No fuel from the nacelle -Goliath engine with higher starting thrusts, due to the nacelle (Note that this is a copy from my previous balance-thread, but due to the recommendation of an advisor, I'll post its major parts separately.)

:rolleyes:Aham, that's what I frogot! I knew I frogot to mention something! The aerospike would be even better for only-rocket SSTOs, as well as a central engine for asparagus rockets.

I was about to suggest something similar. What I would suggest was an advanced manouver, available after tracking station upgrades. With this node, you could get to your target with a 100% accuracy. It would fix the 3 problems of the current manouver, that cause inaccuracy. The manouver is linear. The current manouver is a point, while your burn is a linear event. The current manouver could only be completed 100% accurately, if you could perform your burn under 0 seconds (immadiately). Using the current manouver system, if you start earlier, and finish earlier, with the center of the burn in the node, the center of your burn will eventually move away, because you started accelerating before it. You end up getting shifted. This can be avoided, if the manouver is not a point, but a section with continous burn. The current manouver correcting itself if you burn the wrong direction, is brilliant, but you'll have a longer burn that way, and you'll end up getting even more shifted. The current correction system makes you exactly accelerate the planned DV towards the planned direction, NOT to the planned trajectory. If you complete the manouver exactly, it won't lead you to the planned trajectory, while you want that. So, the advanced manouver would correct itself, so that you'll get to the planned trajectory, instead of completing the planned burn. The current manouver calculates your burn time incorrectly. For me, it won't even show a value. Maybe because of flying with lowered thrust, but it should count with full thrust burn, and it should count with staging too. But anyway, if the second part is true, this would not make a difference. And finally, transfers could be made easier. Maybe being able to display your future velocity in certain selected points. And by knowing the orbital velocity at certain altitudes.

Edited: Nope. I talk about a nerf that way. Not having one is a great way of nerfing and characterising. That's the main principle The point of an aerospike is being efficient, while being optimized for both vacuum and atm. usage. The downsige is its high mass --> low TWR My rebalance is for making it excellent for spaceplanes, while remaining the best/getting better at EVE. With spaceplanes, you only use it in vacuum. Than it should be compared with other rocket engines you use with spaceplanes. In my suggestion, I didn't care about atm isp, I just state that it should have high vacuum isp. (A lower atm isp than this is necessary, or else it wouldn't make sense) But it should have enough atm. efficiency to be able to rock on EVE.

If you don't want fuel to be drained from your payload, disable its tanks (green arrow next to the bar)

Before we had RAPIERs, we only made SSTO spaceplanes with turbojets and an aerospike. Now, it's not an SSTO-engine. Many people claim that yes it is, because it's short, and it won't be smashed, but that's a far-fetched argument. The good thing in an aerospike is that it produces relatively constant thrust and isp, making it useful for EVE landers. However, I'd like to make it a perfect spaceplane-engine. The high atmospheric isp is useless, as there's nearly no atmospheric pressure on the altitudes where your jets flame-out. The good thing is that it offers a rather good efficiency even on orbit. Because on spaceplanes, you usually don't have many engine slots, but you have a large, heavy fuselage, high thrust is essential. What I would like: an aerospike, wich has nearly identical vacuum stats with the Poodle engine, but it's size 1. This would be awesome for spaceplanes. Maybe more mass, as aerospikes have high mass, not simply 1 ton... But the best idea, is that due to its pointy shape, it should have minimal drag! With spaceplanes, regular rocket motors produce a HUGE percentage of your drag! If the aerospike had less drag, it would be awesome for spaceplanes again! But if the aerospike is same as the Poodle in vacuum, and a lot better than it in atmo, why should we even use the Poodle? -Cheaper -Lower-tech -Can be stack attached -When stack attached, it has less drag due to that fairing -Aerospike having higher mass (so that they are not identical) (Low TWR) -It's rocket style But wait a second! The aerospike having more thrust, and less drag? It could be even more useful for those who bother abusing EVE! Jackpot Conclusion: -Aerospike having significantly less drag -More mass, more thrust!! (Note that this is a copy from my previous balance-thread, but due to the recommendation of an advisor, I'll post its major parts separately.) Edit: The point of it is to make the aerospike an engine ideal for EVE and spaceplanes. For spaceplanes, a high vacuum Isp is necessary. In my suggestion, I didn't care about atm isp, I just state that it should have high vacuum isp. (A lower atm isp than this is necessary, or else it wouldn't make sense) Also, high thrust would also be useful. To compensate this buff, the TWR is lowered, and you can't stack attach this, not to talk about gimbal (not having gimbal is a great nerf, but unrealistic). Aerospikes' downside is high mass -->low TWR. KSP aerospikes are having an excellent TWR, wich is inappropriate. Also, these nerfs would also cause the aerospike to be used only as a first-stage rocket, giving even more use to Poodles. For EVE, it would be excellent, wouldn't it? It would be a lot better for taking off, altough transporting it from KSC to EVE would be harder...

Not to talk about RAPIERs

I don't know is it already in the game, but if not, it should be. Also, arrange by gamemode. Altough I never have so many saves... Anyway, welcome here!

But there should be more goals in the game than. In Civ, you could focus on the very late game in the previous 6 Eras, and win easily than, so the system only gives early and mid game special units, giving a huge benefit for performing earlier your timing-attacks.

That gave me an idea: fix the bug with planes, where the SAS won't hold your heading. I engage the sas at 30°, but my nose starts to drop intensively, due to my CoM.Col alignment. With the altitude control system the plane has, the SAS could bring up the nose to 30°again, but it won't.

Or adjust the thrust of engines separately, to have a balanced CoT with an assymetric craft (shuttle?)

NO!! Have you tried the thrust limiter?!

You mean like you have to recover them at KSC?

I was really disappointed when instead of that rescoure flow diagram, we got only ore. I hope that the current system is just a transition. Being able to produce rescoures much more efficiently on specific bodies is necessary, and for dres... That's the only planet I haven't visited, and that I won't, because I have little time, while it's a really uninteresting, black Mün. It should definitely be made more useful. Intake air from eve? Not for ocean-less areas, but for diving from orbit! Even if you could extract pure fuel from eve's oceans, you would have a hard time returning it, and it would be more efficient to bring it from Kerbin. The mentioned jet? Wouldn't that be nearly as efficient as rocket motors? Suddenly I had a bold idea to make eve's oceans more remunerative: How about being able to extract a really efficient super-fuel from there, that's much better than the LFO mix, and wich can't be found at kerbin?

Me too.

Yes, never was a problem for me. Just add the engines individually.

I can only agree with that. Not to talk about researching yourself the products of other companies.

At least the reward for the first 2 samples should be higher (comprasion, and game experience)

I had a similar idea to the nuke one. See it in one of my old posts, from my signature. The only problem is that currently, nukes are rather over-nerfed. I suggested something like that in order to balance a necessary buff, wich I am missing from your suggestion. Also, staging? For jets... In 1.1, jet engines will become right that! See this. And for basic jets? add a nacelle. I have a great idea for that, also described in the suggestion in my signature. (stock balances)

Personally, I would love to have random failures in stock. Until than, I use the mod. For part tests, I would like to have more orbital stuffs. You shoot up your shuttle, and do the experiments in the cargo bay. Maybe with an engineer on EVA?

Aham. Anyway, when trying to land on gilly, I use thrusters facing downwards to land

Are those made of iron? Or something magnetable? I tought Minmus seas are made of ice.

I keep suggesting this and there's no reply. This is a lot more important than brakes wich screw up your vehicles, or gears that don't function properly.

I think most people would like a co-op mode, but PVP is necessary as well. Having major contracts in the same time could force players to compete on the same mission. If they are doing the same mission simultaneously, time warp could be done simultaneously too. So the game will only warp when both players want to warp. That's a solution. Winning from science? I don't like that. For multiplayer, the timewarp-problem could be also solved by locking the warp speed. If everyone can only warp on the same speed, the one with the better trajectory will always be the first. That's a good idea, the only problem is that you couldn't intercept hostile vehicles, as they would warp away... But there could be different gamemodes. Personally, I prefer that all players are in the same time, and they can accelerate that, if they all want to. If you're going to be the first to go to Duna, but you want to get there before your opponent performs a moonlanding, that won't work. Neither in real life. So while he's wasting time with a slow landing process, you have to wait on your interplanetary trajectory to Duna... Or go back to KSC, and use your time to build another craft. Maybe something that will get to minmus before your rival. AlarmClock integration is necessary, so while you approach minmus, you won't skip duna.

Impact... 3... 2... Abandon ship! 1...