I just can't get to like how the engines are knobbled now

[Foxster]

I find it a brake on creativiting the way that only certain engines work at certain altitudes.

OK, it might be realistic...but it sure aint so much fun. I bet it suits those that like MS Flight Simulator but it don't me.

What if I want to try to build a Xenon SSTO? I can't because ion engines don't work anywhere near sea level. What if I wanted to use KR-2Ls as my lifter engine on a big rocket? I can't because I'm only granted the privilege of using KS-25x4s.

I do find 1.0 less fun, less open to creativity than before and more for the "but it's supposed to be a grind, cos life's like that" crowd.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Foxster

[Xannari Ferrows]

KSP has evolved from a game to a simulator. It's still meant to be fun, but certain personal attributes are required.

[regex]

<knocks on door>

Hello, sir, I'm here today to talk to you about our Lord and Savior ModuleManager. Ialdaboth and Sarbian died for our config hacking sins so that we may enjoy the benefits of a game The Way We Want It. Thank you.

And yes, the engines are designed to fit specific roles and work in specific situations, just like in Real Life. Now you don't just slap a 48-7S on something and call it good, you have a wide variety of engines in different roles instead of one engine to rule them all.

Edited May 20, 2015 by regex

[mikegarrison]

I find it requires MORE creativity. The old, unrealistic way meant you could just find one or two go-to engines and use them for everything. Now it actually matters that you pick out engines more suited for different phases of the mission.

[Alshain]

I find it requires MORE creativity. The old, unrealistic way meant you could just find one or two go-to engines and use them for everything. Now it actually matters that you pick out engines more suited for different phases of the mission.

This, this, so much this.

I actually use almost all the engines now. The only ones I don't use are the ant, because the 48-7S is still better, and the Dawn.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Alshain

[Hotaru]

This, this, so much this.

I actually use almost all the engines now.

Same here. I've found uses for just about every engine I've unlocked so far in career mode. Even the Aerospike.

[beached]

I find it requires MORE creativity. The old, unrealistic way meant you could just find one or two go-to engines and use them for everything. Now it actually matters that you pick out engines more suited for different phases of the mission.

Whereas the new, supercool realistic way means you just go into the part list and look up the engine performances to see which ones correspond with what you're planning to do. Incredibly creative. As soon as it's required and standard, it's not creativity.

It mattered before that you picked the engines more suited for different phases of the mission, as well. The difference now is that only the realistic missions are allowed.

[regex]

The difference now is that only the realistic missions are allowed.

Clearly that's wrong; nothing in KSP is preventing you from using whatever engine you want for whatever mission you want. The problem is that you're unwilling to step outside of your little "efficiency" box and get creative.

[stupid_chris]

Whereas the new, supercool realistic way means you just go into the part list and look up the engine performances to see which ones correspond with what you're planning to do. Incredibly creative. As soon as it's required and standard, it's not creativity.

It mattered before that you picked the engines more suited for different phases of the mission, as well. The difference now is that only the realistic missions are allowed.

Listen son. The "realism crowd" had to suck up and mod their games accordingly to get it the way they wanted it to be. We had to write code, create huge projects like RO to get the right amount of realism we wanted for the game, and spend countless hours trying to improve the stuff we did and hacking around the limitations that the stock game forced us to deal with.

If our whining wasn't good because "KSP is just a game", then I think we can all return it to you and say that if you don't like it, mod it. Seriously, the game is more moddable than ever before. Just do yourself a favour and make the game the way you want it to be.

This has been a PSA.

[mikegarrison]

Whereas the new, supercool realistic way means you just go into the part list and look up the engine performances to see which ones correspond with what you're planning to do. Incredibly creative. As soon as it's required and standard, it's not creativity.

It mattered before that you picked the engines more suited for different phases of the mission, as well. The difference now is that only the realistic missions are allowed.

You use the right tool for the job, if you have it. Otherwise, you do your best to make the wrong tool work as well as it can. It's called "engineering." I happen to like it, which is why I chose it as a way of life. (Or maybe it chose me. Hard to say.)

There is nothing not "allowed" in spacecraft design in KSP. There are, however, some choices that don't work very well. I suggest you either get used to it or you just use the cheats menu to turn off all the constraints. (I think that's Alt-F12? I don't know for sure, because I never use it.)

[beached]

Clearly that's wrong; nothing in KSP is preventing you from using whatever engine you want for whatever mission you want. The problem is that you're unwilling to step outside of your little "efficiency" box and get creative.

The person arguing in favor of an UNrealistic game aspect isn't willing to step outside of his "efficiency box"? It has nothing to do with that, it has everything to do with the fact that engines were specifically gimped in all the areas Squad didn't intend them to be used. So could you elaborate on how far outside my efficiency box I need to be before a KR-2L magically no longer has less thrust at sea level than an engine half its size?

The point we make is that the changes to engines make designs LESS open to creativity. Telling me to "get creative" isn't sound advice.

Listen son. The "realism crowd" had to suck up and mod their games accordingly to get it the way they wanted it to be. We had to write code, create huge projects like RO to get the right amount of realism we wanted for the game, and spend countless hours trying to improve the stuff we did and hacking around the limitations that the stock game forced us to deal with.

If our whining wasn't good because "KSP is just a game", then I think we can all return it to you and say that if you don't like it, mod it. Seriously, the game is more moddable than ever before. Just do yourself a favour and make the game the way you want it to be.

This has been a PSA.

The "limitations" the stock game forced you to deal with? Like the ability to glide infinitely, or power planes with sunshine and electricity? Are you sure you're part of the realism crowd? Because from my modest experience with FAR, DRE and TAC Life Support, it's been about ADDING limitations to the game.

Besides, most of the whining was because of the aerodynamics, not engine balancing, which is what this topic is about.

I want my game to be SHAREABLE, which doesn't involve going in and changing a bunch of config files to correct ridiculous things that seem to have been tossed into the update just for the sake of it, or maybe to make it more worthy of being called 1.0

And how can you say with a straight face that KSP is more moddable than ever before when stock alone has more bugs, memory issues, and crashes than it has since like <.20?

You use the right tool for the job, if you have it. Otherwise, you do your best to make the wrong tool work as well as it can. It's called "engineering." I happen to like it, which is why I chose it as a way of life. (Or maybe it chose me. Hard to say.)

There is nothing not "allowed" in spacecraft design in KSP. There are, however, some choices that don't work very well. I suggest you either get used to it or you just use the cheats menu to turn off all the constraints. (I think that's Alt-F12? I don't know for sure, because I never use it.)

Yeah, and the problem we're having with the changes is that it's now often unfeasible to make the wrong tool work in any reasonable way. Using the wrong tool itself is now inherently unreasonable, as evidenced by the standard reply given when someone asks why an engine isn't performing as well as they hoped ("You aren't supposed to use it in that situation!")

You either change the job or you use the tool that the game has specifically designated for that job. The fact that people are actually happy there is now a defined and enforced "right/wrong" for things like this is surprising. Those two words never used to exist in Kerbal vocabulary before now.

Just to clarify, by the way, my personal gripe is only with the rocket engines. How the airbreathing engines now function adds to gameplay in my opinion, since how I fly actually has an active effect. I've genuinely enjoyed that, and the supposed nerfs to SSTOs seem to be an issue with drag more than anything, which is a different subject entirely. The changes to rocket engines, on the other hand, adds nothing to the game besides realism for the sake of realism (thus not comparable to the improved aerodynamics).

[Columbia]

Yes, the KR-2L thing has annoyed me ever since. I might as well use a pair of Skippers instead.

Well, it's all part of the sheer adaptation to a new update. Some of it is annoyingly frustrating, but others are very useful and satisfying.

I like the new aerodynamics, but certainly not the extreme and unnecessary engine nerfs.

[stupid_chris]

The "limitations" the stock game forced you to deal with? Like the ability to glide infinitely, or power planes with sunshine and electricity? Are you sure you're part of the realism crowd? Because from my modest experience with FAR, DRE and TAC Life Support, it's been about ADDING limitations to the game.

Besides, most of the whining was because of the aerodynamics, not engine balancing, which is what this topic is about.

I want my game to be SHAREABLE, which doesn't involve going in and changing a bunch of config files to correct ridiculous things that seem to have been tossed into the update just for the sake of it, or maybe to make it more worthy of being called 1.0

And how can you say with a straight face that KSP is more moddable than ever before when stock alone has more bugs, memory issues, and crashes than it has since like <.20?

No, by limitations, I meant "things that can't be modded easily". Those are the limitations. And to be honest, 1.0 lifted a very great amount of them. And no, seriously, I've seen realism complaints about aero, RTGs, solar panels, engines, fuel tanks, communication dishes/antennas... the list goes on. And as far as I know, people have been sharing crafts and content based on specific addons forever, so I don't get what the fuss is now. Lastly, I did not know that moddability depended on stock being bugless. So long for the days of the API giving us insane amounts of hooks to go in and replace/modify all the stock systems.

[Robotengineer]

The spring that Creativity comes from is called Constraint. Your thinking of Imagination.

[Lord Aurelius]

I actually like that the engines have more defined roles now. I do wish however that the Rhino had an ISP curve closer to the Skipper instead of being mostly useless at sea level.

One suggestion I saw in another thread is to make the nozzles customizable for some of the engines, so you could change the ISP curve somewhat depending on how you've built your rocket. This is also how it works in real life, many rocket engines come in different variations with different nozzles.

[Meecrob]

This game is a simulation...people will debate the accuracy of it, but it is a simulator, not an arcade game. You are asking for things that are impossible. Of course ion engines will not get you to orbit. If you have such a problem with this fact, edit your files. Make the ion engine create enough thrust for your mission. It is a simple .txt file. Back it up and edit it to make the game work for you.

[Tw1]

I do agree with you about the KR-2L- it looks big and powerful, and its description even says something about it being a lifter engine, plus there's the fact you can't stack the KS-25x4.

Not so sure about the ion engine. Really, ion engines would never make sense as lifter engines, but ion planes are fun, and there are theoretical atmospheric ion engines out there....

Perhaps a balance could be achieved by adjusting it so its thrust at 1atm was the same as its old thrust. Then we'd still have some planes and things, but it would still be pretty limited.

[razark]

What if I want to try to build a Xenon SSTO? I can't because ion engines don't work anywhere near sea level.

Why not just turn gravity off?

I mean, really, gravity is just another one of those things that's just in the game for the sake of "realism", so just turn it off and build whatever you want.

I'm still annoyed because I need engines to go anywhere. I should be able to build whatever sort of ship I want and make it fly wherever I want without engines, because creativity. But no, for some reason I need propulsion to make my ship move.

[Lord Aurelius]

I don't have a problem with ions not working in atmo, but there is a gap in the parts for a tiny, efficient engine that can be used for small drones. I think what is really needed is some kind of electric propeller or ducted fan for that purpose that would also work on Eve and Duna (and Jool). I've played around with some engines like that from mods and it's great fun making solar powered aircraft.

[regex]

The person arguing in favor of an UNrealistic game aspect isn't willing to step outside of his "efficiency box"? It has nothing to do with that, it has everything to do with the fact that engines were specifically gimped in all the areas Squad didn't intend them to be used.

So basically you don't like the efficiency of the engines as currently balanced and aren't willing to step outside the box that Squad put them in? Good to know.

So could you elaborate on how far outside my efficiency box I need to be before a KR-2L magically no longer has less thrust at sea level than an engine half its size?

The KR-2L isn't for sea level work so you'd have to choose a different engine if that efficiency bothered you. Or maybe you could add some boosters to increase sea level TWR. IIRC that's a KSP mantra...

The point we make is that the changes to engines make designs LESS open to creativity. Telling me to "get creative" isn't sound advice.

If you're not willing to mod then you can either whine in General Discussion, make a proper suggestion thread, or get creative (which is actually sound advice because according to a lot of people around here creativity springs from constraints.)

E: I mean, honestly, people keep telling me the RD-171M isn't an upper-stage engine but that never stopped me from using it as one.

Edited May 21, 2015 by regex

[mikegarrison]

I do agree with you about the KR-2L- it looks big and powerful, and its description even says something about it being a lifter engine, plus there's the fact you can't stack the KS-25x4.

Actually ...

The Rhino has that huge bell nozzle -- which makes it look like it's supposed to be an engine for vacuum! The way these nozzles actually work is that the exhaust should expand to equal the ambient air pressure. (Obviously that's not really possible in space, so you reach diminishing returns where any more expansion adds too much mass to the nozzle.) So a narrow nozzle should be good for high pressures (low altitudes) and a wide nozzle should be good for low pressures (high altitudes and space). The Rhino actually looks like a high altitude engine. And the 25x4 looks like a low altitude engine. The fact that you can't attach anything to the bottom of it also reinforces that it is designed as a first stage engine.

This is also why the same engine should not be good for all flight regimes. (The aerospike is an exception, because it is shaped so that the ambient air serves as a virtual nozzle.)

Edited May 21, 2015 by mikegarrison

[SkyRender]

The most creative people shine brightest when limitations are placed upon them. While there is a point where that ceases to be true (confining possibilities so highly that literally only one solution ever registers as "correct" or "acceptable", for example), the fact remains that nearly anyone can think up particularly clever and interesting possibilities when given few to no limitations. I suggest that, instead of complaining that you have fewer ways to express yourself now, you instead focus on the ways that you can express yourself. Just my own take on the matter.

[GusTurbo]

Actually ...

The Rhino has that huge bell nozzle -- which makes it look like it's supposed to be an engine for vacuum! The way these nozzles actually work is that the exhaust should expand to equal the ambient air pressure. (Obviously that's not really possible in space, so you reach diminishing returns where any more expansion adds too much mass to the nozzle.) So a narrow nozzle should be good for high pressures (low altitudes) and a wide nozzle should be good for low pressures (high altitudes and space).

On this topic, the LV-T45 and LV-T30 need their roles reversed, since the T45 has both a smaller nozzle and greater vacuum Isp. The T30 should be more efficient in a vacuum. Also, gimbaling is more useful in atmosphere, since you can use RCS to change attitude in space.

[Xavven]

OP, what do you suggest Squad do instead? I'm assuming you want each engine to be useful in multiple roles? What roles did you have in mind and which engines should be useful in which roles?

My 2 cents: From a gameplay perspective I want players to have choices, and have those choices affect gameplay enough that the choice is meaningful, and have those choices allow a player to tackle a problem in more than one way according to that player's particular personal play style, skill level, etc.

The argument I'm seeing from the OP (and correct me if I've misread you) is that for a given payload mass and role (lifter, vacuum lander, interplanetary transfer), there is only one engine that fits that role. As a result, the player is only given the illusion of choice -- that is, the player thinks s/he's choosing the right engine for the job, but the reality is that there wasn't a choice because any other engine would result in complete failure.

---

However, I disagree with that (I'm not intending to set up a straw man argument here, just stating my current position). I recently changed one of my lifters from a radial design with skippers, to a central mainsail + SRBs instead and both designs were effective. For my last Duna mission, I could have used either a Nerv (LV-N) engine or a Terrier (LV-909) and gotten similar performance and payload characteristics. I ended up going with the Terrier because those liquid fuel tanks are just a pain to deal with for the Nerv engine.

I also have a couple of different lander designs with the exact same payload that are almost identical in delta-v and TWR, but one uses two Terriers, and the other uses 6 (or maybe it was 8) Twitch engines. I think one carried more fuel than the other but they ended up being about the same mass wet.

So in my experience, there's still plenty of meaningful player choice. In fact, for one I really like the fact that the Spark (48-7S) is no longer objectively superior to the Terrier (LV-909) in every way as it was pre v1.0. That's an example of there not really being a choice when there was almost no scenario that I remember encountering where I would pick the Terrier over the Spark.

[Columbia]

Still though, about the KR-2L - I do agree that it needed a slight rebalance, but not to the extent where it is literally weaker than engines waaaay smaller than it. Plus, it says in the description how it's a "heavy lifting engine". That should say something. And to be fair, it's really a big engine to use for a vacuum. To be honest, I find it practically useless now.