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

[Wanderfound]

Nothing has changed in the game that stops anyone from building unrealistic "cool" ships. What has changed is that there is now an efficiency price to be paid for aesthetics. Or, to put it another way, there is now an efficiency bonus for building with an eye towards practical engineering. You can have a highly effective realistic craft, or a pretty-but-inefficient Starship Enterprise.

Ain't nothing wrong with that. If you want your Enterprise replica to fly like the TV version, well, the SF mods are over that way.

[regex]

Oh hey, I got "inspired" and "creative" and made A Thing:

It takes my 12.2 ton crew shuttle into orbit with tons of delta-V to spare, pretty cool. The launch is awesome as well, really responsive with the KR-2L on the bottom. So... not really seeing the problem.

E: Plus it looks really cool. I think I'm going to use this instead of the Mainsail LV it used to go on, worth the funds.

[beached]

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.

In that case, then, I agree. 1.0 definitely lifted a lot of those limitations. But unless you're classing the performance of engines in that, it doesn't mean much in regard to the issue here.

The fuss now is the same as it's been before.

If you build crafts with mods like B9 or KW, you aren't expecting to share it with people who don't have those mods. The same applied to FAR, as well, since a lot of things that behaved like planes in FAR, behaved like anvils in stock. It's different when you want to play stock and build stock crafts, but are using a mod to correct some kind of ridiculousness in the stock game. That's why we prefer the ridiculousness to be corrected rather than just living with mods.

If stock itself is already suffering with bugs, why would you want to add more bugs on top of it with mods?

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

And when the spring is so rigid that creativity is actually hampered, that's how you know something's screwy. You especially know something's screwy when the creativity is being hampered "just because", rather than for actual gameplay value as is the case for career, with the constraints of funding on top of the standard constraints of gravity, aerodynamics, ineptitude, etc.

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.

It's a simulation of an alien species and their space program on an alien world. If you want to use impossibility as an argument, and also use our real world as the definer for what's possible, then things like atmosphere-capable Ion engines are probably near the bottom of the list of things you disapprove of, and not solely because atmosphere-capable Ion engines are (apparently) already in the works.

Nothing has changed in the game that stops anyone from building unrealistic "cool" ships. What has changed is that there is now an efficiency price to be paid for aesthetics. Or, to put it another way, there is now an efficiency bonus for building with an eye towards practical engineering. You can have a highly effective realistic craft, or a pretty-but-inefficient Starship Enterprise.

Ain't nothing wrong with that. If you want your Enterprise replica to fly like the TV version, well, the SF mods are over that way.

Of course, as long as they just want to admire them on the ground and don't plan on actually doing much with them. I realized the efficiency price for aesthetics myself when I sandwiched a plane in a fancy and complicated wing setup. Had all the lift in the world, but also a glide distance of like 2-3 kilometers before becoming a stone. The issue isn't really about that, though (my problem there was drag), it's about how severely the engines have been restricted to their designated roles. Aesthetics doesn't have as much to do with that.

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.

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...

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.

Oh hey, I got "inspired" and "creative" and made A Thing:

-snip-

It takes my 12.2 ton crew shuttle into orbit with tons of delta-V to spare, pretty cool. The launch is awesome as well, really responsive with the KR-2L on the bottom. So... not really seeing the problem.

E: Plus it looks really cool. I think I'm going to use this instead of the Mainsail LV it used to go on, worth the funds.

Keep telling me to step outside the box, then keep telling to to stay inside it when I ask how to get out.

This is whining in general discussion. Just not on my own thread. Why create another when someone's already made one on the exact topic?

"More boosters" was a KSP mantra before they were (appropriately) nerfed to accommodate the thinner atmosphere, but then promptly ignored after the atmosphere was reverted to soup again, albeit a more sophisticated soup than .90

Your point about the RD-171M would have been valid before the engine restrictions, when people were just told that certain engines were used for certain tasks. Even then there was still plenty of drawbacks and advantages for different situations to warrant using one engine over another. Obviously not nearly enough for the blessed realistic space hippies, though.

12.2 tons is around the payload that conventional shuttles tend to carry in their cargo bays, isn't it?... I'm tempted to say it's hardly half as much.

Edit: Temptation won, turns out that conventional shuttles can carry more than twice that much, comfortably, in the longest bay.

Edited May 21, 2015 by beached

[regex]

Keep telling me to step outside the box, then keep telling to to stay inside it when I ask how to get out.

The KR-2L is a vacuum engine, it's as simple as that. If you want to use it at sea level you need to get creative. Clearly nothing is stopping you from using it from sea level.

"More boosters" was a KSP mantra before they were (appropriately) nerfed to accommodate the thinner atmosphere, but then promptly ignored after the atmosphere was reverted to soup again, albeit a more sophisticated soup than .90

They work fine for me, perfect for augmenting TWR at sea level, which is what a lot of IRL rockets use them for.

Your point about the RD-171M would have been valid before the engine restrictions, when people were just told that certain engines were used for certain tasks.

What? No one has ever been told what engines to use when in KSP. I always used whatever engines I wanted to use, why are you so hung up on what other people think about how you play?

Even then there was still plenty of drawbacks and advantages for different situations to warrant using one engine over another. Obviously not nearly enough for the blessed realistic space hippies, though.

Not really, the clear winners were the 909, the 48-7S, and the nuclear engine. There was never any reason to use any of the other engines in space. Sure, you had more freedom with lifters, but it never really made any sense to use the Mainsail over the dual NASA engine after they released it.

12.2 tons is around the payload that conventional shuttles tend to carry in their cargo bays, isn't it?... I'm tempted to say it's hardly half as much.

And? So what? I've used the KR-2L as a lifting engine from sea level. I mean, you're telling me that efficiency doesn't matter and ... now it does?

[beached]

The KR-2L is a vacuum engine, it's as simple as that. If you want to use it at sea level you need to get creative. Clearly nothing is stopping you from using it from sea level.

They work fine for me, perfect for augmenting TWR at sea level, which is what a lot of IRL rockets use them for.

What? No one has ever been told what engines to use when in KSP. I always used whatever engines I wanted to use, why are you so hung up on what other people think about how you play?

Not really, the clear winners were the 909, the 48-7S, and the nuclear engine. There was never any reason to use any of the other engines in space. Sure, you had more freedom with lifters, but it never really made any sense to use the Mainsail over the dual NASA engine after they released it.

And? So what? I've used the KR-2L as a lifting engine from sea level. I mean, you're telling me that efficiency doesn't matter and ... now it does?

Why would I want to use it at sea level when there is a two-and-a-half-ton smaller engine which consumes less fuel but gives me more thrust? Are you catching on yet? It seems like it's taking longer than it should.

Perfect for augmenting TWR at sea level when you're catapulting the weight of a van (generous comparison) to orbit on 3.75m parts?

They aren't working fine when they're doing more pulling with their drag and mass than pushing with their thrust. It's an unrelated gripe, though, I don't use SRBs much so I'm not too bothered. Sounds like they'll be getting tweaked for the new-new atmosphere in 1.0.3 anyways, so that's fine, hopefully it's alongside the engine rebalance.

Why do you have such a bad memory? You just got done making a point about how an engine in a mod is fashioned for a specific role, and you chose to use it differently anyways. I simply used your wording. Your point would have been valid before engines were simply recommended for their intended roles (i.e. the 909 description hinting: "...particularly useful as a final stage and landing engine.") Now they are being RESTRICTED to those roles, for absolutely no reason other than realism. If you can't keep up at this point, I doubt there's any point in continuing this much longer.

If you never had any reason to use other engines in space, your designs must have been incredibly bland or incredibly one-size-fits-all. But the fact that you automatically specified that remark to "in space" makes me lean towards the former rather than the latter.

No, I've told you that there's no "efficiency box" which the person advocating UNrealism has a problem stepping out of. You're now confusing "efficiency" with actually accomplishing things.

[regex]

Why would I want to use it at sea level when there is a two-and-a-half-ton smaller engine which consumes less fuel but gives me more thrust?

Beats me. All I'm saying is that nothing is preventing you from using any engine for any purpose, just like before 1.0.x.

Now they are being RESTRICTED to those roles

Clearly not, I just used an upper-stage engine as a sea level lifting engine.

for absolutely no reason other than realism.

Nothing wrong with that.

You're now confusing "efficiency" with actually accomplishing things.

The only real reason I can think of to restrict yourself to using engines only within their perceived regime is efficiency. Therefore, claiming that engines are restricted to their roles means you care about nothing more than efficiency, which is backed up by your previous statement regarding using a lighter engine that consumes less fuel for more thrust. I claim that you are not restricted to using engines only within their perceived regime and I have proven that by using what is clearly an upper stage engine as a sea-level lifting engine (works pretty well, too).

[Hannu]

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.

It is true. Differences between engines are quite large and there are often choices should I use one larger engine, which is somewhat overpowered, or two or more lighter engines which requires complicated radial or cluster structures. For example between Mainsail and Skipper in launchers, LV-Ns, Poodles and Terriers in interplanetary use, Terrier and 78-7S in small probes and landers etc. Difference between 1.25 m and 2.5 m systems is also very large (multiplier is 4) and forces to make choices. I feel that such restrictions gives place to creativity. It is not creativity that I decide to use mu favorite part to every possible purpose and demand that devs must make it possible.

[mikegarrison]

Why would I want to use it at sea level when there is a two-and-a-half-ton smaller engine which consumes less fuel but gives me more thrust? Are you catching on yet? It seems like it's taking longer than it should.

Perfect for augmenting TWR at sea level when you're catapulting the weight of a van (generous comparison) to orbit on 3.75m parts?

They aren't working fine when they're doing more pulling with their drag and mass than pushing with their thrust. It's an unrelated gripe, though, I don't use SRBs much so I'm not too bothered. Sounds like they'll be getting tweaked for the new-new atmosphere in 1.0.3 anyways, so that's fine, hopefully it's alongside the engine rebalance.

Why do you have such a bad memory? You just got done making a point about how an engine in a mod is fashioned for a specific role, and you chose to use it differently anyways. I simply used your wording. Your point would have been valid before engines were simply recommended for their intended roles (i.e. the 909 description hinting: "...particularly useful as a final stage and landing engine.") Now they are being RESTRICTED to those roles, for absolutely no reason other than realism. If you can't keep up at this point, I doubt there's any point in continuing this much longer.

If you never had any reason to use other engines in space, your designs must have been incredibly bland or incredibly one-size-fits-all. But the fact that you automatically specified that remark to "in space" makes me lean towards the former rather than the latter.

No, I've told you that there's no "efficiency box" which the person advocating UNrealism has a problem stepping out of. You're now confusing "efficiency" with actually accomplishing things.

Dude, I'm sorry, but you simply aren't making any sense at all.

Please tell us what you want:

A) All engines work equally well at all tasks. The only reason to pick one over the other is aesthetics.

Each engine has its own role, so for the best efficiency you should pick the best engine for that situation. You can still use any engine you want, but some won't work nearly as well as others in particular situations.

Which is it that you are asking for? Or is it some "C" choice that is yet again different?

[Bilfr3d]

I really don't see what all the fuss is about - you can still use engine A for a lifter stage even though engine B might be more "efficient"; it just means you'll lose some delta-V, boohoo. In the large scheme of things, a small delta-V loss doesn't REALLY matter, unless you're cutting things really close to the line to spend less on your crafts. By which stage, if you are measuring delta-V, you've probably got some mod like KER or MechJeb installed. Personally, I don't really care about which engine does what - if it gives me the TWR I want, and fits, I use it. Doesn't matter if engine B performs better in that situation, I like engine A and there's nothing you can do to make me use engine B - it's my choice to use what engine I want. Same fits with anyone playing KSP - their engine choice is THEIR choice - you have the freedom to use whatever engine you like, no one is stopping you from doing so. People may say that engine A is absolutely appalling at sea level (some may say the KR-2L), but if you want to use engine A at sea level, go for it, I - and I'm sure other people - aren't going to hate on you for doing so. IMHO engine choice doesn't really concern me, nor am I noticeably affected by it - yes, I admit, I use KER, and sometimes switch out engines because it gives me a lot more delta-V or otherwise; but those decisions are yours (or mine, in this case) to make.

[Foxster]

As I suspected, some get it and some don't.

To the "realism" crowd: As has been pointed out, these are little green men on an alien world, where their universe's physics change every few months. Don't talk to me about realism.

Also, there is zero that is realistic about, say, the KR-2L being useable or not at sea level. There are no complicated internals (zoom in and check) to dictate this; its an arbitrary decision of the game designers and that decision is enshrined in a text file.

There were perfectly adequate restrictions on the engines pre-0.1. This was based on the size, mass, overall Isp, etc. Almost completely nerfing some engines at certain altitudes does nothing except limit creativity. I can see the appeal of this for those who prefer their game on rails though.

To those advocating mods or tweaking config files: I agree with the other poster. We like sharing craft and taking part in challenges. Mod the engines and the physics and that goes away largely.

The fix?

Remove the biggest limitations on some engine's performance at different altitudes so that they are not made useless. If a little drop in performance really is felt must be there then so be it but at least make the engines useable until they can reach their optimal altitude.

Alternatively, simple add variants of the existing engines, as is available in human real life. Variant A works good at sea level but not in vacuum, Variant B has all the same properties except a reverse of this.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Foxster

[Cebi]

Diversity of engines is much more interesting then pre 1.0. I am quite happy with gameplay aspects of new engine stats and their roles depending on atm preasure.

Edit: I always loved how KSP inspired curiosity in me. When i first observed reaction wheels, rcs, docking i paused game and looked it up and read about it on internet.

My point is: I wouldnt know that rocket engines have ISP that changes with atm preasure if not for KSP. And i am glad that now i do.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Cebi

[Duxwing]

I like the new engine format: every engine is useful. One must now choose among the powerful-but-thirsty chemical engines, light-but-weak probe ones, and efficient-but-difficult exotic ones. The chemical engines enable landing on medium and heavy planets; probe ones, cheap and light transfers of small payloads; and exotic ones, careful trainsfer of large payloads. Moreover, every engine has become useful because each is built for but one task.

-Duxwing

[Wallygator]

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.

I believe you can indeed stack the KS-25x4. It just takes a bit of creative engineering, a strategically placed cubic strut and a thing called a decoupler. Oh, and a bit of a fiddle with the new fairings. Works for me. Might use it on an eve ascent vehicle at some point.

EDIT: Yup - works perfect. Needed a few struts and CREATIVE use of the offset tool in the editor.

I find the new changes in 1.x.x have given birth to even more options for creativity and sometimes forces me to work through issues in ways that I forget bad lessons from previous versions.

Let us all now return to the whining. It's one of the first steps to recovery. . It's ok, and it's sometimes fun to read about. Like listening to someone complain that they can't watch television through their radio. /snarky bit there... Sorry couldn't resist... Getting back in my box now...

Edited May 21, 2015 by Wallygator
CREATIVE moment...

[KSK]

I do feel for the OP's pain.

Why, last night I tried to build an infiniglider. I couldn't get the stupid thing to work at all. So, to cheer myself up, I thought I'd build a Kraken drive powered lifter. Which sat on the launchpad going nowhere.

So having posted the obligatory complaint, I'm now going to delete KSP from my hard drive because I can't stand the way 1.02 is stifling my creativity any more. Curse you Squad - curse you to heck.

[Rickenbacker]

As others have said, before 1.0, there were way too many redundant engines. Now, you have to actually pick the right tool for the job, and I love it!

[NathanKell]

It's worth noting that the KR-2L is very, very obviously visually modeled on the J-2X, which was to be the SLS upper stage engine, just as the Mammoth is very clearly modeled on a four RS-25 (SSME) SLS core.

[ToddEth]

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.

Everything you have said actually in turn promotes the requirement to be creative. If you can not come up with working planes/rockets it in fact shows that you are not using creativity to come up with solutions to problems. Now I hate grinding things out and that is why I do not play mmo's but ksp never feels like a grind at all. If you see it as a grind then this game is not for you in the slightest. I am sure there will be a space program game built for the COD generation in the future which will be more to your liking and level of play.

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.

I must say that you sir have hit the nail on the head. 1.0.x now gives you the tools and the actual need to be hyper creative and I for one think that it is a move in the right direction.

[Hobbes Novakoff]

I frankly don't see any problems in stats, and I love the part rebalance. Also... How come you haven't been complaining about this before? I mean, the Nerv has been useless in atmo since forever, it's not like that's any different. And you'd never see any function-oriented builder use Terriers or Poodles on a launch vehicle.

[ToddEth]

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.

This is what everyone who is whinging about something they don't like with the game really actually need to take heed of before posting rants on the forums.

[KerikBalm]

Please tell us what you want:

A) All engines work equally well at all tasks. The only reason to pick one over the other is aesthetics.

Each engine has its own role, so for the best efficiency you should pick the best engine for that situation. You can still use any engine you want, but some won't work nearly as well as others in particular situations.

Which is it that you are asking for? Or is it some "C" choice that is yet again different?

Well said, this pretty much sums it up.

Engines now have strengths and weaknesses.

Use them as you wish in creative ways.

That may involve opting to use an engine in a situation where another is more optimal, if you design your craft to handle multiple situations.

-Like a rapier in space over an aerospike or LV-Txx.... less efficient in closed cycle, not so good at breaking mach 1.... but since the craft operates subsonic, supersonic, and orbital, a compromise is needed.

Maybe I want to use the same lander for Laythe and Val - now I need to consider both vacuum Isp, and near sea level Isp (aerospike? rapier?)

Same lander for Duna and Ike- fine, I'll take a bit of a thrust hit, but a vacuum engine can serve OK on Duna

Maybe I'm doing an asparagus stage craft, with the core engine as the KR-2L, and to switch to a better atmospheric engine would hurt mycore stage dV too much, and I still need the KR-2L to fire on the launchpad for a bit of extra thrust...

Some engines are better than others for a given role... it has always been like this. It always will be unless you make them all have the same TWR, and the same Isp curves.

Personally, I don't think having engines with identical stats, just in different sizes, leads to much creativity.

That said, I think the sea level Isp of some of the vacuum engines is really low.

[selfish_meme]

That said, I think the sea level Isp of some of the vacuum engines is really low.

Though someone else mentioned the expansion ratio of an engine going from 16 to 117 between atmo and vacuum versions, from 97 atmospheres of pressure this ratio 'could' produce only around 13 atmospheres of pressure, about a 6th of the efficiency of the atmo (my maths might be really wrong). So my espresso machine produces 9.3 atmospheres of pressure, so a 13 atmosphere mechanical pump is probably feasible. Basically the vacuum engine would produce about as much thrust as dumping the fuel out the back through a hose without igniting it.

Edit: my maths will be quite far out because I think atmospheres is not linear? Someone correct me.

[tjoreilly]

To space (LKO)!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

We didn't bother to read the instructions on the engines. Didn't seem to cause too much trouble.

[regex]

That said, I think the sea level Isp of some of the vacuum engines is really low.

Welcome to vacuum-specific engines. On manufacturer sites you often don't even get a sea level isp listed for an engine designed for space use.

[KSK]

Just playing around...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Padishar]

Why would I want to use it at sea level when there is a two-and-a-half-ton smaller engine which consumes less fuel but gives me more thrust? Are you catching on yet? It seems like it's taking longer than it should.

It isn't that simple. The mainsail only gives more thrust than the rhino until you get to 4.3 km. From then on the rhino is producing more thrust. Once you get to 9.7 km the rhino is putting out over 1800 kN and its Isp is better than the mainsail and keeps getting better.

Also, repeated implications that the people you are talking to are stupid is not usually a good way to get your point across (especially when your point is a matter of a somewhat misguided opinion).