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

[Slam_Jones]

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).

I actually built a vertical-launching SSTO that uses a Rhino and 2 Mainsails. I launch using all of them, then turn off the Mainsails once I'm high enough, running on the more efficient Rhino in the upper atmo.

It's not the best SSTo ever, but it does go to show that different engines have different uses.

[Mandelbrot]

Just wanted to add that the engine variety went way up for me, seemingly because of better balance. The 48-7s accounted for >80% of my engine usage pre 1.0. (I like to build small, and clustering them using cubic octags had practically zero downside). If you look at the optimal engine usage charts for post 1.0 and compare them to the .90 data, it is clear that many more engines are worth using than ever before. If I had to decide on which parts made the cut for a game, I would want there to be at least some use for all of them, otherwise it's just a waste of art and memory. Post 1.0 engine balance is much closer to this ideal than ever before.

[SciMan]

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?

The way I understand it, OP is indeed looking for "Some "C" choice that is yet again different"

Specifically, there are not enough different engines.

Additionally, I disagree strongly with the "but you're not prevented from doing that" counter-point. Of course the game doesn't have a an explicit "You can't use that here" rule, as has been pointed out.

Instead, the modeling of the atmosphere and the stats of the engines create an implicit rule that does in fact prevent certain designs from working, without outright preventing you from building them.

It's like saying it's not illegal to cut off your hand with a dull butter-knife. It's technically true, but it doesn't make a bit of difference if the rule exists or not!

As I stated above, the problem is not enough different engines. Specifically, many niches for rocket engines in the game have only one engine in that specific niche.

Examples of the problem as I understand it:

1.25m lower stage booster engine: LV-T30 "Reliant" (no gimbal, higher thrust, lower ISP)

1.25m lower stage core engine: LV-T45 "Swivel"

1.25m upper stage / lander engine: LV-909 "Terrier"

2.5m lower stage booster engine: LFB KR-1x2 "Twin-Boar"

2.5m lower stage core engine: RE-M3 "Mainsail"

2.5m 2nd stage engine: RE-I5 "Skipper"

2.5m upper stage / lander engine: RE-L10 "Poodle"

3.75m lower stage engine:

3.75m upper stage engine:

Most of these engines impose mission-killing constraints when used outside of their intended niche (most, because swapping booster and core engines on a single-core or core+SRBs launcher design usually doesn't change much unless operating very close to the margins).

THIS is why OP's problem is killing their creativity.

At least one alternative should be available for each one, IMO. By alternative, I mean an engine that has a markedly different look, as well as SLIGHTLY different thrust/mass/ISP, and likely a different length as well. This way you have at least SOME wiggle room for the sake of aesthetics, as well as more options to even further optimize a design for performance, if so desired.

Also, some diameters don't even have all the available niches filled. (larger versions of nuclear and ion engines, smaller launch and mid-stage engines, etc.)

In addition to the issue brought up by OP, I have a problem with the Vac. ISP nerf to all LFO fueled rocket engines and SRBs. Liquid fueled engines now top out at 350s instead of 390, and SRBs all have worse ISP, except for the Sepratron I, which was actually buffed. I use the Vacuum ISP Restoration MM patch to fix it, but why tweak VACUUM performance when the ATMOSPHERE physics changed? It doesn't add up, and that annoys me.

[Eric S]

I use the Vacuum ISP Restoration MM patch to fix it, but why tweak VACUUM performance when the ATMOSPHERE physics changed? It doesn't add up, and that annoys me.

Because in order to make that balance out, even the lifting engines would need an atmospheric ISP under 100. Take a look at the FAR settings for pre-1.0 KIDS if you disagree, I think its "balance for the thinner atmosphere only by tweaking atmospheric ISP" setting gave most engines an atmospheric ISP of about 85, if I remember correctly.

The problem with just nerfing the atmospheric ISP is that the vacuum ISP is more important for most of the ascent.

[Hotaru]

I don't think it's quite as limiting as it looks, the only major limitation I see is that a few engines don't work well in atmo, and are therefore not much use as lifters.

For instance, The T30 and T45 are extremely versatile engines. I've used them as 1.25-meter booster engines, of course, but also in clusters for 2.5- and 3.75-meter rockets, as sustainer engines on SSTO's, and as upper-stage engines on a variety of heavier ships where a Terrier would be too weak and a Poodle too heavy.

On landing craft, I often have a choice between the Terrier, 48-7S, 24-77, LV-1, and O-10 in various combinations, and I generally pick whichever is most convenient for the ship's configuration over which would be the most efficient--for example, if I use several radial 24-77's in place of a Terrier, I can do away with landing gear and have my ship land directly on its tail. I've found uses for all of those engines in my current career save.

I do think there are plenty of gaps to be filled--mostly a lack of larger jets, nukes, solids, etc.--but I don't feel like my creativity is being stifled. If anything I think my designs have gotten more interesting and varied in 1.0.2 than they were in 0.90.

[regex]

Instead, the modeling of the atmosphere and the stats of the engines create an implicit rule that does in fact prevent certain designs from working, without outright preventing you from building them.

It's like saying it's not illegal to cut off your hand with a dull butter-knife. It's technically true, but it doesn't make a bit of difference if the rule exists or not!

So basically what you're proposing is that all engines have the same isp but different thrust values? Engine balance was so terrible pre 1.0.x that you simply never saw certain engines being used in the game. Now most engines have a solid niche they fit into and can almost always perform double-duty if you're willing to accept a compromise or two. Case in point, the KR-2L craft I posted earlier. I've use an LV-T30 for a 2.5m Duna landing engine, worked very well for getting back into orbit. Engine diversity is much, much better in 1.0.x.

Most of these engines impose mission-killing constraints when used outside of their intended niche

Not really. The problem is that people aren't willing to step outside the efficiency box that they feel constrained by and get creative. The game certainly isn't stifling my creativity...

At least one alternative should be available for each one, IMO.

I disagree. The last thing KSP needs is redundant parts, at least until the memory management has been improved dramatically. The great thing about KSP is the flexibility afforded you through the build system. Ring a Skipper with 6 LV-T30s on a 3.75m tank for an @1900Kn launcher, use multiple 1.25m engines to launch 2.5m parts early in career, etc...

In addition to the issue brought up by OP, I have a problem with the Vac. ISP nerf to all LFO fueled rocket engines and SRBs. Liquid fueled engines now top out at 350s instead of 390, and SRBs all have worse ISP, except for the Sepratron I, which was actually buffed. I use the Vacuum ISP Restoration MM patch to fix it, but why tweak VACUUM performance when the ATMOSPHERE physics changed? It doesn't add up, and that annoys me.

Vacuum performance was OP on most engines, bringing it down matches the atmospheric performance better because you can easily bring much more payload to orbit than before.

[Beowolf]

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.

So much this!

OP, you're complaining about something you can fix by editing one line in an engine's config file. If you don't know how to do that, there will never be a better time to learn. Editing text config files is probably the most valuable gaming skill one can learn in half an hour. I can't remember the last game where I didn't change something. And it's not just customizing parts; KSP initially didn't even support my screen resolution. Took all of 2 minutes to fix, because I know how to edit config files.

[waterlubber]

Personally, I'd mostly agree with regex in this discussion except for a few things. One, Kerbin is too small for our physics. Two, engines don't have much variety - there is only one engine for a task. For example, we are missing a light atmospheric lifting engine (for Laythe, etc.) Three, I don't like what the devs did in 1.0.2. They just threw "balance" around for no reason. Games balance themselves. In 1.0, it was really fun,but in 02 the game was just off. I want realism, but if it means that I can't do reasonable things using stock components, I don't.

[mikegarrison]

Instead, the modeling of the atmosphere and the stats of the engines create an implicit rule that does in fact prevent certain designs from working, without outright preventing you from building them.

In the world that I live in, the "laws of nature" create implicit rules that do in fact prevent certain designs from working, without outright preventing you from building them. And pretty much every good game I've ever played does the same.

[FlowerChild]

It makes me sad that so many of these debates get labeled as "game vs realism".

I'm strictly a game guy, and in no way view realism as a valid argument for putting anything into a game on its own, yet most of the time, I find myself siding with the realism side of things. Why? Because games have rules and need interesting constraints in order to be compelling. Otherwise they're just toys.

I don't think free form creativity has anything to do with a "game", or that people arguing for it are pro-game as opposed to pro-realism. Being able to instantly move across the board on a whim in Monopoly doesn't encourage creativity, it just breaks the game. That really has nothing to do with realism, and everything to do with needing to have meaningful constraints for a game to be interesting.

And even in terms of toys, many of the real classics operate on constraints to make them more interesting. Take Lego for example. The shapes you can build are constrained by the pieces at your disposal and how they fit together. Regular blocks are far more free form, yet have nowhere close to the same level of popularity, and it's fairly natural for a child to "graduate" from blocks to Lego at a certain stage of development, I think largely due to it creating a more interesting puzzle for their minds to ponder while they simultaneously express their creativity.

Really, I think if that kind of entirely open creativity is what someone is after, they should probably learn some 3D modelling or CAD software so that they can properly express themselves with tools ideally suited to doing so, and stop expecting games to somehow provide them that same degree of freedom.

Edited May 22, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Bill Phil]

No one is telling you which one to use. I use KR-2Ls as lifter stages all the time, and LVT-30s as upper stages too.

The differences aren't that big. 45 seconds of Isp for LV909 versus LVT30...

[beached]

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.

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

Nothing wrong with that.

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).

Before 1.0.x there were plenty of things preventing you from using "any engine for any purpose". Common sense things, that apparently go over your head, since certainly you wouldn't make sweeping statements like that just to have an argument against our gripe, right?

You understand the difference between "restriction" and "forbidden", correct? You just used an upper-stage engine as a sea level lifting engine for 12 tons of payload, assisted by 8 of the max-size solid boosters. Clearly you didn't make the point you intended.

Obviously we think there's something wrong with that. Every other "more realism" update or add-on to the game I can think of has added to gameplay in some form, except for this. All this does is shorten the choice of engines at your disposal, from an already short list. You nobly defending Squad doesn't mean every opinion that isn't yours is irrelevant.

Your last paragraph gave me the idea that you've gotten a bit confused about who is arguing what.

The game certainly isn't stifling my creativity...

It's harder to stifle something that's lacking to begin with, surely?

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?

Why aren't I making any sense? The OP titled the thread "I just can't get to like how the engines are knobbled now", so obviously what we're arguing against are the changes to the engines. Where could you get the idea that I want all engines to work equally well at all tasks? That's not how things were before the changes.

The "make everyone happy" solution, if Squad are so adamant on engines only being useful in their designated roles, would be to add a fuller selection of engines.

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.

Some people perceive having to compromise their designs to accommodate constraints (which are still imposed just for the sake of it) as creativity, others perceive it the opposite: less varied designs, more of the same compromising to make designs functional. In my opinion, I don't really see the creativity in the tired old "moar boosters" gimmick anymore, which is essentially what this ends up being.

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).

By which point we're halfway through the thick atmosphere, the vehicle has already built up speed, and the "lift" phase of the project is over.

Could you elaborate on why my opinion's misguided? What gets my point across are the statements in between the implications the person I'm talking to is "stupid".

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!

What made them redundant? Plenty of my designs utilized them, especially the radial ones. The "right tool for the job" will tend to be the same when the jobs you're doing are similar.

I don't think it's quite as limiting as it looks, the only major limitation I see is that a few engines don't work well in atmo, and are therefore not much use as lifters.

Lifting isn't the only use for engines in atmosphere.

It makes me sad that so many of these debates get labeled as "game vs realism".

I'm strictly a game guy, and in no way view realism as a valid argument for putting anything into a game on its own, yet most of the time, I find myself siding with the realism side of things. Why? Because games have rules and need interesting constraints in order to be compelling. Otherwise they're just toys.

Whether or not gimping the performance of engines outside their designated roles, just for the sake of realism, is an interesting constraint is mostly what's in contention.

[r4pt0r]

You only have to use engines in their "designated roles" if you are one of those efficiency nerds.

Use whatever you want otherwise, the game isnt constraining you.

[anarkhon]

Multiple all the engines ISP by 10 and get some "realism" mods like USI Life Support with DeepFreeze cryonic crew storage to cut your hands.

Its giving you a very likeable movie-space-game experience,you can explore planets with a relatively small crafts.

[regex]

You understand the difference between "restriction" and "forbidden", correct? You just used an upper-stage engine as a sea level lifting engine for 12 tons of payload, assisted by 8 of the max-size solid boosters. Clearly you didn't make the point you intended.

Sure I did. The use of a KR-2L, in no way, restricted me in achieving my goal of lifting my payload to space.

Obviously we think there's something wrong with that. Every other "more realism" update or add-on to the game I can think of has added to gameplay in some form, except for this.

That's where I disagree. Since every engine now fits into a pretty good niche there is a use for all of them. This is much better than before where engine role was poorly defined and certain engines were totally useless and outclassed by other engines that fit their role better.

All this does is shorten the choice of engines at your disposal, from an already short list.

Clearly it doesn't. We've been over this and others agree, engine diversity is at an all time high in KSP. If anything, you have even more choices.

It's harder to stifle something that's lacking to begin with, surely?

I'll bet you feel pretty clever for thinking up that jab, huh? gg, bruh.

[Claw]

I'd like to remind everyone to stay civil with the conversation. If it's going to devolve into telling people they are stupid for their interpretation (regardless of what it is), then this thread will have lost it's purpose and will be trimmed and/or locked.

If you want to debate the utility of an engine in different regimes, that's fine. But there's no need to debate if someone is stupid, based on how they prefer to use the engine. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Cheers,

~Claw

[Foxster]

You only have to use engines in their "designated roles" if you are one of those efficiency nerds.

Use whatever you want otherwise, the game isn't constraining you.

Umm, there are some engines where it's not a matter of a bit of efficiency but a case of being downright useless.

Below are the thrust values for each engine in the atmosphere and in vacuum. Many have a 5-10% difference, which seems sensible. Then, for no apparent reason, we have some that are wildly different, such as the LV-909 losing 75% in the atmosphere and the KR-2L 50%.

Now, I kinda get the LV-N functioning less well in the atmosphere because it does work rather well in space, but the LV-909? What does knobbling that engine so drastically contribute to the game and why is it so different to, say, the LV-T30 which is reduced by just 7%? OK, yes, the LV-909 does have a fairly decent Isp in space at 345, but that is only 15% better than the LV-T30.

So, wouldn't it make some sense to tie the vacuum Isp advantage closer to the atmosphere reduced thrust? If an engine has a 15% better Isp in space compared to other engines then shouldn't it's atmosphere thrust be reduced by ~15% and not 75%?

[TABLE=width: 393]

[TR]

[TD]LV-1R "Spider"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1.79[/TD]

[TD=align: right]2.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]10%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]24-77 "Twitch"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]13.79[/TD]

[TD=align: right]16.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]14%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Mk-55 "Thud"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]108.20[/TD]

[TD=align: right]120.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]10%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]O-10 "Puff"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]9.60[/TD]

[TD=align: right]20.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]52%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]LV-1 "Ant"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.54[/TD]

[TD=align: right]2.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]73%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]48-7S "Spark"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]16.20[/TD]

[TD=align: right]18.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]10%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]LV-909 "Terrier"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]14.78[/TD]

[TD=align: right]60.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]75%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]LV-T30 "Reliant"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]200.67[/TD]

[TD=align: right]215.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]7%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]LV-T45 "Swivel"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]168.75[/TD]

[TD=align: right]200.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]16%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]CR-7 R.A.P.I.E.R.[/TD]

[TD=align: right]162.30[/TD]

[TD=align: right]180.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]10%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]T-1 Toroidal "Aerospike"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]163.53[/TD]

[TD=align: right]180.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]9%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]LV-N "Nerv"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]13.88[/TD]

[TD=align: right]60.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]77%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Rockomax "Poodle"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]60.71[/TD]

[TD=align: right]250.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]76%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Rockomax "Skipper"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]568.75[/TD]

[TD=align: right]650.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]13%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Rockomax "Mainsail"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1379.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1500.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]8%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]LFB KR-1x2 "Twin-Boar"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1866.70[/TD]

[TD=align: right]2000.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]7%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Kerbodyne KR-2L+ "Rhino"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1000.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]2000.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]50%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]S3 KS-25x4 "Mammoth"[/TD]

[TD=align: right]3746.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]4000.00[/TD]

[TD=align: right]6%[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[regex]

So, wouldn't it make some sense to tie the vacuum Isp advantage closer to the atmosphere reduced thrust? If an engine has a 15% better Isp in space compared to other engines then shouldn't it's atmosphere thrust be reduced by ~15% and not 75%?

No, that's not how it works. When you optimize an engine for space you cripple it for use within an atmosphere due to bell design. KSP glossed over that in earlier incarnations due in part to not modelling isp correctly in regards to thrust. Furthermore, why should what are clearly vacuum engines get such a huge benefit over other engines? At that point I'd just end up using engines like the KR-2L for everything.

[GoSlash27]

Honestly... without adversity there is no incentive for creativity.

Or in the more familiar form "necessity is the mother of invention".

Squad changed everything up and gave us a fresh series of challenges to overcome. As a result, my new solutions don't bear much resemblance to my old solutions.

That's pretty much proof IMO that the adjustments have fostered creativity.

My $0.02

-Slashy

[The Lone Wolfling]

My 2 cents? I agree with Foxster. I don't mind some of the nerfs. But I think they swung too far in the direction of "this is the one and only thing to use in this situation" - and it doesn't even do that well. There are multiple engines I haven't even bothered buying because their only vaguely decent use is in such a niche role that it's not worth it.

[PB666]

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.

Everyone will be pleased here with my short answer. Your wrong.

If you are so desperate to have an unrealistic SSTO why not create a dual mode engine with a LFoX portion with an ISP of 30,000.

[Red Iron Crown]

Please be civil when exchanging your opinions, everyone. Discuss the post, not the poster.

[GoSlash27]

My 2 cents? I agree with Foxster. I don't mind some of the nerfs. But I think they swung too far in the direction of "this is the one and only thing to use in this situation" - and it doesn't even do that well. There are multiple engines I haven't even bothered buying because their only vaguely decent use is in such a niche role that it's not worth it.

I've found the opposite to be true. in .90 and earlier there were only a handful of engines that were good for anything at all and most engines were useless in *any* application. Now a lot more engines are optimal for niche applications and very few are filler.

Best,

-Slashy

[LittleBlueGaming]

So much this!

OP, you're complaining about something you can fix by editing one line in an engine's config file. If you don't know how to do that, there will never be a better time to learn. Editing text config files is probably the most valuable gaming skill one can learn in half an hour. I can't remember the last game where I didn't change something. And it's not just customizing parts; KSP initially didn't even support my screen resolution. Took all of 2 minutes to fix, because I know how to edit config files.

This, and the this that this talks about.

Squad has made an amazing game and embraced modding. I've barely started playing and I have career modes going in stock and with different mods. I love it, I can change each playthrough to whatever I want.

There's no way Squad will be able to perfectly please everybody 100% with stock, if I want something different, I'll find a way to change it.

That's what makes the add-on developers so awesome. They see something they wish was different in the game, so they make it happen, and share it with everybody.

Consider asking for help on how to implement the changes you want, rather than just complaining about it. That way you, and anybody who wants the same changes, can have them. You can still share craft and create challenges, just like any other craft or challenge that is shared based on some change to the game.

I'd bet that very few of us are playing the exact same KSP.

[Hotaru]

Honestly, I find a lot of the engines almost interchangeable in a lot of situations. At the very least, I generally have at least two or three choices for most situations. Poodle, Terrier, 48-7S cluster, or radial 24-77s for a medium lander? Twin-Boar, Mainsail with boosters, or T30/T45 cluster for a mid-game lifter? Picking the most efficient option often gains me only a few dozen m/sec of delta-v on a ship with several hundred or thousand, so I often end up picking an engine based on other considerations--looks, TWR, configuration, cost, landing-gear clearance, whatever.

That said, I do think the current balancing could do with some tweaking for consistency. Why, for instance, does the Ant have 73% less ISP in atmo while the Spider--basically a radial Ant in other regards--has only 10% less?

Out of curiosity, what actually IS realistic in this situation? I've always thought of the Terrier as an analog for the Apollo LM engines--would those really have been 75% less efficient in atmo? I know some engines are optimized for atmo and some for vacuum, but is the difference really that big? I'd have guessed more like 25%.