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

[Whirligig Girl]

Yes, I too can hear the distant rumble of keyboards and the smell of bile wafting across the battlefield.

I'm actually cool with the whole realism bit if it's consistently applied and isn't just used to justify a point and is then conveniently ignored elsewhere. Case in point: all this bell-shape stuff. None of the engines in KSP model accurately a real engine, they are just a bunch of surface pixels that could have any properties but people want to find something about that arrangement of pixels to justify their position. Ignoring that another engine has a similar pixel arrangement but does not suffer from the same drawbacks implied.

You do have a bit of a point here. The engines in KSP, look wise anyway, don't match their stats.

Ahem, PorkJet? Can you please re-do all the stock engine models please?

But, like, at the same time, The LV-909, Poodle, and LV-N were never ever meant to work in atmospheres. I pretty much agree with the realism crowd at this point.

[Columbia]

Ahem, PorkJet? Can you please re-do all the stock engine models please?

I am so putting this in my my sig

[KerikBalm]

Most vacuum engines don't bother listing sea level isp because it's almost always non-existent. The AJ10 doesn't get an SL isp listed here, and virtually every dedicated vacuum engine listing will have no sea level isp listed. Going from what NonWonderDog posted earlier:

we can safely assume that its isp at sea level was pretty much non-existent or nothing to write home to mom about.

Well, I'd wager they don't list it because they are never used except in a vacuum... so why bother.

But Yes, that is a good example, I guess vacuum engines really can be that bad (the SSMEs although definitely good in a vacuum or near vacuum, surely have much much higher chamber pressures than a small lander engine).

So I withdraw my objections to *how* poor the lv-909 and poodle are in the atmosphere.

I always agreed with them being poor, but I guess they aren't unrealistically poor

[Mipe]

that engine has a name now you know.

Yes. It is called 48-7S. That thing in quotation marks? That's a nickname.

[RocketBlam]

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.

Ion SSTO's should have never worked. There have to be some limitations. In the various betas, there were several engines that I would just never use because they weren't better at anything than other engines. Thankfully this has been fixed. I mean, what's the point of having ten different engines if you only ever use five of them?

[r4pt0r]

Ahem, PorkJet? Can you please re-do all the stock engine models please?

I've seen screens of Vens stock Revamp, and his reskins of ALL the parts look amazing.

[RocketBlam]

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.

I think a small propeller engine is a great idea. It would work on any planet with an atmosphere, assuming it used fuel+oxidizer, or maybe electricity. It would add an interesting dimension. I guess you could download firespitter though.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

<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.

inb4 that's cheating.

[Interplanetary Engineer]

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.)

Although I personally aggree with you, I can also really understand the point of the con-1.0-buffs-guys.

So: a game is mostly only fun if it's challenging in some way.

The point is, as you see, that evreyone has different opinions on what's "challenging" or "unnececary for gameplay";

so one of the most difficult tasks in game development is to find the right balance between those opinions.

And I think, that with 1.0, Squad has really found the right compromise between those who live their crativity with overpowerd parts and those who enjoy their game ultrarealistic;

although I'm certainly not one of the latter guys.