Sadness. Just found another thing that was broke in 1.0

[FleshJeb]

Not an argument at all, but plain fact, as NovaSilisko designed the part and wrote the config if he says it was intended for a certain use then that is what it was intended for, you don't need any in-game validation when a developer* tells you that is precisely how it was intended to be.

* ex dev but still a KSP dev.

My point being: This is one of those happy cases where the developer's intention was subverted into pure awesomeness. As such, his intention doesn't hold a lot of weight as an argument.

If we're going to play the "Because the Bible says so" game: Look at The Golden Rule or The First Amendment of the US Constitution. There are edge cases allowed in those philosophical statements that I'm sure would make the original framers very uncomfortable. However, we are all better off because of the unforeseen consequences.

Pardon the logical stretch; I cannot abide narrow-mindedness.

Edited June 7, 2015 by FleshJeb

[cybersol]

Pardon the logical stretch; I cannot abide narrow-mindedness.

*Cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem *Cough*

[sal_vager]

Again, it's not an argument, it's the fact that the engine was intended for certain things and not others, no amount of nay-saying is going to change that.

[loch.ness]

My point being: This is one of those happy cases where the developer's intention was subverted into pure awesomeness. As such, his intention doesn't hold a lot of weight as an argument.

If we're going to play the "Because the Bible says so" game: Look at The Golden Rule or The First Amendment of the US Constitution. There are edge cases allowed in those philosophical statements that I'm sure would make the original framers very uncomfortable. However, we are all better off because of the unforeseen consequences.

Pardon the logical stretch; I cannot abide narrow-mindedness.

I think you would have been better off invoking the often misquoted "Death of the Author" principle of literary criticism. The one that recognizes that the reader (in this case player) is equally important to the writer (Developer) in making meaning (and fun) out of a text (game). Or in simpler terms: there is no reason why "The game is suppose to be played this way" is an inherently superior, or inferior, stance to "the game is actually played this way."

I personally find that the very nature of sand-box gaming is that the ultimate judgement of the game tips to the second one: The developers create things with their specific uses in mind and then get to sit back and be amazed at what the community does with it. There are times and limits where change is required though. If one of the main appeals of a game is a realistic rocketry simulator then things which flagrantly break rocketry as we know it should likely be corrected. If it is impossible to model ion engines correctly and still make them fun then they likely shouldn't have made it into the game. Now that they are in the game though it would be very bad business to take them out.

From what I've read about Ions - the problem isn't so much with the thrust as with the comparatively tiny EC needs for generating that force. VASMIR and other theoretical engines run mostly into power generation and requirement difficulties. In that way Ions could just be a near future technology that Kerbals got to before us. It doesn't break my immersion in the game and it allows many people to have fun. The changes to their use so they aren't the ultimate win engine makes game-play more carried and therefore more fun (but I would like to see a stock propeller for EC atmospheric flight).

Anyway, that is my two roots on the matter.

[OddFunction]

I can't be the only one who thinks the term 'narrow minded' being thrown around in a debate about video-game ion engines is hilarious, can I?...

*Meets a wall of silence*

[Jouni]

This discussion inspired me to rebuild my old Mun lander from 0.23.5.

Six ion engines, one big xenon tank, and enough fuel to land twice, rendezvousing with the mothership in between. It's not very optimized and a bit hard to fly, but because the other engines have been nerfed, the ion lander is now more competitive than it used to be.

It also feels rather silly.

[sal_vager]

I can't be the only one who thinks the term 'narrow minded' being thrown around in a debate about video-game ion engines is hilarious, can I?...

*Meets a wall of silence*

Nope, I'm still laughing.

[NovaSilisko]

I regret voicing my opinions on the matter, didn't want to start a big argument.

[LittleBlueGaming]

My point being: This is one of those happy cases where the developer's intention was subverted into pure awesomeness. As such, his intention doesn't hold a lot of weight as an argument.

If we're going to play the "Because the Bible says so" game: Look at The Golden Rule or The First Amendment of the US Constitution. There are edge cases allowed in those philosophical statements that I'm sure would make the original framers very uncomfortable. However, we are all better off because of the unforeseen consequences.

Pardon the logical stretch; I cannot abide narrow-mindedness.

If every fan of Harry Potter, ever, unanimously decided that Voldemort was Harry's dad, it would have zero effect on the intent of the author.

The post you took offense to was discussion the intention of the author.

Therefore, there can be no other word as to what that intention was, other than what the only primary-source has stated.

- - - Updated - - -

I regret voicing my opinions on the matter, didn't want to start a big argument.

I think, with one exception, it's been an entertaining discussion, not an argument

It's interesting, I haven't unlocked ion engines yet, but I completely agree with you

[tater]

"Only" a manned lander or rover. The game allows it because it had to be buffed (the thrust value), because it cannot be realistic. If you use the Isp for a deep space probe (even though you'll be doing transfers, not constant thrust spirals) then we can ignore the way it has to be. If you use the thrust for anything else it might be fun, but so presumably are those "rockets" I've seen posted here that consist of a kerbal and a ladder.

[FleshJeb]

You guys are correct, my last sentence was crap. Apologies. (Look mom, I've made an ass out of myself on the internet!) Can I blame the vicious hangover? Pretty please? *hic*

Thanks loch.ness, "Death of the Author" is better way of looking at it.

So... back to the original point of the thread:

I think stock propellers would be a great incentive to not abuse ion engines in atmo. Has this ever been on the future features list? Is KAX the best mod for propellers? I made a stock SSTO Zeppelin in 0.25 (10:1 lift ratio, slight infiniglide abuse.) It would fun to make it work again.

Also, anyone else think it's goofy that the Ant and the Spider engines are now so different? It's the same nozzle, FFS! They're a fun alternative to Ions for micro-landers.

-----

Just saw Nova's post

It's not an argument, it's a discussion ;-)

I'm not offended and I don't think anyone else is either

Edited June 8, 2015 by FleshJeb
Just saw Nova's post

[r4pt0r]

Has this ever been on the future features list?

Yeah I'm going to need a link to that list.

People here have been clamoring for a public development roadmap for years at this point.

[basic.syntax]

Propellers: I've heard or read SQ summary where Maxmaps acknowledge that such mods exist, without any commitment on his part. Propeller driven engine is a case where the rotator doesn't necessarily have to remember its rotation position in a save, or be linked with other rotators (a Unity headache, IIRC.)

Lack of a roadmap is one way of negating the "But you promised!!" complaint, that happens when years go by and they haven't implemented x, y, or z.

What we do instead is complain "Is that ALL the update has in it? When are you going to add clouds?"

Not talking and players suggesting features they want added is potentially less of a feedback headache for Squad. They can look over the most frequently made suggestions, and choose which three they can accomplish in a given dev cycle. If the feature happens - great, if it doesn't and everyone respects their NDA, then no one was the wiser, and less work for moderators

[tater]

I regret voicing my opinions on the matter, didn't want to start a big argument.

I'd not say this reaches the level of argument, past the "over beers" variety (if it wasn't late Sunday I think I'd make a cocktail).

[SAI Peregrinus]

USI FTT also has propellers. As does Karbonite+, but those aren't electric.

[FancyMouse]

Meanwhile I'm towing a 4000t asteroid with 64 Ions, and it was like crazy. Why am I doing this when I don't have any such contract?

[KerikBalm]

I think stock propellers would be a great incentive to not abuse ion engines in atmo. Has this ever been on the future features list? Is KAX the best mod for propellers?

Well, the nerfed Isp in atmo should do that already (haven't checked the thrust at duna)... but its easy to mod an electric propulsion that only works in atmosphere.

Propellor, or a "ducted fan" so that it looks similar to other jet engines with no moving parts... either one would be nice to have. I've already added the latter to my game (aside from that, I run stock).

[rkman]

broke duna ion lander VTOL SSTO's.

Pretty sure that is a fix, not a bug. Better get used to the fact that the game changes as it matures.

[Streetwind]

This thread has generally caused my regrets over adding the ion engine to resurface. Should've never done it unless there was a way for it to thrust on rails...

If it makes you feel better - I'm a great fan of ion engines and I feel they are enriching the KSP experience I'm not helping out with a mod that adds many more electric engines for nothing.

Said mod also now comes with an optional config that lets you specify a multiplier for electric engine thrust (including the Dawn/PB-ION) while leaving all other values untouched. I personally use it with a *0.5 multiplier, because I'm also one of those people feel that the acceleration should be lower. Makes the engines feel more distinct compared to the LV-N, and more balanced.

It doesn't magically give you on-rails thrusting, admittedly, but at the very least it lets everyone find their happy middle ground by setting whatever multiplier works best for them.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Streetwind

[Tw1]

Like many other parts in KSP, the ion engine gives us the idea of what they are like, without being a completely accurate simulation. That is not meant to be a criticism, I have branched out to learn a lot about real space flight thanks to this philosophy. KSP has introduced me to a ton of stuff that I've never been able to interact with before.

Yes.

Arguing that the game has 'goofy kerbals and unrealistic physics" is to miss the point.

There should be allowances to make the game more playable -like timewarp, and the high thrust ion engines. But proper representation of space flight should win over making anything doable. Things like ion engine landers should be notable because they work in spite of how hard it would be.

That said, I wouldn't mind them being given an atmospheric thrust of 0.2, or 0.5. They'd still be almost useless in atmosphere, but people did manage to make things which could fly with ion engines before the 23.5 thrust boost.

[Albert VDS]

Just stop and think how silly an Ion Lander/Glider sounds. Sure gameplay is important, but what the game is portraying is equally important.

In this case it's an engine which has a high ISP and a tiny thrust. Trying to make a lander out of it is like trying to move a house with a fly.

[NovaSilisko]

Just stop and think how silly an Ion Lander/Glider sounds. Sure gameplay is important, but what the game is portraying is equally important.

That's an excellent way to put it, and what I couldn't come up with to explain my view on it.

[Foxster]

Just stop and think how silly an Ion Lander/Glider sounds. Sure gameplay is important, but what the game is portraying is equally important.

In this case it's an engine which has a high ISP and a tiny thrust. Trying to make a lander out of it is like trying to move a house with a fly.

That's ion engines currently available today on Earth, but there's an awful lot of future out there, we might easily make a better one. And who knows what little green men from another world might have figured out to get decent power density out of an ion engine?

[John FX]

Myself I would welcome on rail thrust, especially combined with thrust when not in focus and something like the old RemoteTech flight computer, you send a start siognal from KSC, it takes the right amount of time to reach the craft then you can point prograde (or whatever) and start the thruster for a set amount of time.

Then you could have burns lasting months...

[clivman]

And that would lead the way for solar sails