Man, I hope the LV-N heating doesn't get nerfed...

[Guest]

My first slowboat (0.4 TWR with 11km/s carrying 15-tons) and I'm loving the glow of this thing! Totally heat stable once it gets going, too, I'm doing 30 minute burns with no issues.

[Zucal]

That's a very pleasing design, it actually looks realistic. I'm with you there, nuclear engines should be heavily specialized and not the end-all be-all for anything out of atmosphere.

[Superfluous J]

I think they should get their mass cut in half and TWR doubled, at least. And they should radiate heat, not create it.

No just kidding. I just made a ship with 8 of them all packed in tightly together and they didn't have any heating issues at all.

...then I changed designs around so as to not use nukes at all, as they're not the only engine that ever works in every situation anymore.

[Brotoro]

Whereas I hope the unrealistic heating gets nerfed so that real-looking NTR designs can be made.

Adding something unphysical to the game just to make an aspect of gameplay more difficult for players is goofy.

[georgTF]

It's not just the engines themselves, it's the rest of the craft that plays a large role in heat distribution. For example i've cobbled together a nice SSTO with two nukes that can burn in excess of 10, maybe even 15 minutes without overheating (partly in athmosphere though). The heat distributes across small LF tanks and then into Mk2 LF tanks, then wings and other bits.

On the other hand when i pushed 6 nearly empty orange tanks using 4 nukes (it was part of a space station assembly), the engines threatened to explode before completing the Kerbin LKO - Minmus transfer. That was only 2-3 minutes... In that case nukes were attached to converters and orange tanks, and i suspect the orange tanks, despite being good heat insulators were also guilty of not dissipating heat to the rest of the craft quickly enough, so the heat accumulated in the engines themselves.

Pictured: SSTO after Mun takeoff. Heat overlay showing heat distribution. Station module in the VAB; I don't have a screenshot of it overheating but it is atrocious.

Heat management is a thing now that nukes produce so much heat, and it's a fair trade. They're already beating almost every engine out there in vacuum performance, they need some weakness/downside.

Edited June 18, 2015 by georgTF

[Guest]

Despite the unrealism I love the design considerations required to make them work. I figure I added maybe five extra parts to that craft for LV-N heat management plus the general design (although I normally build for TWR so I might be wrong) and I could easily make it up elsewhere; 117 parts with the lander payload. I admit I'm torn because it's a real treat to design around an LV-N and much like 5thHorseman I'm also finding other engines quite useful, like the Poodle powers all of my Duna and Eve transfer tugs, and I get good delta-V and payload out of them.

Well, we'll see what happens, might have to make a mod to revert the heat if it's nerfed just because

[Streetwind]

Should only take a simple MM config to make the LV-N as hot or as cool as anyone likes. Thankfully all parameters of the stock heat system can be set in the part config.

P.S.: I also like that ship design.

[technicalfool]

Given how nuclear light-bulb engines are supposed to work, I wouldn't mind having them constantly generate heat, and generate less heat when you light them up.

Think about it: You have a burning nuclear pile in the engine, that's either not going to be able to be switched off, or at least is going to have a very lengthy cool-down period. When you start thrusting with the thing, you're pushing cold fuel through it, transferring the heat from the pile to the fuel and blowing it all out of the back. Realistically, LV-Ns should get cooler when you run them.

Could also make for some equally interesting design considerations if they worked like that.

[Guest]

Sometimes I find it amusing that an unrealistic element that provides an interesting gameplay consideration results in a call to nerf while things like magically strong reaction wheels get overlooked. It's like people only want the easiest of rocket science.

E: Meanwhile, everyone else keeps telling me KSP is a game.

Edited June 18, 2015 by regex

[worir4]

That is a real nice craft! My mind failed to see how it could get 0.4 TWR with just one engine, but then I realised you must have emptied the tanks of oxidizer.

[Guest]

That is a real nice craft! My mind failed to see how it could get 0.4 TWR with just one engine, but then I realised you must have emptied the tanks of oxidizer.

I'm using Stock Fuel Switch, the tanks are entirely LiquidFuel.

[sdj64]

Sometimes I find it amusing that an unrealistic element that provides an interesting gameplay consideration results in a call to nerf while things like magically strong reaction wheels get overlooked. It's like people only want the easiest of rocket science.

E: Meanwhile, everyone else keeps telling me KSP is a game.

The fact remains that truly realistic space exploration is truly difficult. Though you and many experienced KSP players could do fine with the difficulty cranked way up, the majority of KSP's player base wouldn't find it fun. It would be too much to ask for any human to pilot a real spacecraft like a KSP craft with a mouse and keyboard for input. You'd spend all day overcompensating and run out of RCS. So if we got SAS functions that didn't overcompensate so much, then sure...

On topic: don't change LV-N heating but please add real heat management parts. I know, there's a mod for that, but it should be stock and would quiet down the people calling for this change.

[Guest]

The fact remains that truly realistic space exploration is truly difficult. Though you and many experienced KSP players could do fine with the difficulty cranked way up, the majority of KSP's player base wouldn't find it fun.

So what? There's some serious wasted potential in this game and I find it a real shame. Yes, it plays fine, it's even fun, but it could be sooooo much more. Niche games own, we really need more.

/opinion

It would be too much to ask for any human to pilot a real spacecraft like a KSP craft with a mouse and keyboard for input. You'd spend all day overcompensating and run out of RCS. So if we got SAS functions that didn't overcompensate so much, then sure...

Sure, but the point really is that people only call for realism when it suits their argument, while completely ignoring everything else. Case in point, calling out the LV-N heating while completely ignoring the fact that they're throwing what is essentially Aerozine 50 (by its thermal and storable properties) out the back while getting liquid hydrogen isps. Seriously, stop calling for "realism" and just admit that you can't handle the heat.

On topic: don't change LV-N heating but please add real heat management parts.

There's no need for that, the wing parts perform perfectly fine.

[Brotoro]

Sometimes I find it amusing that an unrealistic element that provides an interesting gameplay consideration results in a call to nerf while things like magically strong reaction wheels get overlooked. It's like people only want the easiest of rocket science.

E: Meanwhile, everyone else keeps telling me KSP is a game.

Oh, well that's easy to understand. Overpowered reaction wheels make the game more playable for people who aren't into the realism of turning your ship very slowly to conserve RCS fuel (so they can just fumble around and still succeed without all the tedious maneuvering and training for the maneuvers that astronauts need). And, if I like realism, I can simply not add reaction wheels to my ship (and Squad happily gives me a simple stock in-game method of disabling them if I want to -- no need for mods or cfg editing).

But if Squad insisted that we do something non-physical, such as add fins to our rockets to keep them stable in a vacuum, for example (just because they got an incorrect notion into their heads that spaceships work that way from watching ancient movies), then this would be A Bad Thing, making the game more difficult for no good reason. Sure, it would just take a few extra parts to get around the unphysical limitation, and sure, some people might enjoy having to design around that unphysical limitation because they LIKE fins, so sure, I could deal with it...but it would bother me because it would NOT be proper rocket science. Not that I want to stop anybody from adding fins to their rockets just because they look cool...but they certainly can do that even without the unrealistic requirement.

As for the fact that NTRs should not get hydrogen Isp's while using liquid fuel...absolutely. And THIS is where Squad should have gone to nerf the NERV. I would prefer it if Squad changed liquid fuel to liquid methane, and rebalanced engine and tank capacities accordingly (so NERV Isp would be around 645)...but, alas, Squad did not listen to me when I asked for that.

[Guest]

...but, alas, Squad did not listen to me when I asked for that.

That's because this game isn't a niche product that makes realism a priority. But we both knew that, and that's also why I have literally no problem with the LV-N overheating, because it's an interesting game mechanic. If I want ~realism~ I'll install RO.

[Laie]

So what? There's some serious wasted potential in this game and I find it a real shame. Yes, it plays fine, it's even fun, but it could be sooooo much more. Niche games own, we really need more.

My limited time with RO was quite teaching, but learning to make orbit when every failed attempt takes upwards of 20minutes... I'd never have gotten into this game if that was stock behaviour.

I think it's fine that KSP is a (relatively) casual game. It provides a platform for a lot of realism mods and, seriously, is there any other simulator that comes even close to KSP with RO installed?

Oh, well that's easy to understand. Overpowered reaction wheels make the game more playable for people who aren't into the realism of turning your ship very slowly to conserve RCS fuel (so they can just fumble around and still succeed without all the tedious maneuvering and training for the maneuvers that astronauts need).

I've recently tried RCS only on one of my bigger vessels and found that some small amount of magic torque is required. Turning off the RW in the command module did not end well.

[Guest]

My limited time with RO was quite teaching, but learning to make orbit when every failed attempt takes upwards of 20minutes... I'd never have gotten into this game if that was stock behaviour.

I think it's fine that KSP is a (relatively) casual game. It provides a platform for a lot of realism mods and, seriously, is there any other simulator that comes even close to KSP with RO installed?

I think it's a pretty decent game as-is, but without mods I would have blown this popsicle stand a long time ago. 1.0.x is probably the best stock update I've played through so far even if it needs a few mods to actually be playable. And you are correct, RO-augmented KSP is really one of the best simulators out there, especially when I can build an Angara A5 replica nearly to the "T" and have it fly as it should.

Manually.

Because that's how I roll. #maninthemiddle #USAF4LYFE

Anyway, I think 1.0.x hit a really good sweet spot with the nods to realism and "casual" gameplay (for a mostly realistic space sim, anyway), and the heating has been a fantastic mechanic to play with.

I've recently tried RCS only on one of my bigger vessels and found that some small amount of magic torque is required. Turning off the RW in the command module did not end well.

I've always used (the extremely limited by RO) torque even on my RO ships, but I never have it without RCS installed either. Something needs to scrub my built-up momentum after all...

[Justicier]

Sometimes I find it amusing that an unrealistic element that provides an interesting gameplay consideration results in a call to nerf while things like magically strong reaction wheels get overlooked. It's like people only want the easiest of rocket science.

E: Meanwhile, everyone else keeps telling me KSP is a game.

You know, in alpha when I saw that monopropellant was made standard on command pods I assumed that meant that RCS thrusters were eventually going to be built into the pods... I was quite pleased. Then reaction wheels got insane buffs and made RCS only truly necessary for translation. I know that it was likely a concession for the sake of gameplay (Or more likely, new players), but it just annoys me that what should be a spacecraft's primary method of both rotation and translation is now really only necessary for translation. Luckily, KSP is easily moddable

[Commander Zoom]

That's because this game isn't a niche product that makes realism a priority. But we both knew that, and that's also why I have literally no problem with the LV-N overheating, because it's an interesting game mechanic. If I want ~realism~ I'll install RO.

And yet, you were all for more realism when it came to the atmosphere... loudly and repeatedly, in fact.

[Guest]

And yet, you were all for more realism when it came to the atmosphere... loudly and repeatedly, in fact.

Yeah, just like a serious majority of the fanbase. If there was one thing everyone could agree on, aside from a few oddballs, it was that the aero implementation was literally crap. Even Harv admitted it was just a placeholder. Now it plays kind of like old FAR, which is great, just needs a few tweaks. We also got some great additions that will make RO incredible. At the end of the day, I'm pretty happy with the state of the stock game because it plays like the game I expected despite the fact that realism is not a priority for KSP, and I and others have known that for many, many versions. Doesn't mean we should stop making suggestions if realism's where we want to see the game go but it also means I can be happy with a fun, interesting, and completely unrealistic mechanic and be totally unrepentant defending it.

Besides, it's not like we're going to get a z-pinch engine or fission-fragment rocket to overheat our craft, might as well be the LV-N.

[Sharpy]

The only thing that rubs me wrong with that design is that you use

Rockomax Brand Adapters for the tank tips (which weight quite a bit and give nothing in space and only some reduction of drag in atmosphere) - instead of, say,

C7 Brand Adapter - 2.5m to 1.25m or its slanted version, which double as good extra fuel tanks, and are aerodynamically superior.

[SelectHalfling0]

Nice ship: both in looks and functionality.

I do have to say that heating hasn't been a problem (except for reentry with intakes).

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't even add radiators now, for most designs connecting the LV-Ns to largish tanks and carefully planning how parts connect together is sufficient. I shared some examples here.

So the heat doesn't really need nerfing from a gameplay perspective IMO, it is entirely manageable and adds another dimension to the design process.

[tutike2000]

I'd actually like more heat from nukes (along with more thrust).

Maybe increase the heat generated by other parts as well? For instance the ion engine, since it uses so much electricity ? Or pretty much anything that uses electricity, proportional to how much it uses.

Maybe even a lot more heating from the Sun once you're at around Eve or Moho's orbit, so that you'll get toasted if you don't have some sort of radiators in the shade.

Edited June 19, 2015 by tutike2000

[Guest]

The only thing that rubs me wrong with that design is that you use

I'd really prefer to remove all eight of those and use the pill tanks from Procedural Parts but stock doesn't have nice things. I haven't put any part mods in because I've been checking out the stock career mode; only informational and utility mods right now. Besides, I like the unslanted look.

I don't even add radiators now, for most designs connecting the LV-Ns to largish tanks and carefully planning how parts connect together is sufficient. I shared some examples here.

Oh sure, put a large enough thermal mass ahead of it. I like how radiators look, though.