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

[Kilmeister]

I'll start off by saying that I like that Squad added a downside to the LV-Ns. In previous patches there was sense of "If you're not using LV-Ns you're doing it wrong". Now there is a downside to them which promotes using alternatives. My most recent Duna mission used LV-N rockets and soon after a Jool mission I went with the LV-909s.

The downside is that they didn't include stock heat management items such as radiators or heatsinks. That is my only issue with the current implementation. Sure I can fix it easily by adding mods, but there should've been something in stock to deal with the new mechanic.

So, A positive, but needs a little more work on the implementation.

[Jouni]

Examples of where I think the game could reduce part counts of ships, therefore making the processing demands of the game less, without making it any less difficult to actually design and fly rockets:

The problem with many of these examples is that they assume that there's only one correct way to use the parts.

- LV-N could do with a model update, adding some radiator panels that can be extended to reduce (NOT eliminate) the heating problem. LV-N mass stays the same because the mass nerf is part of the changes intended to stop the "In space? Use LV-N" overly simplistic design choice process. It would still eventually overheat if run continuously, even with the radiators extended, but that would take 15-20 minutes. With the radiators retracted, it would act EXACTLY as it does now.

Reduction: minimum 3 parts saved per LV-N

This picture was taken immediately after a 40-minute burn at full power:

The overheating problem was actually worse in 0.90 for my designs.

- Heat shield parts integrate decoupler on bottom node. Should be pretty easy to understand. When do you NOT use a decoupler under your heat-shields? Ok, something something LV-N heat something, but the example directly above this one already takes care of that.

Reduction: Minimum one part saved per heat-shield

There are two primary ways of using heat shields:

The aerobraking heat shield increases drag and protects the rest of the ship. If it needs a decoupler, it must be on the top node. The reentry heat shield needs a decoupler at the bottom node to separate the rest of the ship.

- Fairing bases integrate decoupler on top node. Similar to previous example, fairings are almost always part of the core or upper stages of a launch vehicle, and if the decoupler is not needed, don't use it.

Additionally, this helps prevent #lolsokerbal noodle rockets that happen when multiple short parts are stacked.

Reduction: Minimum one part saved per fairing base.

One of my best practices in 1.0 has been placing undersized parts in a service bay. If the service bay is also undersized, I often place it inside the fairing just below the payload:

This makes rockets more streamlined and less floppy.

[Guest]

The downside is that they didn't include stock heat management items such as radiators or heatsinks.

Sure they did. Wing parts are fantastic radiators (they may not be futuristic graphene radiators but they perform perfectly well for the scenarios in KSP) and fuel tanks make excellent heat sinks (totally unrealistic but then so is a huge part of the game). You can avoid EZ Baking Kerbals by moving the crewed sections far away from the heat source, just like with proposals IRL.

[Commander Zoom]

I think some people are hung up on "a wing is not a radiator, I want a real radiator."

And while I think it's fantastic that you're content and satisfied with the current balance, IMO, complaints that the current state of LV-N heating is an unrealistic gameplay element and a kludge deserve just as much respect as your own past complaints about the (former) stock aero model, which was all of those things, and should not be dismissed out of hand.

(There is an attitude which I do not wish to see come to KSP's community, commonly expressed as "Eff you, I've got mine." )

Edited June 20, 2015 by Commander Zoom

[Guest]

And while I think it's fantastic that you're content and satisfied with the current balance, IMO, complaints that the current state of LV-N heating is an unrealistic gameplay element and a kludge deserve just as much respect as your own past complaints about the (former) stock aero model, which was all of those things, and should not be dismissed out of hand.

I argue for realism all the time, I'm just far more interested in the root of the issue rather than whether a specific engine works the way it should. Since it would literally be a miracle for Squad to actually correct the root of the realism issue, and put realism first for the stock game, I'm perfectly content at this point to leave it be. Besides, I'd say there's a 99% chance the LV-N will get some sort of "fix" in 1.0.3.

And as far as the whole "I've got mine" thing goes, that's not my angle. I'm saying that the LV-N provides an interesting and fun game mechanic that I enjoy. Tons of people have argued the same as far as realistic elements in this game are concerned.

E: Also not entirely sure why you think I'm disrespecting people or their opinions here. We're having an argument, and a rather tame one at that.

[Temeter]

What kind of craft does even need radiators at this point? Heat is next to completely forgettable atm.

[tutike2000]

What kind of craft does even need radiators at this point? Heat is next to completely forgettable atm.

Any craft that does not have its LV-Ns directly attached to a full tank

[foxkill2342]

I kinda like having to worry about them exploding and create designs that dissipate heat efficiently. I want to have to respect the engine. Prior to 1.0 I just thought the "danger" warning in their description was a joke.

[Temeter]

Any craft that does not have its LV-Ns directly attached to a full tank

I checked ships with Double/Tricouplers which were prime for overheating, but couldn't manage to kill them.