Jet engines have been over nerfed in 1.03, need re-tweaking.

[Banic_ms]

I know that 1.03 added a change to drag calculations that resulted in less drag on aerodynamic vehicles, and due to this you guys made changes to the jets. Specifically you reduced their thrust, but at the same time halved their fuel efficiency.

Total overkill! The reduced drag is no where even close to compensating for the massive hit you guys did to jets. (The thrust change would have been enough, but the efficiency change was completely unnecessary. 1.02 had already nerfed SSTO's now they are almost impossible.

My best SSTO/space plane from version 1.02 was able to take off (with no payload, and if flown perfectly) get to kerbin orbit, and then thrust out to about 2/3rds the distance between Duna and Dres' orbits. (which sounds like alot, but really no, as it only had enough DV to land on the Mun but not get back to kerbin.)

That same SSTO is now barely able to achieve kerbin orbit, and thats without a payload at all.

Please, please, please re-balance this. Every major update seems to be aimed at screwing over people who build SSTO's and space planes. Those are where the fun is at and the challenge; but now its beyond challenging to just frustrating and stupid.

On a related side note: the RAPIER engine really needs to be more powerful and fuel efficient; especially since its in the final level of the tech tree. This thing is supposed to be made to get SSTO's to orbit!!!!

[Falkenherz]

There is already a thread about the jets. I was sceptical, too, but since I added a bit more thrust and adapted my ascend profile to a much flatter one, my spaceplanes now bring almost double their previous payload into LKO. Just give it a try. Ofc it is annoying having to readapt designs every other patch, but I hope these kinds of tweaks remain rare.

[annallia]

My spaceplanes have no trouble, granted they usually were overengineered (in terms of fuel anyway) to start with.

As to the thrust, I have to disagree. The same planes in 1.0.2 that would cap out around mach 3 are now hitting mach 4 with the new drag profile, carrying the same payload. The fuel efficiency is a hit I admit, they can no longer circumnavigate Kerbin unless I give them a drop tank or two but that isn't the worst thing in the world. In other words, less thrust and more speed, yeah it gets a little trickier getting off the ground (no more breaking the speed barrier before even reaching the end of the runway) but it somewhat balances out.

While I admit that spaceplanes are fun, it is not the only fun thing in game, and still needs to be balanced.

Also Rapier is fine the way it is.

[selfish_meme]

You can get almost half your weight into orbit, what is difficult about that http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116729-Stock-Payload-Fraction-Challenge-1-0-4-Edition

[Raptor9]

Yeah, I hear you. I had a spaceplane that was powered by 4 RAPIERS but had 3 Basic Jet Engines for VTOL. Mainly designed for Laythe where there were no runways, but still able to operate fine around Kerbin. After 1.0 came out with the first nerfing of the BJE, 6 BJE's were barely able to lift it. Now, not even close. And it's not just the BJE-powered VTOL's that got axed, other designs had to be thrown out too.

Further, since the fuel quantity was increased to 400units of LF in the Mk1 Fuel Tank, I have to redesign all of my SPH aircraft and spaceplanes to account for the drastic changes in both the dry and wet Center-of-Mass changes. I understand why the fuel quantity was increased, but rebuilding SPH craft files to get them to fly right is already tedious; redesigning them to fly stably and adequately is long and frustrating.

[Juicy]

The advantage of the drag increase (since 1.0.1) is an increase to lift. It's not just a matter of going faster, it's also a matter of going up. Planes can climb at a slightly lower throttle, provided they have the wings to take advantage of that. Yes, building SSTOs became a little harder again. You don't want to add an infinite amount (or size) of wings to get infinite lift (since it'd add too much drag), but you don't want to keep them too small to minimize drag either. The ideal band moved a little and was tightened up.

[KerikBalm]

1.02 had already nerfed SSTO's now they are almost impossible.

My best SSTO/space plane from version 1.02 was able to take off (with no payload, and if flown perfectly) get to kerbin orbit, and then thrust out to about 2/3rds the distance between Duna and Dres' orbits. (which sounds like alot, but really no, as it only had enough DV to land on the Mun but not get back to kerbin.)

Confirmed, 1.02 killed SSTOs, and noe 1.03/4 is beating a dead horse.

It only got to Munar orbit and could deploy a lander to land and return from Mun, and drop off LF at a station.

Only got to the Mun and could transfer fuel to the station

Could only send an ISRU fuel tanker to Duna, starting with tanks roughly half empty

Could only get a 126 ton payload to orbit... with lots of fuel to spare - before I realized how heavy and unneccessary that fairing was

Send up in only two launches of SSTOs (its not the mass so much, as the unusual size/width)

Such light payload.. pathetic, even if it was very draggy and the dimensions were difficult to work with, and the craft was unsuited to rocket launch...

I haven't upgraded to 1.04 yet until I finish what I was doing under 1.02 rules... based on what I've heard... my Eve probe has no chance under the new heating rules. So after that makes it to the surface, I'll upgrade.... but I haven't had much time to play lately... and I have a whole lot of other stuff going on while that probe gets to eve.

But... seeing threads like these:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/126304-RAPIERs-and-Turbojets-are-amazing-in-1-0-3

and the payload fraction challenge... I'm optimistic that I can make even better SSTOs.

Higher top speed = less fuel needed in closed-cycle/non airbreathers... less drag = less atmospheric losses during that phase and a more viable LV-N boost...

If I burn through more LF on airbreathers... who cares? 3200 Isp vs 6400... a tiny fraction of the fuel load becomes a slightly less tiny fraction... I'm not worried.

[Snarky]

Yeah, I didn't see that other thread in suggestions, but this was the first one I found. I have been working with the jet engines for a while now. I never post on these forums, but I had to come here specifically to post about them.

The new specs are crap. Not just the high altitude engines, but the low alt engines too. I like in atmospheric aircraft for Kerbinside science. Now the simplest things require a large investment of time and complexity. I'm fairly experienced with KSP, so I have no problem going in and editing the part stats to where I think they should be. However, I do think that the way they are now may be discouraging to new users. I'm sure Squad has a lot of excel spreadsheets and stats for calculating how powerful they think the parts should be.

Here on my thoughts on at least the J-33 though. I feel like a stationary J-33 ought to be able to lift a 10 ton object up to 10k meters vertically. Whatever power it needs to be to do that, it should have it. It is close, it just needs to be tweaked a bit.

I feel like it should be able to lift this small VTOL at least a few hundred meters and it cant.

One J-33 should give you good performance with every 10 tons of load with the appropriate aircraft layout.

Currently it takes me about 1.3 engines per 10 tons which is a bit cumbersome to say the least. It's not like I'm loading these aircraft with fuel, they are largely empty space with maybe 1200 units. I wouldn't mind it so much if we got some 2.5 meter jet engines for heavier aircraft. Right now I'll just make the mods as I need to until there is a fix.

It don't think this is too overpowered to ask for, J-33s are only effective on as explorers in two planetary bodies in the solar system.

As for the high-alt engines. I don't have too big of an issue with SSTO, but the payloads are meager. Yeah, you can shoot a probe into the sky that'll go all over the Kerbin system, but I don't know. It would be could to at least make the 100t launches somewhat more obtainable.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

In my opinion, spaceplanes aren't dead, you just have to approach things from a different side. It's true that they were nerfed, but they only work in a different way. Previously, the more intakes you had, the better performance you had. Making SSTO-s was mostly a construction challange. Now, it's rather a piloting challange. Now, the faster you go, the more thrust you will have. To make effective spaceplanes, you have to learn to reach a high speed, and keep it. And now the horizontal acceleration phase is much longer. (Tip: I found out that accelerating a lot on the runway before taking off is vital) Also, you have to rebuild your old planes, in addition to learning to fly them properly with the new system. It was the same with me: all my old planes were ruined, and my new ones weren't working, despite spaceplanes are my main interest, and I had great skill of them. I had to go back right to the very basics, and I started studying the Aeris 4A again. I went through the painful and hard process of learning to make and fly SSTOs again, as I did for the first time. After numberless failures, now the spaceplanes I make work perfectly. I also applied for the challange mentioned before, with a plane that couldn't reach orbit in the previous versions. If you want to see it, here it is:

Also, feel free to use the RAIPER engines, despite what you say, they are overpowered.

NOTE: VTOL-s are truely dead.

Edited July 8, 2015 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[luizopiloto]

1.0.4:

Basic Jets are weaker than Propeller piston engines... but drains more fuel than a RL Turbojet with afterburner on...

Turbojets loses too much power when climbing, and drains a lot of fuel... they drains fuel at a rate that is not compatible with it's size and power...

R.A.P.I.E.Rs are weak also... a plane with rapiers alone cannot reach the critical speed needed to make rapiers work with efficiency... and if we have to carry other engines than Rapiers on a spaceplane... we can use Turbo-Spikes like the old days before rapiers was introduced... unless you put 6 or more of them. It's not logical, because, with more engines, more fuel, more heavy the plane is and more hard to reach critical speed and altitude...

Atmosphere is perfect.... Jet engines are derp... some need more power ate low altitudes... others need more power at higher altitudes... and all of them needs more fuel efficiency...

Edited July 27, 2015 by luizopiloto

[Jouni]

Jet engines are about right. While their thrust used to be extremely high and their fuel usage extremely low, they're now in the same ballpark as real engines.

Larger jet engines could be useful, though.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Jet engines are about right. While their thrust used to be extremely high and their fuel usage extremely low, they're now in the same ballpark as real engines.

Larger jet engines could be useful, though.

And VTOL-s