Come hear about KSP 1.1, straight from Squad!

[passinglurker]

If you want an "anywhere" (sort of) jet, perhaps a nuclear ramjet. The one the US tested was ~170 kN thrust.

I just want the most out of my parts they take ram you know. And the only arguments I've seen against this are essentially imaginary

[tater]

Heck, what about just "jets in space?"

[panzer1b]

It is man! People like planes because they are very accessible, easy to test and easy to get the hang of. Rockets on the other hand are hard to fly, require a lot of tricky testing and huge amounts of time and effort to make. So we are bound to see more planes than rockets. Once the newbies get the hang of spaceflight we will see more of them. I agree, there are too few complex interplanetary designs for the reasons I stated above.

lol

i can make a rocket that gets a 100t capital ship to dres in 5 minutes tops and works every time. Meanwhile I spent 3 days making a airplane that could get to laythe, land, and come back with 0 refueling/IRSU, and had 2 tons of weapons payload, docking abilities, and full RCS systems. Please just PLEASE do not tell me rockets are difficult. Even your most basic plane is harder to make as it actually requires some mass balancing to not be flippy (whereas on 90% of conventional rockets slap a few fins on bottom and ur never gonna have this issue). I admit, 1.0 and the recent updates have made rockets more of a challenge to get into space (no more up to 10km and 45 degree pitch climbs), but its not exactly hard to do a basic rocket. Advanced rockets, asparagus, pure SRB ships that go to mun, ect, are tough, but so are spaceplanes in general as you cant just slap a rapier on a airplane frame and assume itll get to LKO (heat management gotta protect the utility parts, balancing CoG matters way more when going to space, need more fuel, oxy, ect, and much tougher climb profiles).

Heck, what about just "jets in space?"

jets are fine as they are, the only thing id like to see is either some prtopellors and make them drain alot of power so you have issues with power management unless u drag insane amounts of batteries with u, or some thermal jet/rrocket that is similar efficiency to jets, and wotrks on duna/eve/other planets. Aside from propellors that have properly low thrust and are beyind worthless at anything but very low altitudes and speeds, i think any infinite dV engine is a bad idea for gameplay as it makes fuel become pointless and takes away ever bit of challenge (IRSU has already made grand tour SSTOs possible lol, something that would have never worked before).

It takes a long time (2 years at least) but you get bored with the KSP rockets sooner or later and rovers are...

(Space)planes on the other hand offer so many possibilities and such complexity and joy if they work that they can keep me playing long after I'd have stopped if they weren't included. KSP = Kerbal Spaceplane Program for me now.

I call it Kerbal Sstl Program. Since everything i make is either a SSTL (single stage to laythe) or a capital ship/supprt vessel for capital ships.

Edited August 23, 2015 by panzer1b

[tater]

I just want the most out of my parts they take ram you know. And the only arguments I've seen against this are essentially imaginary

Physics is imaginary? Do tell.

[passinglurker]

I'm "hiding" behind basic physics and chemistry, have you heard of those?

Again, by your analogy antigravity wood should be fine, or propellers that use the "ether" of space. Why not those?

How does basic physics and chemistry dictate what duna and eve are made out of?

- - - Updated - - -

Heck, what about just "jets in space?"

don't be silly that would be grossly imbalanced and hurt game play. I'm asking how putting oxygen in all the atmospheres hurts game play?

[Dispatcher]

Every good Kerbal deserves cheese! I vote cheese for the surfaces of Duna and Eve.

[tater]

How does basic physics and chemistry dictate what duna and eve are made out of?

Aside from the fact that they are, and have been, analogs of Mars and Venus?

You have been asking for "jets that work everywhere," not to change all planets with an atmosphere to have free O2. Jets anywhere is like asking for jets underwater, or in space. It's silly, and no different than asking for reactions drives, or other magic.

There is such a thing as a jet that uses anything as propellant. It is a nuclear ramjet. It is using whatever the air is as propellant, not as oxidizer for your fuel. In low-density atmospheres, it would need to be moving pretty fast. At least it's not utter fantasy.

- - - Updated - - -

don't be silly that would be grossly imbalanced and hurt game play. I'm asking how putting oxygen in all the atmospheres hurts game play?

You said:

How about this they tie off world performance of jets to a building level like the research lab or the SPH representing a change in jet technology that permits their use any where.

All my posts are answering that utterly silly suggestion.

[passinglurker]

Aside from the fact that they are, and have been, analogs of Mars and Venus?

You have been asking for "jets that work everywhere," not to change all planets with an atmosphere to have free O2. Jets anywhere is like asking for jets underwater, or in space. It's silly, and no different than asking for reactions drives, or other magic.

There is such a thing as a jet that uses anything as propellant. It is a nuclear ramjet. It is using whatever the air is as propellant, not as oxidizer for your fuel. In low-density atmospheres, it would need to be moving pretty fast. At least it's not utter fantasy.

And again you ignore my point and hide behind the same analogies argument.

Also you are putting words in my mouth I would ask you to stop I never said jets should work in a vacuum and underwater would not work for obvious reasons having to do with the limitations of the game. "Jets working any where" and "put O2 every where" are one in the same only a (for the lack of a better word)troll wishing to discredit the opposing side of an argument would assume otherwise.

Now let's take it from the top. Because they are only useful in two places I find our growing array of jet engines to be a waste of resources as such I am questioning the established assumption that world's like duna and eve don't have the intake air resource needed by these engines because their real world counterparts don't have high concentrations of oxygen. What I world like to know is how would game balance be effected if jets could function on duna eve and jool. Address me while failing to address this point again and I will have to assume you are attempting to stir up trouble and will there for have to report you to the moderators.

[tater]

Then props wouldn't really work there either they hate thin atmospheres even more than jets do.

How about this they tie off world performance of jets to a building level like the research lab or the SPH representing a change in jet technology that permits their use any where.

Those are your words, I'm putting nothing in your mouth that didn't come out of it.

[theend3r]

Those are your words, I'm putting nothing in your mouth that didn't come out of it.

This argument is stupid. Passinglurker could've written it better but you need to learn to read between the lines.

Otherwise I agree with you that jets are fine as they are and my divination skills tell me they will remain that way no matter what we say on this thread.

[tater]

This argument is stupid. Passinglurker could've written it better but you need to learn to read between the lines.

Otherwise I agree with you that jets are fine as they are and my divination skills tell me they will remain that way no matter what we say on this thread.

I agree it's a derailment, but there is no "between the lines," since he said that a building upgrade should make jets work everywhere (with an atmosphere---see, I read that between the lines). Should I have read it that Duna, Laythe, etc have their atmospheres change upon SPH upgrade?

[passinglurker]

Perhaps you could read it as "We figured out how to use duna and eve's atmospheres in our jet engines"

Using co2 as an oxidizer or extracting oxygen from it are real concepts that NASA experiments with because co2 make up the majority of mars and Venus atmosphere after all

Either way I suggested a building upgrade because it's the only stock mechanism for upgrading parts. I wanted to avoid new parts because I wanted to save ram

[theend3r]

Perhaps you could read it as "We figured out how to use duna and eve's atmospheres in our jet engines"

Using co2 as an oxidizer or extracting oxygen from it are real concepts that NASA experiments with because co2 make up the majority of mars and Venus atmosphere after all

Either way I suggested a building upgrade because it's the only stock mechanism for upgrading parts. I wanted to avoid new parts because I wanted to save ram

Restrictions are a good thing so I hope that'll never happen. On the other hand propellers would work in any atmosphere and are long overdue from Squad (instead of 30 types of jet engines and fuselage reworks maybe?).

[cantab]

1.1 is going to bring a double benefit of reduced RAM usage (like people already get using DX11 or OGL) and increased RAM limit. The few players who can't use 64 bit will still benefit from reduced usage. A few parts aren't going to matter.

Gameplay wise, letting jets run in any atmosphere seems boring.

[passinglurker]

Now this is the discussion I was looking for much better than listening to some one shout "maaaaars" at the top of their lungs.

Restrictions are a good thing so I hope that'll never happen. On the other hand propellers would work in any atmosphere and are long overdue from Squad (instead of 30 types of jet engines and fuselage reworks maybe?).

I'd agree that restrictions can be good but I also think there is a line between fun restricting and wasteful restricting and presently I think we are on the wasteful side even with optimized performance there is still an issue of part catalog clutter which only gets worse when you add props. not to mention you can't animate a spinning prop in stock all the mod ones use fire spitter for a reason and finally there is issue of resources is the intakes that check for oxygen not the engines so if a prop used intake air it could be used as an of world intake for jets do you let this slide or do you messily add a redundant resource for props to use instead? In the end permitting the existing jets to work possibly under the condition of buying building upgrades offer an all around simpler solution to these issues.

1.1 is going to bring a double benefit of reduced RAM usage (like people already get using DX11 or OGL) and increased RAM limit. The few players who can't use 64 bit will still benefit from reduced usage. A few parts aren't going to matter.

Gameplay wise, letting jets run in any atmosphere seems boring.

Much of what I said above also applies here especially that bit about catalog clutter. As for boreingness how is the present more amusing have you taken a plane to duna to find the jets don't work or something? I'd argue with only two places to go jets are just as boring now.

[theend3r]

not to mention you can't animate a spinning prop in stock all the mod ones use fire spitter for a reason and finally there is issue of resources is the intakes that check for oxygen not the engines so if a prop used intake air it could be used as an of world intake for jets do you let this slide or do you messily add a redundant resource for props to use instead?

There would be electric props for off world uses. (unlimited propulsion with batteries and solar panels/RTGs)

[passinglurker]

Solar panels and rtg's wouldn't yield enough to drive an electric propeller you would have to use fuel cells which would ultimately limit your range.

- - - Updated - - -

Also due to game limits pure electric engines of any sort don't work you need at least one fuel with mass hence the resource issue

[tater]

Perhaps you could read it as "We figured out how to use duna and eve's atmospheres in our jet engines"

Perhaps you might have just written that?

BTW, as cool as the possible (it's just an SBIR, after all) CO2 jet is, allowing ALL jet engines to magically work all places is silly. Adding a NEW part, that works using just CO2 would be a different matter (which might make it stink on Kerbin, I dunno). It is unbalancing to make jets that are magical, and work everywhere. It is interesting (and might balance nicely) to have parts that are specific to limited missions.

Honestly, ISRU should be like this as well, it's kind of silly to have a part that might work using soils on one world, but is imagined to use atmosphere on another. Technologies like this would likely be optimized for specific target worlds. A jet capable of dealing with Duna might not work without heavy modification on Eve, for example.

The one jet that would work in all atmospheres would be a nuke ramjet. Air is just a propellant, then. Thrust would vary by altitude, and by composition of the atmosphere.

[theend3r]

Solar panels and rtg's wouldn't yield enough to drive an electric propeller you would have to use fuel cells which would ultimately limit your range.

- - - Updated - - -

Also due to game limits pure electric engines of any sort don't work you need at least one fuel with mass hence the resource issue

You can build an electric helicopter using robotics parts so you can definitely build an electric prop part even as a modder. Squad should have it easy.

[passinglurker]

Perhaps you might have just written that?

perhaps you could stop trying to pick a fight?

BTW, as cool as the possible (it's just an SBIR, after all) CO2 jet is, allowing ALL jet engines to magically work all places is silly. Adding a NEW part, that works using just CO2 would be a different matter (which might make it stink on Kerbin, I dunno). It is unbalancing to make jets that are magical, and work everywhere. It is interesting (and might balance nicely) to have parts that are specific to limited missions.

Honestly, ISRU should be like this as well, it's kind of silly to have a part that might work using soils on one world, but is imagined to use atmosphere on another. Technologies like this would likely be optimized for specific target worlds. A jet capable of dealing with Duna might not work without heavy modification on Eve, for example.

The one jet that would work in all atmospheres would be a nuke ramjet. Air is just a propellant, then. Thrust would vary by altitude, and by composition of the atmosphere.

I'm not a fan of situational parts personally so I don't see the harm in using building upgrades to extend the capability of existing jet engines. the worlds they could be used on are still very far apart so its unlikely that any of these engines would see more than kerbin and one other world tops(we'll omit jool from the list of candidates because there is no where to fly too because it has no surface).

and working in duna and eve isn't so magic the different atmospheric densities force different styles of plane design to compensate for how the craft will struggle to cope be it thinner or thicker air.

nuclear ramjets are just as imbalanced as electric props because the desire for unlimited flight range make them excellent biome hoppers though they would be preferable to electric props because their greater weight and later tree placement could potentially balance things out, but still jets would still have a inche as earlier, cheaper, lighter but at the cost of range.

- - - Updated - - -

You can build an electric helicopter using robotics parts so you can definitely build an electric prop part even as a modder. Squad should have it easy.

While carrying science experiments or people? And have it radio back to a satellite in orbit? we aren't talking little hobby rc planes here not to mention if they did work they would be super biome hoppers which is potentially unbalancing

[theend3r]

While carrying science experiments or people? And have it radio back to a satellite in orbit? we aren't talking little hobby rc planes here

[passinglurker]

ah I see... *surprised*

That is an excellent display but one could argue whether the electric draw of infernal robotics parts are actually balanced properly when you consider this use. Also in the video the craft used jet engines as well which have alternators which brings whether this could be done with rtg's and solars on eve and duna into question.

this way of implementing a propeller does solve the intake air resource issue though but it would call for a slew of new small wing parts that can be used to make the propellers... which are actually kinda needed for smaller planes, and then when you consider this unused stock module it makes a very promising picture the only obstacle that needs to be resolved is the ballance of the resource draw. Still its a pleasantly practical literal solution where as my jet engine proposals sought to bring a solution by being abstract.

[tater]

I think parts that use any local resource should all have to be purpose-built. Any places that share a resource, can obviously use the same technology. ISRU on the Mun would not be ISRU on Duna. The "one size fits all" approach just trivializes those parts, and turns them to magic.

[Zucal]

I think parts that use any local resource should all have to be purpose-built. Any places that share a resource, can obviously use the same technology. ISRU on the Mun would not be ISRU on Duna. The "one size fits all" approach just trivializes those parts, and turns them to magic.

I'd rather just see the amount of electric charge needed increased, the number of ore hotspots decreased, and the mass of ore increased, along with other nerfs. In theory words, make it so you really need a good amount of infrastructure built up on a planet before ISRU becomes economical.

[Jouni]

i can make a rocket that gets a 100t capital ship to dres in 5 minutes tops and works every time. Meanwhile I spent 3 days making a airplane that could get to laythe, land, and come back with 0 refueling/IRSU, and had 2 tons of weapons payload, docking abilities, and full RCS systems.

What about a rescue mission from a retrograde orbit beyond Eeloo, while recovering all the stages used to get there? That's the rocket equivalent of your Laythe mission: a simple task made difficult by self-imposed rules. A more reasonable Laythe mission would be based on the standard launcher/mothership/lander approach, even if the launcher happens to be a spaceplane.