The new, longer jet engine models

[Red Iron Crown]

Per Kasper's suggestion, I've started a thread here to discuss the pros and cons of the new jet engine models with the long turbine that extends into the part to which they're attached. A picture is worth a thousand words, so:

Share your opinions, good idea or bad?

Edited November 4, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Kordolius]

As a VTOL builder, and sometimes user of nosecone or tail-connectors mounted engine nozzles, the adding of a turbine as an extension of the nozzle will cause some (too much in my opinion) constraints in plane design for a pure visual modification.

A more interesting approach, IMHO, would be to add turbines as an additional - necessary - part to get airbreathing thrust, requiring some modification to actual intake and nozzle parts.

An air breathing engine needing : an intake + a turbine + a nozzle

• Intakes could then evolve with tech level into drag reduction and increased efficiency (increase air qty)
  
• Turbines could evolve with tech level to increase in efficiency (More thrust at the cost of more air needs, less fuel consumption, possibility to use inboard oxydizing)
  
• Nozzle could finally evolve with tech level into efficiency increase and versatility (More Thrust, allowing radial mount, and why not allowing large gimbal rate (up to 90°) and/or vector thrust that could be used for VTOL/advanced designs).
  

Well, thats a lot of change, I know... Still, one can dream.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Kordolius
typo, added some idea, and then more ideas

[Just Jim]

How can I really judge it fairly until 1.0.5 comes out and I can play around with it?

[SpaceplaneAddict]

As an SSTO builder, this is going to provide so MANY new design factors! I can't wait, and yeah, they look a lot like real turbines.

-SPAddict

I am for the longer turbines

[Signo]

What about rapiers? Are they going to have one too?

[Yakuzi]

We need more poll options. I like them, but with some modifications so we are not as limited in design options (i.e. either allow for the nozzle to be rotated independently from the turbine, or separating the nozzle from the turbine). Could you add this in the poll options please RIC?

EDIT:

What about rapiers? Are they going to have one too?

Also, this ^

Edited November 4, 2015 by Yakuzi

[Red Iron Crown]

Yakuzi, as far as I know that is not an option for this update as it would require more changes to how jets work in KSP to be feasible, so I'm not going to include that on the poll.

[Yakuzi]

Yakuzi, as far as I know that is not an option for this update as it would require more changes to how jets work in KSP to be feasible, so I'm not going to include that on the poll.

That's unfortunate. However, by that logic can I deduce that if people overwhelmingly vote "dislike" in this poll, the turbines will be removed from the update?

[Glaran K'erman]

There seems to be just a few very vocal people against these new models. I totally understand how this could affect VTOL's but this isn't an aircraft game, it's a space game. Consider yourselves lucky you plane-builders are getting so much love in this update round. All the buoyancy and jet engine/cockpit parts coming in 1.05 almost exclusively benefit aircraft (or boat, even weirder) builders. Please set Phas...errr Whiners to '0' please.

E: Forgot to add where I stand, somewhere inbetween "don't care" and "like" maybe ever so closer to like, but yea.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Glaran K'erman

[Red Iron Crown]

That's unfortunate. However, by that logic can I deduce that if people overwhelmingly vote "dislike" in this poll, the turbines will be removed from the update?

I don't really have a say in that. I made the poll to get some quantifiable data (though it's of questionable statistical significance), especially as generally more people vote than post in this kind of thread. The devs are under no obligation to do anything with the results.

There's that old adage: "The best thing a developer can do is to listen to the community. And the worst thing a developer can do is to listen to the community."

[TheMoonRover]

There seem to be lots of people complaining about VTOLs, but by the sounds of it this only changes the look of the engines to something more realistic, not the way they work, so it should work exactly the same as it did before. Why is that an issue?

EDIT: The two above posts weren't there when I read the thread.

[Yakuzi]

I don't really have a say in that. I made the poll to get some quantifiable data (though it's of questionable statistical significance), especially as generally more people vote than post in this kind of thread. The devs are under no obligation to do anything with the results.

There's that old adage: "The best thing a developer can do is to listen to the community. And the worst thing a developer can do is to listen to the community."

I understand I was just trying to find a solution that make this work for the majority of use®s (and no doubt would make a vocal minority unhappy). Left with the original options, I find it quite difficult to vote though.

[BlueCanary]

I understand I was just trying to find a solution that make this work for the majority of use®s (and no doubt would make a vocal minority unhappy). Left with the original options, I find it quite difficult to vote though.

Same here, I like the idea but I think if its not toggleable or something it'll do more harm than good by limiting options in how engines are used, even removing perfectly realistic methods of engine placement.

[Yakuzi]

There seem to be lots of people complaining about VTOLs, but by the sounds of it this only changes the look of the engines to something more realistic, not the way they work, so it should work exactly the same as it did before. Why is that an issue?

The thing is, turbines positioned in fuselages are typically oriented horizontally in real life VTOLs, while the nozzles can be/are positioned vertically:

Drag issues aside, having the complete turbine/nozzle element stacked vertically would not be realistic whatsoever (in this case... VTOLs which do have vertical aligned turbines typically rotate them in horizontal position during flight which is also impossible in 1.0.5 as far as I'm aware of).

Currently (it was even better before the off-set center of mass of jets), you can design your VTOLs around these issues and pretend the turbine was located in the fuselage, or you can add structural parts vertically to represent this if you so desire. The 1.0.5 turbine/nozzle option severely limits design freedom in this respect and doesn't really add anything apart from a largely clipped part (which I do like I have to add). Please consider splitting up the turbine and nozzle or allow for the nozzle to be rotated independently from the turbine.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Yakuzi

[nigelvn]

hmm, interesting idea. I don't see problems, however, I also don't see advantages. As they are in the body anyway you can't see them, so visuals doesn't seem like the target. They don't provide intake, do they?

[colmo]

As a VTOL builder, and sometimes user of nosecone or tail-connectors mounted engine nozzles, the adding of a turbine as an extension of the nozzle will cause some (too much in my opinion) constraints in plane design for a pure visual modification.

A more interesting approach, IMHO, would be to add turbines as an additional - necessary - part to get airbreathing thrust, requiring some modification to actual intake and nozzle parts.

An air breathing engine needing : an intake + a turbine + a nozzle

• Intakes could then evolve with tech level into drag reduction and increased efficiency (increase air qty)
  
• Turbines could evolve with tech level to increase in efficiency (More thrust at the cost of more air needs, less fuel consumption, possibility to use inboard oxydizing)
  
• Nozzle could finally evolve with tech level into efficiency increase and versatility (More Thrust, allowing radial mount, and why not allowing large gimbal rate (up to 90°) and/or vector thrust that could be used for VTOL/advanced designs).
  

Well, thats a lot of change, I know... Still, one can dream.

I agree with Kordolius. The merging of the Wheesley already ruined VTOL design, give us some vectoring nozzles instead, as a high level tech node, and I'm happy.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I like them - they don't add much (or anything) to gameplay, but the CoM now looks right. 0 negatives and 1 positive makes it ok in my book

Also, I'm surprised at the negativity towards them. I'm 99.9% certain they'll reappear as a mod, what's the problem?

Also also, I'm still in favour of using ModuleJettison in the same way as the new Goliath 2.5m jet - when radially attached, part of the model isn't there. When stack attached, that hidden part is revealed.

EDIT:

and why not allowing large gimbal rate (up to 90°) and/or vector thrust that could be used for VTOL/advanced designs).

90 degree gimbal is ridiculous. 90 degree vectored thrust is fine, but it's using a different method than gimballing. Not to mention that no engine has been produced that has both.

Edited November 4, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Dafni]

I always thought that they advise against part clipping, so this came as a bit of a surprise to me.

And I don't really see the point here. So there is no advantage for gameplay? Just invisible cosmetics? Or am I missing something here?

Personally I love small landers and vtols so I would rather like to see these parts as they always were. It gives more design freedom. If you include this feature, please make it optional.

[Darnok]

I dislike them, because current jet engines can be put inside cargo bays and after plane is in air I can shutdown engine and close cargo bay to avoid additional drag, with new engines that will be impossible.

[KerbMav]

Also also, I'm still in favour of using ModuleJettison in the same way as the new Goliath 2.5m jet - when radially attached, part of the model isn't there. When stack attached, that hidden part is revealed.

Which part is not where?

[Frozen_Heart]

I think that they need to be separated into engine bodies and nozzles. That way we can have the turbine in the fuselage while having the nozzle facing downwards. Like the harrier or F-35. Best of both worlds.

[cantab]

I'll just repeat my main argument from the devnotes thread. Almost anything is better than the current state of affairs where an object sitting in front of you magically has its mass three feet away.

[Kordolius]

[...]

90 degree gimbal is ridiculous. 90 degree vectored thrust is fine, but it's using a different method than gimballing. Not to mention that no engine has been produced that has both.

Well, I was thinking about the Sea Harrier vectoring nozzle, which rotates more than 90°

see picture :

I concede that it's not exactly a gimbal. Maybe I used the wrong term here, but that was the thing I had in mind when suggesting that idea.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll just repeat my main argument from the devnotes thread. Almost anything is better than the current state of affairs where an object sitting in front of you magically has its mass three feet away.

Agree with you on that point.

That's why I think that having a turbine as a separate - and mandatory - part could be a more interesting solution than adding it to the existing nozzles.

[cikho]

as stated before:

this design is sooo cool!

but imho it needs:

1. hollow parts (some intakes etc)

2. visibility toggle, for unconventional designs (those in which noozle is supposed to be detached from engine eg f35)

also i was wondering if this could be usefull to also add some new function to eva situation..

like engine damaged (collision or heating) that needs repair, one needs first to open it, slide it out and then repair it

(not) like this

[KerbMav]

Speaking of experiments, one little ‘experiment’ we’ve been testing is an inner turbine model for the jet engines. It’s placed at opposite the jet nozzles and will just clip into other parts when attached. The parts basically handle the same as before, but give a better representation of what jet engines actually are, being more than just a nozzle with a hole that produces .flames. Also it adds a logical explanation for their COM offset. We advise you to make sure you’re sat down before you click this link.

Rereading pays off - just an experiment you say?

OK, the model may offer more realism in the form of showing jet engines to be more than a nozzle, but do we not trade this against a combustion engine that will in most cases be swimming in its fuel ... ?

Regarding VTOLS - it really is time we get at least some robotic parts in stock, no?