The new, longer jet engine models

[regex]

Huh??

Are you having trouble following the conversation? The biggest complaint about the engines is that the turbine thingy will be seen.

[Alshain]

With regards to the criticisms about preventing VTOL, short craft and counterweight uses, I believe that these are indications of niches that are currently missing parts and being hackily filled by the current odd behaviour. Tiltable engines, rotatable nozzles, short lifting fans and counterweights should be added, rather than preserving a hack for the hacks built using it.

I agree but the big complaint is they are taking away our usage of these engines without replacing them with something better. If they added dedicated VTOL engines, I would have no complaints at all over this change. They should either wait to make this change when they are ready to add VTOL engines, or add VTOL engines now. What they shouldn't do is remove an ability we have had for a long time and enjoyed and then maybe if we are lucky sometime down the road add VTOL engines.

[BlueCanary]

I don't agree. We need more parts do this: “hey bud, this is only the piece sticking out. There's more on the inside, so you can't just slap it onto a wing surface†It's adding a bit of visual realism that doesn't make the game harder to play and increases immersion as it's showing you that you're adding a "real" jet engine when building a plane, not just a magic nozzle.

Now it does make VTOL's ugly. So maybe there should be a Harrier-style engine with rotating nozzles, or a low-profile ducted fan gizmo for VTOL's.

Why shouldn't you just slap it on a wing surface? If that's what you want to do, say for a sci-fi type design or for to simulate something KSP doesn't have yet like ducted fans or something, then what's wrong with that? Just because people can stick engines in silly places doesn't mean they have to, if you want to put them where they could realistically be (which 90% of designs, including most of the VTOLs this change will ruin, do), you can, and just imagine the turbine is there - which really isn't hard since you wouldn't see it anyway. This is just taking away options and not adding anything that anyone will notice unless it's because it's annoying them.

To me this just seems like a fix to a largely inconsequential problem that also creates a whole load of new problems. That said, it does look very cool in the situations it does help and I would love to see it implemented, just with the option to not have it ruin designs the times it doesn't help.

Also, yeah, low profile ducted fans would be so awesome.

[Snark]

I don't like them, but my reason for not liking them seems to be different from most.

As far as the design itself is concerned, I'm ambivalent, and my reaction basically boils down to "meh, whatever": I gotta agree with Alshain's position.

But what I really object to is the "opportunity cost": the feature or features that didn't get done because they were working on this. Squad is a tiny company, and there are far more things that need doing than there are people to do them. That means they have to triage features relentlessly, and put efforts where they're needed most.

I gotta say that this feature seems kinda frivolous to me, effort would have been better spent elsewhere. Such as LF-only tanks that are rocket-friendly rather than hopelessly spaceplane-centric, for example (desperately needed since the LV-N change), or a decent way of docking landed craft to enable base construction.

Admittedly, I may be biased here, because I'm not a spaceplane guy, I like playing KSP because I wanna fly rocketships, and I gotta say that seeing patch after patch after patch focused so heavily on planes without getting some love for rockets is frustrating to me. But even for spaceplane builders, surely there must be some spaceplane feature that would have been more useful than this?

Wishing the poll had another voting option, "think the effort would have been better spent elsewhere."

[BlueCanary]

But it will be seen if the complaints are any indication!

It will be seen, but only when it's in the way, or when moving it around in the editor, which is a very small amount of time. It will be barely seen any other time - unless you're unfortunate enough to design one of the craft it spoils.

[regex]

It will be seen, but only when it's in the way, or when moving it around in the editor, which is a very small amount of time.

That's a bold statement what completely ignores the creativity of people other than you.

E: Honestly this thing needs a collider, more detail, and a built-in intake. How cool would that be?

Edited November 4, 2015 by regex

[pizzaoverhead]

Why shouldn't you just slap it on a wing surface? If that's what you want to do, say for a sci-fi type design or for to simulate something KSP doesn't have yet like ducted fans or something, then what's wrong with that?

That is an argument for adding ducted fans to KSP more so than not having turbines. If we did have ducted fans in KSP, would invisible turbines still have the same appeal?

Also, yeah, low profile ducted fans would be so awesome.

Definitely!

To me this just seems like a fix to a largely inconsequential problem that also creates a whole load of new problems. That said, it does look very cool in the situations it does help and I would love to see it implemented, just with the option to not have it ruin designs the times it doesn't help.

I think it exposes the problems with the current system. This is a fix for the magic jet engine CoM offset, which itself is a fix for nozzles making craft tailheavy, which is a fix for realistically-massed nozzles not being heavy enough to provide gameplay balance for a full jet engine. These are all bandages over the underlying issue of nozzles not being engines.

[davidy12]

Well, I'm a rocket builder and I rarely use space planes (except shuttles). So I'm more excited about the Shuttle engines.

[Kerbart]

That's a bold statement what completely ignores the creativity of people other than you.

Well, it's only completely ignoring the creativity when conveniently leaving off (without showing ... ellipsis to indicate cutting) a part of that statement: “unless you're unfortunate enough to design one of the craft it spoilsâ€Â

[BlueCanary]

Here's an example of the problems that will be caused, it's a perfectly conventional jet I built a while ago:

Does that engine placement seem unrealistic? No, but it'll still have a bunch of turbines poking out of those tail connectors. (probably, admittedly it is hard to judge whether it will or not. But other designs definitely will).

[panzer1b]

Clipping collision meshes can cause issues (though much less than it did in the past).

I have to disagree with this, being a habitual abuser of clipping (i care more about appearances, and thus i build an exterior, and stick whatever i need to make it work (fuel, wings, ect) inside the craft. In all the time ive used clipping (minus a few problematic parts like service bays or the claws that seem to go all crazy with any clipping), ive never had any issues except increased suceptibility to catastrophic fuselage explosion after being rammed or hit by a armor-piercing weapon. Provided none of the clipped parts get detached, you can have over 50 fuel tanks clipped into each other with no issues at all (for a time i had a fighter that had like 30 or so FLT-100s clipped together inside a mk2 cargo bay as no other fuel tank would fit there along with 2 missiles on each side).

Anyways, on to the actual topic at hand, i am not fundamanetally against the new turbine part, but there are 2 things i do not like:

One, the new turbine ONLY puts limits on aesthetic designs such as VTOLs (one of the most popular VTOL design that will be killed off is the turbojet inside a mk2 bay, now youll get a massive turbine sticking out of the top). Perhaps the new jumo-004 (maybee its just me but the first thing that came to mind when i saw that little thing was a me262 engine ) jet will work for VTOLs since the basic jet engine sucks for everything but career mode where you have nothing better off the bat. Again, whether VTOLs survive depends on whether that small new jet has both enough thrust to lift something ~10-30t without requiring more then say 10 of them, and whether it can fully fit inside a mk2 bay including that turbine thingy.

Two, and this is more of a "why bother" opinion, is that in 95% of cases, you will never ever see the internal unless you offset the engine to be outside of the fuselage (or make a VTOL the old fashioned way). SO aside from a few "redneck" style planes with exposed jet engines, nobody will actually see the jet engine in the first place. And what i get out of this, is that it only adds extra polygons that wont even be seen (and while i know part count is the lag problem, extra polys when they are never even seen being rendered is just a waste of resources.

This change wont affect me too much, since virtually all of my aircraft are SSTOs (or should i say SSTLs, single stage to laythe and back). With those, the extra 2 tons of jet engine really kills the range, and if i have a design that can even carry 2 tons to laythe and back, id rather use it to bring actual payload with me. I used to be an avid fan of VTOL designs (in the old aero, they didnt really add much drag when exposed and sideways), but recently i kinda find those to be more of a gimmick, and for me, exclusive to ground attack craft that actually need to be able to hover to line up a shot on a enemy tank (and since i dont do combat on kerbin, that makes rockets mandatory for said VTOLs). Most of my jet powered builds will be fine whether its changed or not, at worst my few laythe optimized VTOLs will be dead (or need redesign). Im just of the opinion that it adds nothing to gameplay (and every realistic design will not have it visible anyways), and only limits those that want to make sci-fi and other non classic jet plane style craft.

[BlueCanary]

That's a bold statement what completely ignores the creativity of people other than you.

Ok, so people might find a way to use the turbine visibly in their designs. Great for them, but there'll probably be a lot more people who find their designs limited by massive lumps of metal sticking out everyhere.

[regex]

Ok, so people might find a way to use the turbine visibly in their designs. Great for them, but there'll probably be a lot more people who find their designs limited by massive lumps of metal sticking out everyhere.

I'm sure you and others will be able to find ways around that. After all, that's what creativity is, or so I've been told around here.

I mean, we're getting 0.625m engines in that update too. There's some opportunities.

[BlueCanary]

I'm sure you and others will be able to find ways around that. After all, that's what creativity is, or so I've been told around here.

There'd still be a lot of design routes rendered unavailable. Sure, there'll be ways around it, but there shouldn't have to be, it'd only take the turbine being toggleable or moveable or something to keep everybody happy.

EDIT: Also, you mention the 0.625m engines, but they'll have turbines too. Designs with them would still be limited, albeit to a smaller degree.

Edited November 4, 2015 by BlueCanary

[Rokker]

Disappointing. I want podded/poddable jet engines without clipping parts etc.

[Yakuzi]

That's a bold statement what completely ignores the creativity of people other than you.

E: Honestly this thing needs a collider, more detail, and a built-in intake. How cool would that be?

Let's also give a better representation of what Rapier engines really are.. how cool would it be if they'd all be a single part like this:

I'm happy that the devs would like some real life fidelity (strangely opposed to their earlier realism ≠ fun mentality I may add) and that the internal workings of (space)craft are included. However, having several functionally distinct parts only available as a single piece severely constrains design freedom and I'm a bit puzzled why they are introducing this now.

[regex]

There'd still be a lot of design routes rendered unavailable. Sure, there'll be ways around it, but there shouldn't have to be, it'd only take the turbine being toggleable or moveable or something to keep everybody happy.

I feel the same way about not having a 3m tank for a proper Gemini replica or tiny fins for sub 0.5m sounding rockets, or having to slap together and strut a ton of wing parts to make a large wing. Too bad we don't have procedural parts, eh?

Designs with them would still be limited, albeit to a smaller degree.

Limited only by your imagination.

Let's also give a better representation of what Rapier engines really are.. how cool would it be if they'd all be a single part like this:

It wouldn't look much different than the rest of the engine on the jets.

[BlueCanary]

Limited only by your imagination.

Limited only by the massive turbine sticking out that you need to find some way to cover up or else the design will look really off.

[Sampa]

As an AMT in training...i love this idea

[Majorjim!]

Are you having trouble following the conversation? The biggest complaint about the engines is that the turbine thingy will be seen.

Ha ha, thanks for the condescending reply, class act.

- - - Updated - - -

So will the small jet have to have this horrible thing sticking out of it? If so BOOOO! A thousand times, BOOOO!

[regex]

Ha ha, thanks for the condescending reply, class act.

Wasn't condescending in the least, I was asking a legitimate question since the biggest complaint seems to have nothing to do with the model never being seen and I was wondering if you were following the thread.

[BlueCanary]

So will the small jet have to have this horrible thing sticking out of it? If so BOOOO! A thousand times, BOOOO!

By the looks of it, yes. There's a screenshot of what looks like the 0.625m jet with a turbine being attached to what looks like a 0.625m fuselage near the end of this GIF, so yeah, it looks like not even the 0.625m jet is going to be completely usable for VTOLs and non-turbine friendly designs.

[briansun1]

Eh, I'll need to see and actually play around with it, but in general I'm not for it. It doesn't look like it will add much and looks kind of pointless, and as others have said it will just limit where you can put the engines without it looking stupid.

[Majorjim!]

By the looks of it, yes. There's a screenshot of what looks like the 0.625m jet with a turbine being attached to what looks like a 0.625m fuselage near the end of this GIF, so yeah, it looks like not even the 0.625m jet is going to be completely usable for VTOLs and non-turbine friendly designs.

This is crazy.. Every cool idea I had for the little jet will be impossible with that monstrosity poking out.

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't condescending in the least, I was asking a legitimate question since the biggest complaint seems to have nothing to do with the model never being seen and I was wondering if you were following the thread.

Mate, half you replies on this thread are condescending in tone.

[Ven]

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).

The turbine is unlikely to have any type of collision box as it is intended to be stored inside another part that has collision. Because the turbine lacks any colliders, it won't generate any extra drag when it is exposed.