The new, longer jet engine models

[pandaman]

I will reserve proper judgement until I see them in action. But on the face of it I feel it could have been a better solution to combine the exhaust to the turbine bit to give longer engines that create a shroud over the turbine when placed, similar to the ones that cover stacked engines.

Maybe another option could be to have a universal turbine part and placing the exhaust determines it's type. This would mean that the intake, turbine and exhaust do not necessarily need to be connected, which opens up the possibility for Vernor type surface mounted exhausts which would be ideal for VTOLs.

[problemecium]

Restating my statements from the devnotes thread:

- Having something subtle added to the bases of the jets sounds fine, i.e. a little mini-turbine that only sticks out a bit.

-The turbines as shown above are way too long and will interfere with VTOLs and any other designs that use short or unusually-shaped jet engine assemblies. What if I want a "stubby" jet that uses an intake, a quarter-size fuel tank, and the engine nozzle? The turbine will be hanging out in front of the intake looking derp.

- My proposed solution is a toggleable engine turbine via the tweakables menu (click a button to make it disappear or reappear, a la flag decals). I'm even fine with it being visible by default.

And to address recent concerns:

-Yes! It IS only a visual effect and will have absolutely no effect on how the engines actually run. That is NOT my and the other dissenters' concern. We're concerned that our planes will look very ugly; even if we build a VTOL and then cover up the turbines sticking up, that just means the poor VTOL will have huge, thick wings.

- The Harrier does indeed have turbines. It also has heavily customized jet engines with offset, rotating nozzles. Personally I'd rather just use regular jet engines than add in yet more special-purpose parts.

- While the difference will be small, and more than made up for by the expected Unity 5 improvements, extra visual models WILL affect the performance of the game, even if hidden by other parts and even if they don't have colliders. Most of us are silently suffering under punishingly low framerates (KSP at 60 FPS is practically unheard of), so I'm against anything that slows it down without adding an important new gameplay element or significant visual upgrade (as in clouds, not invisible engine turbines).

P.S.: I have one other solution if SQUAD doesn't like having the turbine toggleable: take the turbine model, exactly as it is, and stick it on the backs of the intakes instead. IMO it sort of makes more sense there anyway, and it preserves the flexibility to build VTOLs better while maintaining the added realism. Generally people don't put a lot of sideways-facing stack-mounted intakes on anything anyway since they don't work at those angles; VTOL builders have down-facing engines, but generally stick to forward-facing intakes, for instance.

Edited November 4, 2015 by parameciumkid
P.S.

[klgraham1013]

I vote for VTOL engines. The offset CoM, even when explained, is kind of ridiculous. Squad is merely doing what should have been done from the outset. The other option is to make it lego style. I'd be fine with that too. Just, please, no more invisible mass.

[Val]

I like the look of the turbines, but I would much rather have the engine/turbine separate from the nozzle, like a few others have suggested.

That way the nozzle could be low mass and the actual engine have the mass.

Thrust should then be distributed from the engines to the nozzles, the same way intake air is supplied to the jet engines in the current KSP.

It's a complex solution, but in my opinion much more elegant than the current solution with offset CoM on the jet engines.

[Azimech]

I agree 100% with the above post!

[ZodiusInfuser]

^^ Don't forget the 30 or so wing and control surface parts.

For a game that's supposedly about space, KSP has an awful lot of plane parts. I'd be ok with that if there were lots of places they could be used, but engines only work on two bodies and wings on just 5. Unless they are planning to add more places to explore on Kerbin and Laythe these extra parts seem largely unnecessary and could have been offered as an official mod like Asteroid Day. That's an aside to the turbine discussion though.

[Superfluous J]

Could you make the engines and turbines rotate independently of each other? It'd be nice to place the engine so the turbine is inside the plane and then - maybe when and only when using the gizmos - rotate the engine to aim however you want it. Then you'll be forced to follow basic physics while still being capable of thrusting down without a huge turbine sticking up.

[BlueCanary]

Could you make the engines and turbines rotate independently of each other? It'd be nice to place the engine so the turbine is inside the plane and then - maybe when and only when using the gizmos - rotate the engine to aim however you want it. Then you'll be forced to follow basic physics while still being capable of thrusting down without a huge turbine sticking up.

That would work, but...

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.

So it looks like if they do do that it won't be this update.

[legoclone09]

I like the new engines! They look awesome, and if you make a VTOL like an Osprey it wouldn't hurt the design.

[322997am]

AMAZING. Now I can build reel passenger jets and not the garbage I usually have to build

- - - Updated - - -

For a game that's supposedly about space, KSP has an awful lot of plane parts. I'd be ok with that if there were lots of places they could be used, but engines only work on two bodies and wings on just 5. Unless they are planning to add more places to explore on Kerbin and Laythe these extra parts seem largely unnecessary and could have been offered as an official mod like Asteroid Day. That's an aside to the turbine discussion though.

planes are a big part of space. Planes can be used to deliver a rocket to higher altitude and they can be used as sstos.

[Sidereus]

I like the new engines! They look awesome, and if you make a VTOL like an Osprey it wouldn't hurt the design.

There's no way to make an Osprey design using stock parts, as there's no way to rotate the engines around.

I've not like the way KSP has been going with these prefab parts for a while. First we get prebuild engine clusters already attached to the fuel tanks with the SLS parts. It should be adaptors and individual engines. Then huge ready shaped wings with the large wing parts when ideally it would be lego style like the smaller ones.

You want to take a game that has its performance heavily dependent on the number of parts used in each craft, and...force people to use more parts?

No thanks. I would definitely prefer procedural parts over a proliferation of lego parts.

[cantab]

There's no way to make an Osprey design using stock parts, as there's no way to rotate the engines around.

Twitch streamer EJ_SA has made a tiltjet aircraft akin to the Osprey. By undocking the engine unit from the aircraft it can be pivoted around then redocked into place.

He's almost surely not the only person either. Countless people have proven what's possible in stock KSP with a bit of engineering ingenuity.

[BlueCanary]

Twitch streamer EJ_SA has made a tiltjet aircraft akin to the Osprey. By undocking the engine unit from the aircraft it can be pivoted around then redocked into place.

He's almost surely not the only person either. Countless people have proven what's possible in stock KSP with a bit of engineering ingenuity.

That's a whole lot of work though and would only really work if the craft is designed from the ground up to use that technique, and more to the point, prohibitively high part count. I think it'd be really sad if it ended up that the only way you could make a good VTOL was to spend days just making a bearing and to have a fancy computer to handle it.

[Rithsom]

I really like the idea of having a dedicated turbine part that produces a resource which nozzles can then use to make thrust. That way we can have the best of both worlds, it would be educational and realistic because we have turbines, and it would still be possible to make good looking VTOLs. This method would also allow for RCS thrusters that use this "exhaust" resource.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Rthsom

[RocketPilot573]

I really like the idea of having a dedicated turbine part that produces a resource which nozzles can then use to make thrust. That way we can have the best of both worlds, it would be educational and realistic because we have turbines, and it would still be possible to make good looking VTOLs. This method would also allow for RCS thrusters that use this "exhaust" resource.

http://i.imgur.com/U3yhrHP.png

I second (or third or something) the idea of letting RCS thrusters (or a new kind of RCS port) use jet engine air. Having nozzles like the Harrier would be a huge improvement over using several ton bulky engines in a vertical position. Instead of using some turbine part it could also work if the jet engines (with the new turbine model (the topic of this thread)) made this exhaust.

Edited November 4, 2015 by RocketPilot573

[pizzaoverhead]

I really like the idea of having a dedicated turbine part that produces a resource which nozzles can then use to make thrust. That way we can have the best of both worlds, it would be educational and realistic because we have turbines, and it would still be possible to make good looking VTOLs. This method would also allow for RCS thrusters that use this "exhaust" resource.

http://i.imgur.com/U3yhrHP.png

The turbine could be used to produce both exhaust power and torque. For example, the F-35 uses a drive shaft to power its lift fan:

The V-22 Osprey uses a drive shaft to power both rotors in case one engine fails:

When you're no longer limited by having the engine attached to a nozzle, a world of opportunities open. Turboprop systems for instance, or land vehicles and boats powered by gas turbines.

(1) Turbojet, (2) turboprop, (3) turboshaft (electric generator), (4) high-bypass turbofan, (5) low-bypass afterburning turbofan.

Turbine propelled car.

The turbine that powers the M1 tank.

This is a great opportunity to provide much more flexibility, gameplay and interesting design choices in KSP.

Edited November 5, 2015 by pizzaoverhead
Correction: F-35. Thanks Red Iron Crown.

[mattinoz]

I really like the idea of having a dedicated turbine part that produces a resource which nozzles can then use to make thrust. That way we can have the best of both worlds, it would be educational and realistic because we have turbines, and it would still be possible to make good looking VTOLs. This method would also allow for RCS thrusters that use this "exhaust" resource.

http://imgur.com/U3yhrHP

I don't know why this doesn't mean Squad can't keep the engine as they are shown in the DevNote.

In default mode all thrust produced goes out the nozzle. for the new player it's one part and visually it make sense. It's not just the nozzle it's the whole power plant.

Add a single "placeAnywhere Nozzle" that can redirect an amount of thrust from the main turbine have them tied to RCS controls and system logic.

Any thrust not redirected still goes out the back. The main engine still has throttle lag to contend with but the nozzles can switch how much thrust they are redirecting instantaneously.

From that one stock part we get VTOL and thrust reverses possibilities.

From there modding and squad could expand the range of nozzle options that could be used.

[Joe 2.0]

I'm totally in support of a dedicated turbine part. It just makes sense, I mean, the Harrier (Most successful VTOL Aircraft) and the YAK-38 (A close second) have used a centrally located turbine redirecting thrust through nozzles, the main difference is KSP being that you can't vector the nozzles. So, yeah. separate Turbine part would be a boon to the game. Making multiple turbines would be even better, replacing the current jet engine parts, and repurposing the current nozzle parts as being secondary to the turbine. So, a high degree vectoring nozzle could be attached to any turbine, with different effects, and vice versa.

[foxkill2342]

What is the controversy here? I think all that is lacking is a gif showing what a vertical attachment would look like. This doesnt kill VTOLs at all. I dont see a reason why a turbine would not clip vertically through any part. The only change here is that there is a physical representation of the center of mass offset.

This is a good idea and removes nothing from the game. Please dont kill this like you killed the farm.

[klgraham1013]

snip

Digging your thoughts. Making it more lego and less Goliath adds a lot of creative opportunities.

[Pthigrivi]

I have to say long term I do like the idea of including turbines as a separate part. You can ditch the magic weight displacement and use the turbine to move the COM during construction. To be honest it might be worth Porkjet holding off on the new extensions and implementing this system for 1.1.

Also, yes, damn, we could use some low dry-weight LF tanks for Nervas.

[Hotaru]

I'd be strongly in favor of a preference for more, simpler parts as opposed to "prefabs" like the Twin-Boar and Mammoth, if not for the part-count limitations imposed by performance. As it is, it can be basically essential to use prefab engine clusters--either stock or modded ones--and other part-count-saving parts in order to keep the frame rate tolerable. On my system, I can only get so far with a zillion orange tanks and Mainsails. I severely dislike having to make gameplay concessions for performance reasons, but there you have it.

As for the turbine, my question is--are we ever actually going to see this new model outside of the VAB/SPH? It sounds and looks like it will basically always be clipped into whatever is in front of it, in which case it's just wasted performance and memory in a game where memory usage is a serious issue (although hopefully 64-bit in 1.1 will help with that).

I agree that a separate turbine part would be cool, but again, I kind of have to be against anything that increases part count unless it adds serious gameplay value.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah but you'd be adding what.. 2, 3 more parts? If the Goliath stayed locked together Im fine with that for balance.

[steve_v]

I'll vote "don't care", since the models are spiffy.

I'd be more excited if it was going to a multi-part assembly (intake | compressor/turbine | nozzle) - this would solve the mass offset issue (put most of the mass in the centre part) without having a hidden/clipped non-functional model, and would allow more realistic designs without nerfing VTOLs.

Since the new bits are going to be hidden inside another (probably fuel tank) part, it does nothing for realism except penalising weird engine placement. It's purely aesthetic, but only when you don't want it.... if you're using it right you never even see it.

What exactly is the point of this change again? Making the mass offset slightly less confusing? - why not fix it properly, and make jet engines work like actual jet engines?

If they do get the turbine extension bit as described, please make it switchable so it doesn't bugger up ~80% of stock VTOL designs.

If Squad ever gets around to sorting out performance, perhaps we can stop worrying so hard about part count... wouldn't that be nice.

Edited November 5, 2015 by steve_v

[mattinoz]

Digging your thoughts. Making it more lego and less Goliath adds a lot of creative opportunities.

So by Lego like are we talking 1980's Space Lego or modern day every set has at least one custom molded part like an Octopus?