The new, longer jet engine models

[Majorjim!]

Why not just make the intakes heavier to balance against the weight of the nozzle?

[Capt Snuggler]

Well yes - but the graphics of the intakes in the game really show they also are part of the compressor. - And an intake is in basics just that: a hole. A hole doesn't have extra mass.

An intake IS a compressor. There is NOTHING else to an intake than a compressor

I would say the INTAKE part is a hole for air to enter the engine(turbine). BUT with a specially shaped cowl, tuned to capture air at different altitudes and speeds at the cost of more or less drag and mass.

Intake and exhaust are a perfect way to do it, It makes perfect sense. There are plenty of things in the game that new players will find confusing, in fact that excuse for this monstrosity is very poor indeed. Yup, you're buying the beer tonight Snuggler.

All this does is add a useless part. Squad wont make it a turbine generator chaps so it's moot.

I buy you nothing! You just don't want KSP to ever be updated because craft might not work any more. fact is, there are things in the game that are under developed, don't make sense and need to be updated. jet engines are one of those things. if your craft stop working it means they shouldn't have worked to begin with.

Why not just make the intakes heavier to balance against the weight of the nozzle?

because you would still have the magical thrust hole

Edited November 5, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[pizzaoverhead]

Why not just make the intakes heavier to balance against the weight of the nozzle?

The original reason for this was that when the nozzle weight-offset change was made, "airhog" intake spam designs were popular due to how the aerodynamics worked. Weighted intakes would have faced a huge backlash, and made flight in general less feasible.

It a change is to be made, it would be preferable for it to be a fix to the underlying issue (lack of a central place to put the main mass of air-breathing engines) rather than a bandage over it.

[regex]

"airhog" intake spam designs were popular due to how the aerodynamics worked engines were simulated.

Minor correction, aerodynamics had nothing to do with it.

E: Also, this whole idea of splitting the engine into discrete pieces instead of having a single, coherent part just doesn't feel "right" in the context of KSP. It's bordering on procedural engines (and other procedural parts) which have been heavily argued against for various reasons. Many of those reasons apply here. Furthermore, a discrete turbine/compressor/what-have-you is a very awkward part to deal with; how many sizes and form factors are we talking about here? How much part clipping will be involved to make it work in the context of previous designs?

This change by Porkjet makes sense and changes the engine visually into a proper engine that matches the COM data rather than being a "magical nozzle". It opens up new design vistas despite hindering current paradigms; we've seen this before in this unfinished, evolving early access experiment and the cries against were just as loud. KSP is a better game for moving forward.

Edited November 5, 2015 by regex

[Majorjim!]

I buy you nothing! You just don't want KSP to ever be updated because craft might not work any more. fact is, there are things in the game that are under developed, don't make sense and need to be updated. jet engines are one of those things. if your craft stop working it means they shouldn't have worked to begin with.

Not correct.

I have ZERO jets in my craft stable. So shut-up-a-your-face. nb (Snuggler is a good friend of mine IRL. He loves to be lambasted in this way).

- - - Updated - - -

KSP is a better game for moving forward.

Yes but clearly others disagree on your definition of "moving forward".

[Prototype516]

So I voted in favor of the presented idea by squad because I like it, granted I am never making VTOLs. But this three part idea is appealing to me. My question regarding it though is if you can increase the thrust power of one nozzle buy having more turbines. For example a "single engine" just has two turbines making it a more powerful "single engine."

[Capt Snuggler]

Not correct.

I have ZERO jets in my craft stable. So shut-up-a-your-face. nb (Snuggler is a good friend of mine IRL. He loves to be lambasted in this way).

Not correct:

Check... Mate..

also id like to point out how much cooler that craft would be with the engines working how pizzaoverhead described.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[regex]

Yes but clearly others disagree on your definition of "moving forward".

Oh really? Here I was thinking I was arguing a consensus view...

[paul23]

because you would still have the magical thrust hole

And how does Adding a randomly long compressor to it make it less magical? You still have magics that bring the air to the compressor. I just can't find a logical reason to have an engine attached to the nozzle.

Why the nozzle? Why not the inlet? Why not randomly at another spot in the aircraft?

As I said already: the best "balance" I could see if both the nozzle & the inlet both carry a part. (As said, make the compressor part of the inlet & the combustion chamber part of the exhaust. Otherwise simply the graphics for the inlet make 0 sense. Nor the fact that they have a mass (In the case of jet turbines the inlet is often just a hole in the wing/fuselage). A good example is the comet:

The inlet (and whole engine) is fully integrated into the wing. Similarly to fighter aircraft: the jet intake is integrated. This is because without high bypass ratio the amount of air you need is so small. (I'm wondering why the in game inlets lose so much air).

[Majorjim!]

Oh really? Here I was thinking I was arguing a consensus view...

We have all seen the current results of the poll mate. My point still stands.

- - - Updated - - -

Not correct:

Check... Mate..

also id like to point out how much cooler that craft would be with the engines working how pizzaoverhead described.

That old thing? That's an old broken craft not in my current stable of working and WIP craft. It's not even in my current save.

Also, an open question, will the jets require that the turbine part be attached directly to the nozzle? Snuggler you should look into how Rolls Royce made the Thrust measuring rig. It will prove my point that the current turbine idea is flawed in the extreme.

- - - Updated - - -

And how does Adding a randomly long compressor to it make it less magical?

This. It's a game guys, the whole thing is 'magical'.

[Commander Jebidiah]

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.

The farm was killed cos squad made a shody mkdel which took only a few days to make, rather than take a few weeks to make a high quality and computer efficient model.

[Alshain]

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.

That is the problem, when building a VTOL you don't want it to clip vertically through the part, it would stick out of the wing or fuselage, depending on where you are mounting it. Based on the info we've gathered here in the thread, if it sticks out of the plane it will still create drag and also look pretty ugly.

They are rushing in a change in the last weeks without fully thinking it through. This reminds me of the Round 8 controversy.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Alshain

[Capt Snuggler]

Also, an open question, will the jets require that the turbine part be attached directly to the nozzle? Snuggler you should look into how Rolls Royce made the Thrust measuring rig. It will prove my point that the current turbine idea is flawed in the extreme.

point is the poll says people are pro turbine.

I'm only in favour of the turbine(compressor/tubewithspinnyblades) part being present on the craft somewhere, but not necessarily attached directly to the nozzle part. id rather it be a separate part.(with additional functions) but ill settle for squads idea rather than no turbine at all.

[Frozen_Heart]

Ok if so many people are pro turbine, can we at least get a dedicated lift fan and/or harrier swivel jets? VTOLs are a thing in real life believe it or not.

[klgraham1013]

Please also don't start calling it power or something, the engine doesn't provide that in aviation.

I just couldn't think of anything better, because I'm not the most familiar with how such things work.

- - - Updated - - -

Squad wont make it a [insert idea] chaps so it's moot.

That's never stopped this forum from expanding on good ideas before.

- - - Updated - - -

Furthermore, a discrete turbine/compressor/what-have-you is a very awkward part to deal with; how many sizes and form factors are we talking about here? How much part clipping will be involved to make it work in the context of previous designs?

In my mind, there would be a 1.25m and 2.5m "turbine". That's two parts. They would not clip into something, but be a discrete part. They would aesthetically fit in with their corresponding fuselage. (a big task considering the art inconsistency there is now) They could even be mainly round with small visual indications that there's an engine inside. So, let's say 2 nozzles, 1 turbine, and 1 intake per size. Not that much more than we have now.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, an open question, will the jets require that the turbine part be attached directly to the nozzle?

Not in my view. This gives the "fun" crowd freedom, and the "realism" crowd the ability to set their own limitations.

- - - Updated - - -

This. It's a game guys, the whole thing is 'magical'.

No. It's computers.

Edited November 5, 2015 by klgraham1013

[regex]

In my mind, there would be a 1.25m and 2.5m "turbine". That's two parts. They would not clip into something, but be a discrete part. They would aesthetically fit in with their corresponding fuselage.

How about Mk2 parts?

I think Porkjet's solution is much better.

[Castille7]

Ok if so many people are pro turbine, can we at least get a dedicated lift fan and/or harrier swivel jets? VTOLs are a thing in real life believe it or not.

I'll second this notion!

[Paul Kingtiger]

I love the new models. Sure it limits some designs, but I think it limits in a interesting way what adds to the game.

[Bloody_looser]

I do like new models, both looks and idea. Back in two years or something, when I started playing KSP, I saw in-game jet engine and was like "where's the engine itself?"

Like I've said in DevNote thread, jet engine is not some flaming hole.

Regarding model quality criticism - looks like some 'great modellers' are ITT. Go and whine about Rockomax tanks, they are ugly. Turbines are fine.

Regarding the whole whiny mood of the thread (though the poll shows kinda the opposite results) - bad\placeholder mechanics and things should be purged, get over it. I remember complains about fixing infiniglide ruining "great designs", complains about new atmo, heat etc. Threads about "why my rocket breaks when I turn at 10 km to 45 degrees???" surface even now from time to time. Getting accustomed to a placeholder\bad mechanic is not a justification to keep it.

Regarding VTOL builder problems - I do not VTOL, since I don't like cubic strut madness 'creative' VTOL-building methods. All that stuff feels like airhogging, engine clipping etc. One more exploit down.

It's totally fine to start a movement for adding directed jet or tiltrotor, though. VTOLs exist IRL so it'll be reasonable. Cubic strutting nozzles all over the plane is not.

Finally, separating an engine into three different parts is a bad idea IMO. Just a sneaky way to continue following filthy cubic strut ways. Lol, I imagine turbines in a cargo bay, compressor clipped into a cockpit and nozzles strutted in uncomfortable places like wings. Nah, it'll be the the same, just with a higher part-count.

[Wjolcz]

I'll second this notion!

Same.

[Alshain]

(though the poll shows kinda the opposite results)

FYI, the poll is completely meaningless. All polls on this forum are meaningless. Not enough people visit the forums to get an accurate sample size. You would need about 2000 votes to even get close.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Alshain

[Azimech]

That is the problem, when building a VTOL you don't want it to clip vertically through the part, it would stick out of the wing or fuselage, depending on where you are mounting it. Based on the info we've gathered here in the thread, if it sticks out of the plane it will still create drag and also look pretty ugly.

They are rushing in a change in the last weeks without fully thinking it through. This reminds me of the Round 8 controversy.

Agreed!

- - - Updated - - -

I love the new models. Sure it limits some designs, but I think it limits in a interesting way what adds to the game.

Wait until hordes of users discover they can't build what they had in mind, or recreate something from a previous version.

It's a bit like the "cannot activate while stowed" when someone is trying to build a new type of device and gets confronted with a poor decision only aimed at the bloody novice player because "users are only allowed to build rockets and space planes in the confines of the marketing framework".

And additional a reply to Regex: no, this is not moving forward. Limiting creativity while not really moving towards more realism is not moving forward, it's crippling.

And generally speaking:

I would like people to quit thinking in the confines of a "space/flight builder game" and try to see the bigger picture.

[Yakuzi]

(though the poll shows kinda the opposite results)

FYI, the poll is completely meaningless.

This poll in particular is flawed, since there is no "other" or "I like it, with some modifications" option. Many people have voted positively but indicated in the thread they'd prefer the turbine to be separated from the nozzle. I suggested additional poll options on the first page, to no avail unfortunately... still haven't voted as I like the part but not the execution.

Regarding VTOL builder problems - I do not VTOL, since I don't like cubic strut madness 'creative' VTOL-building methods. All that stuff feels like airhogging, engine clipping etc. One more exploit down.

Just because you don't build/like certain craft doesn't make them an exploit, no matter how you may 'feel' about them. There are enough examples in this thread on real-life VTOLs with a horizontal turbine and vertical nozzles.

Regarding the whole whiny mood of the thread bad\placeholder mechanics and things should be purged, get over it. I remember complains about fixing infiniglide ruining "great designs", complains about new atmo, heat etc.

So instead you're endorsing a mechanic where a turbine can be clipped into any fuel-tank/cockpit, or can stick out of the craft without generating drag (or worse it will) or interact with anything it comes contact with? Makes sense...

[regex]

no, this is not moving forward. Limiting creativity while not really moving towards more realism is not moving forward, it's crippling.

Debatable at the least. Creativity, or so I've been told around here, is working within the confines of the given pieces to create something new and unexpected. Pieces are changing and you won't be able to create the old, tired things you've been creating. Try something new! We're getting a 0.625m engine to go with the bigger ones, no reason a few of those can't be clipped into an airframe for VTOL work.

This is exactly like the arguments against changing to a new aerodynamic model; pure doom and gloom. You either adapt, mod it to your liking, or walk away. If this change goes through, that is. I hope it does, the parts look pretty good (more polys please).

[Bloody_looser]

Just because you don't build/like certain craft doesn't make them an exploit, no matter how you may 'feel' about them. There are enough examples in this thread on real-life VTOLs with a horizontal turbine and vertical nozzles.

Just because I don't use exploit, it won't disappear. Cubic strutted nozzles have nothing to do with real life.

So instead you're endorsing a mechanic where a turbine can be clipped into any fuel-tank/cockpit, or can stick out of the craft without generating drag (or worse it will) or interact with anything it comes contact with? Makes sense...

Yep, since it's it is a step in right direction. I'd make the turbine have a collider and make special hollow parts to go with - like structural fuselage, precooler and nacelle. Giving such engine a second node in the middle for 'creative designs' would also do the trick. Or not, since clippers gonna clip. Though, I don't really care about clippers.

Debatable at the least. Creativity, or so I've been told around here, is working within the confines of the given pieces to create something new and unexpected. Pieces are changing and you won't be able to create the old, tired things you've been creating. Try something new! We're getting a 0.625m engine to go with the bigger ones, no reason a few of those can't be clipped into an airframe for VTOL work.

This is exactly like the arguments against changing to a new aerodynamic model; pure doom and gloom. You either adapt, mod it to your liking, or walk away. If this change goes through, that is. I hope it does, the parts look pretty good (more polys please).

Exactly.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Bloody_looser