The new, longer jet engine models

[Noname117]

The closest analogy to this jet change would be the ion engine's changes in 1.0. It used to work just fine in atmosphere and ion gliders were a thing, but that was never a realistic thing to do. Then 1.0 came along and hit the ion engine with a dose of reality, rendering it useless in thick atmosphere. All those lovely ion gliders that so many people built, gone, useless, obsolete. And there hasn't been a replacement, we don't have an electric propeller or anything else to do realistically what the ion engine once did unrealistically. And that wasn't even a change that really benefited the ion engine in other ways, there was nothing really wrong or confusing or problematic with it making thrust in atmosphere other than the lack of realism. But you know what? In my view, Squad did the right thing when they changed the ion engine in 1.0. And if we want to fly on Eve or Duna we have to find new ways, stock or modded.

SQUAD did do the right thing with changing the ion engine to not work well in the atmosphere. The ion gliders were completely unrealistic.

The problem here is that this change actually does the opposite: It removes a craft type which is realistic. I don't want to see light to medium sized VTOLS removed or reduced to having to use rocket engines because of a cosmetic change.

I don't think it'll be nearly as bad as you're making it out to be, especially with new parts on their way.

Yeah, it will be quite bad to any small to medium sized VTOL, especially fighter style ones, and anything which has a jet engine at an unusual angle. People building those will either have to deal with them looking aesthetically hideous or stop building them all together. For example, take my NAFA-18. It's already been through an update which forced some uglynization (Does anyone know if there is an actual word which can fit there?).

This first image is of a NAFA-18-B. This craft ran on one basic jet to propel it upwards, and a second to propel it forwards. I even used goo canisters to make it look like it had closing intakes. Of course, update 1.0 rolled out and completely nerfed the basic jets to make them impractical on all but the smallest VTOLs. I was OK with this change as it did give the turbos a bit more value, though I do wish the turbos were a bit smaller, as you'll see in the next picture.

This is what the NAFA-18-D looks like today. The basics had to be replaced with turbos, and an extra turbo had to be installed in the cargo bay. The turbos now have to clip through the top of the craft, and clip through the bottom slightly as well when the bay is closed. It isn't as pretty as the old setup, but is still looks good enough for service. If we get the longer jets, this all of a sudden has two massive pillars sticking out of it. The only solution would be to spam the new small jets and just hope that they aren't too tall.

It isn't just my VTOL which will have this problem. Giggleplex's F-35-thing will have this problem, replica Harriers will have this problem, and those small VTOLs that Starwhip and Upsilon built will have this problem. VTOLs will either have to be ugly as heck, absurdly tall, rocket based, or spamming small .625m engines. The jet-fighter like VTOL will be killed.

You are already confined in your creativity by using only stock parts. If one changes, like the Mk1 cockpit, what will you do? You will adapt, mod it, or walk away. You can't possibly think that the parts artwork in KSP would forever be static, can you? We've had tons of change in the last few updates. Find new ways of doing things, prove that you are an engineer!

Doesn't work like that when they are effectively removing a way of doing something without adding in a good replacement. If it were a bug or an exploit, I could understand the reasoning behind it, but since when were VTOLs a bug or an exploit?

Except you are hung up on black and white. Most of us want grey. We don't mind having them as long as we can turn them off. Thinking on it, they could just create an animation that makes it dissapear and tie to to a tweakable button. It would be like the ladders only no actual retraction animation, just poof and only available in the editor. This is what we discussed about the poll being worthless, it doesn't have that option in it and I would be willing to bet if it did, 90% would have voted for it.

This. Very much this. This is the best solution right here.

I also think people are making a literal mountain out of a molehill.

The ruining of small to medium sized VTOLs is definitely not a molehole, especially if it is an unintentional side-effect of what they are trying to do.

That is your opinion, and you have a right to it. Some of us get upset when Squad actively ruins something we enjoy doing in the game, even worse when there is very little benefit to doing it.

I agree fully here.

I do really like the new models. You can always grab a modded engine or they could always add vector engines later for those who want to make specifically VTOLS.

Again, against mods. They require people to download extra stuff, and they don't feel as legitimate as doing something in stock. I do like the new models, but the times you use them properly they'll be hidden and the times they'll be of annoyance is when they'll be unintentionally showing. This is why I think either they should be toggle-able or SQUAD should hold off on adding them to the game until vector engines are added.

[zekes]

Propellors would be a neat addition, because you could hook them up to electricity or jet engines and thus have turbojet planes.

[Alshain]

Propellors would be a neat addition, because you could hook them up to electricity or jet engines and thus have turbojet planes.

Turboprop, not Turbojet. Yes they would be nice, but that really isn't the topic.

[Jon144]

Its a good idea to improve realism. But this will eliminate just about every jet VTOL.

[Noname117]

Its a good idea to improve realism. But this will eliminate just about every jet VTOL.

Plus all the realism gets hidden when its realistic and shown when it won't be.

A toggle is definitely the best option.

[Pthigrivi]

I may agree with Regex on this one, (the simplest solution is to use the new smaller jets until we get a lift-fan) but dude Azimech, your stuff is ri-effing-diculous.

[Alshain]

I may agree with Regex on this one, (the simplest solution is to use the new smaller jets until we get a lift-fan) but dude Azimech, your stuff is ri-effing-diculous.

The smaller jets have the turbines too.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah but they'll presumably be much smaller, eh? We'll see but I imagine that wont be a hard aesthetic hide.

[Noname117]

Yeah but they'll presumably be much smaller, eh? We'll see but I imagine that wont be a hard aesthetic hide.

Yeah, though part count will take a hit.

I'm still worried about them being too long for a NAFA-18

[regex]

The ruining of small to medium sized VTOLs is definitely not a molehole, especially if it is an unintentional side-effect of what they are trying to do.

What if it's intentional?

Well, I'll leave it at I think this is a fantastic art decision what looks good.

[Superfluous J]

I don't understand the argument against using mods being that things are more "legitimate" if they're all done with stock parts, considering the whole anger about this change is it makes the jet engines more legitimately like jet engines. Shouldn't those who are concerned with their designs being "legitimate" be lauding this change?

If the above sounds demeaning or anything I apologize. This whole "sharing craft" concept is alien to me. I like to look at craft others use to get ideas, but using them myself in any major way* just seems weird to me.

*Other than that series I did where I actually DID use submitted craft, of course. But that was that series' gimmick.

[Pthigrivi]

Has it been suggested that the turbine hides after placement? So you'd see it in the VAB, it would help you know where the COM was, but once placed it disappeared, either into the innards of the plane or into the imagination of who ever's using placing it.

[regex]

Has it been suggested that the turbine hides after placement?

PorkJet indicated that it won't hide and I doubt he'd want it to work that way.

[Pthigrivi]

Not sure I like it as a solution, just thinking about the options.

[Noname117]

I don't understand the argument against using mods being that things are more "legitimate" if they're all done with stock parts, considering the whole anger about this change is it makes the jet engines more legitimately like jet engines. Shouldn't those who are concerned with their designs being "legitimate" be lauding this change?

If the above sounds demeaning or anything I apologize. This whole "sharing craft" concept is alien to me. I like to look at craft others use to get ideas, but using them myself in any major way* just seems weird to me.

*Other than that series I did where I actually DID use submitted craft, of course. But that was that series' gimmick.

I think you mean realistic rather than legitimate here. Of course, legitimate is probably a term I should through out here, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. Maybe more universally accepted? A stock craft is far more accepted than a modded craft, as with a stock craft you don't have to change the game from its base product. Maybe that's why it feels slightly more legitimate to build something stock rather than with mods; you rely only on the tools provided by the devs of the game, which the devs intended to put into the game, rather than on tools created by a third party.

Of course, the added on turbine provides no extra realistic function or even a hitbox, so it only looks realistic. Which doesn't really help because it is hidden when it is in a realistic position and showing when it is not (but the engine is). It leaves VTOLs unrealistic and other aircraft with no distinguishable difference

[MunarKows]

In terms of looks? Yeah, you bet.

I'm not. I have no objection to a toggleable part I just have no illusions about Squad actually making it that way considering their development choices and especially in light of PorkJet's comments on Reddit. What I have an objection to is splitting up the engine into more pieces because I think it goes against the core paradigm of KSP.

I also think people are making a literal mountain out of a molehill.

Actually it's the very opposite. Lego style systems with separate parts which work together to perform the system's function is not against the core paradigm of KSP, in fact it is very in favor of it.

I don't understand the argument against using mods being that things are more "legitimate" if they're all done with stock parts, considering the whole anger about this change is it makes the jet engines more legitimately like jet engines. Shouldn't those who are concerned with their designs being "legitimate" be lauding this change?

If the above sounds demeaning or anything I apologize. This whole "sharing craft" concept is alien to me. I like to look at craft others use to get ideas, but using them myself in any major way* just seems weird to me.

*Other than that series I did where I actually DID use submitted craft, of course. But that was that series' gimmick.

No, the arguments against this change are mostly because it aesthetically ruins many unconventional designs (such as pretty much any jet VTOL plane); in favor of a cosmetic change that isn't even seen in conventional designs, except for when placing it in the editor. If it has physics enabled on it, then it is even worse because it will actually ruin the function of those designs.

Yes, i know that it still makes the CoM offset more intuitive for beginners, but that is why i propose that the new turbine should be made to only exist in the editor, and even then it should be toggleabble so that on VTOL we get to see what the craft will actually look like in flight.

(Actually, what i really want is the multi-part system that pizzaoverhead proposed, but obviously this is something very big and there is no way for it to be done for next update. Therefore i say that for next update we should get the editor-only, toggleable, physicsless turbine as a nozzle extension; and in a later update the multi-part airbreathing propulsion system.)

[Glaran K'erman]

I don't understand the argument against using mods being that things are more "legitimate" if they're all done with stock parts, considering the whole anger about this change is it makes the jet engines more legitimately like jet engines. Shouldn't those who are concerned with their designs being "legitimate" be lauding this change?

If the above sounds demeaning or anything I apologize. This whole "sharing craft" concept is alien to me. I like to look at craft others use to get ideas, but using them myself in any major way* just seems weird to me.

*Other than that series I did where I actually DID use submitted craft, of course. But that was that series' gimmick.

Literally word for word agree.

I think you mean realistic rather than legitimate here. Of course, legitimate is probably a term I should through out here, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. Maybe more universally accepted? A stock craft is far more accepted than a modded craft, as with a stock craft you don't have to change the game from its base product. Maybe that's why it feels slightly more legitimate to build something stock rather than with mods; you rely only on the tools provided by the devs of the game, which the devs intended to put into the game, rather than on tools created by a third party.

Of course, the added on turbine provides no extra realistic function or even a hitbox, so it only looks realistic. Which doesn't really help because it is hidden when it is in a realistic position and showing when it is not (but the engine is). It leaves VTOLs unrealistic and other aircraft with no distinguishable difference

I don't like this arguement because people who say this assume the devs are incapable of making errors or have somehow fashioned a PERFECTLY balanced game, which is very naive. And "far more accepted" by who? By the people who you surround yourself with or pay attention to? Show me the numbers please . By the way, ask yourself why Squad themselves reserve an enitre day to promote the use of mods with their game, sounds pretty legit to me.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Glaran K'erman

[Noname117]

Literally word for word agree.

I don't like this arguement because people who say this assume the devs are incapable of making errors or have somehow fashioned a PERFECTLY balanced game' date=' which is very naive. And "far more accepted" by who? By the people who you surround yourself with or pay attention to? Show me the numbers please . By the way, ask yourself why Squad themselves reserve an enitre day to promote the use of mods with their game, sounds pretty legit to me.[/quote']

Firstly, devs should strive to not make errors and fashion a balanced game. If they're not then why should they be a game developer?

Secondly, stock craft are generally more accepted than modded craft, as stock craft can be experienced by anyone, while modded craft require additional downloads. Plus, building a system not intended for stock parts using stock parts is more impressive than just installing a mod which provides a part of the same function. Building a spitfire with a propeller mod installed isn't really that impressive unless it is a really good replica; building a spitfire with stock parts not intended for that purpose shows some ingenuity on the creators part. I'm not saying that modded craft can't be unimpressive, but they seem to be more rarely so, as well as being less accessible and less understood.

It isn't an argument against installing mods, but more of an argument against the devs putting something in the game which forces one to install mods to do something previously and realistically possible.

[FleshJeb]

Ah, but if you have it generate torque, in addition to being able to run mechanical parts like propellers, fans, rotors and wheels, you can choose to add a generator to it and use it as a turboshaft to generate power just like an atmospheric fuel cell. It's more flexible that way.

I don't trust Squad to implement something like that in a coherent manner. They seem to have a consistent institutional blindness about the gameplay ramifications of their design decisions. I think your idea is bloody FANTASTIC, but I don't feel like beta-testing it for the next year. So, I offered a simpler solution. I very much appreciate your efforts.

I'm still happily playing 0.25, and hoping (possibly vainly) that 1.1 will offer me enough incentive to upgrade. (I tried 0.90 and 1.02, and was underwhelmed by the quality.)

[Glaran K'erman]

Firstly, devs should strive to not make errors and fashion a balanced game. If they're not then why should they be a game developer?

Secondly, stock craft are generally more accepted than modded craft, as stock craft can be experienced by anyone, while modded craft require additional downloads. Plus, building a system not intended for stock parts using stock parts is more impressive than just installing a mod which provides a part of the same function. Building a spitfire with a propeller mod installed isn't really that impressive unless it is a really good replica; building a spitfire with stock parts not intended for that purpose shows some ingenuity on the creators part. I'm not saying that modded craft can't be unimpressive, but they seem to be more rarely so, as well as being less accessible and less understood.

It isn't an argument against installing mods, but more of an argument against the devs putting something in the game which forces one to install mods to do something previously and realistically possible.

You're saying you cant be a game developer unless you make a perfectly balanced game that fully utilizes and exploits all avenues of possible gameplay? Come on. There are no numbers to support your opinions and neither for mine to be fair, no one has ever done a comprehensive KSP user study (like that would ever be done). But my opinion is that the stock community is really the 'scared of/ anti/ confused by-mod' community and anything that changes their experience will upset them. I get that, just don't make important assumptions like stock craft being universally more accepted than modded craft. Maybe in the Spacecraft Exchange but I rarely on purpose ever check that part of the forum, a lot of people don't. A lot of people do though and those people definitely enjoy stock craft more, and that is totally fine. All I am trying to say is that the community is probably more split between the two than you are ASSUMING they are. I accept the fact I have no idea, please have the courtesy of doing the same in an arguement.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Glaran K'erman

[Noname117]

You're saying you cant be a game developer unless you make a perfect game? Come on. There are no numbers to support your opinions and neither for mine to be fair' date=' no one has ever done a comprehensive KSP user study (like that would ever be done). But my opinion is that the stock community is really the 'scared of/ anti/ confused by-mod' community and anything that changes their experience will upset them. I get that, just don't make important assumptions like stock craft being universally more accepted than modded craft. Maybe in the Spacecraft Exchange but I rarely on purpose ever check that part of the forum, a lot of people don't. A lot of people do though and those people definitely enjoy stock craft more, and that is totally fine. All I am trying to say is that the community is probably more split between the two than you are ASSUMING they are. I accept the fact I have no idea, please have the courtesy of doing the same in an arguement.[/quote']

Alright, maybe "more accepted" wasn't the right term. I know there is some term out there to describe what doing stuff in a stock game has over doing stuff in a modded game. Maybe more impressive due to greater restrictions? (Not a blanket statement there, I know there are mods which present different and sometimes more difficult challenges). I don't think it is them being scared of the modding community, but rather them showing restraint so they can push the limits of craft built from the set of parts designed to be used in the game; the set of parts everyone uses and everyone is familiar with. Stuff just becomes less impressive when you build it with less restrictions (of course, this doesn't mean the stock game should become more restricted, just that the modded game should not be relied upon to create what should be the stock game.)

I'm not saying you can't be a game developer if you can't make a perfect game, but more that you shouldn't be if you aren't striving to make as much of it as you can good. With the current state Steam Greenlight is in, and the games many AAA developers have been pumping out lately, I thought this observation should be very apparent now.

Also, Munarkows got the problem here spot on!

[KerbMav]

Modding is not the question here, as developing any game should focus on making it stand on its own, so we should drop that part of the discussion and concentrate on a "stock" solution.

So PorkJet said - I do not visit reddit usually - that the part would not vanish in any way?

Did anyone suggest a second part to remedy the VTOL situation yet, like the same part in a variation with a 90° rotated outlet - an L-shaped jet engine so to speak? Placement of the attachement node(s) would need some thought still.

[Alshain]

Modding is not the question here, as developing any game should focus on making it stand on its own, so we should drop that part of the discussion and concentrate on a "stock" solution.

So PorkJet said - I do not visit reddit usually - that the part would not vanish in any way?

Did anyone suggest a second part to remedy the VTOL situation yet, like the same part in a variation with a 90° rotated outlet - an L-shaped jet engine so to speak? Placement of the attachement node(s) would need some thought still.

He said that in response to a question of whether or not it would show through and FL-T100 tank. He didn't say it couldn't or wouldn't have a way to make it disappear. They have said very little on the subject since the controversial discussion started, which is par for the course. Usually when the community isn't as excited as they hoped it would be, they go back to discussing it internally only. You can tell they thought it would be just 100% love by the way they put it in the devnotes, just further indication they leaped before they looked.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Alshain

[Columbia]

I don't like this arguement because people who say this assume the devs are incapable of making errors or have somehow fashioned a PERFECTLY balanced game' date=' which is very naive. And "far more accepted" by who? By the people who you surround yourself with or pay attention to? Show me the numbers please . By the way, ask yourself why Squad themselves reserve an enitre day to promote the use of mods with their game, sounds pretty legit to me.[/quote']

Err.. the numbers?

It's a smart guess. He and I have seen stock ships get much more attention than modded ships, in the Spacecraft Exchange at least. But again, that is a guess that is based on experience.

It is his, my, many other Spacecraft Exchange browsers' opinion on stock and modded ships. At least that I know of.

Also, how does certain people wanting to use and creat stock ships more and modded ships as an argument assuming the devs are perfect and have a perfectly balance game?

For the turbine..

I honestly don't really care. (Sorry for the reaction image.) I can adapt easily, I don't make many VTOLs.

[BlueCanary]

I for one couldn't use mods even if I wanted to because of RAM crashes, and I expect there are many others in the same boat. So I don't think mods are going to ever be a suitable solution for a lot of people, especially if the crahiness continues.