The new, longer jet engine models

[Bloody_looser]

Bloody_looser, democracy isn't always a good idea. Or we would still use Errordynamics.

Exactly. You've got a strange concept of democracy though.

Shooting down turbine thingie will leave us forever with jets depicted as burning holes. Just as anti-barn movement left us without one tier of buildings and gaping mohole in career mode progression.

[Yakuzi]

Thanks for the condescending reply, but I've read the thread. I know plenty of examples and am an aviation enthusiast IRL. If you read my reply properly, it had nothing to do with what reality is like and everything to do with the fact that procedural engine design isn't a part of core KSP. Besides, air intakes are already separate to the engines (and air can already flow through solid fuel tanks and structural parts), so I'm not sure I see your point with that example

My reply was not meant to be condescending, my sincerest apologies if my post offended you. This thread lists many arguments that suggest splitting up the turbine from the nozzle would be a great solution to overcome the jet CoM problems.

I used the air intakes as an example. Isn't it a good thing that they are separate from the rest of the turbine/nozzle? Same could be said for the nozzle, it could be better off being separate from a turbine if it were to be introduced in the game (which I would really like).

[Alshain]

Exactly. You've got a strange concept of democracy though.

Shooting down turbine thingie will leave us forever with jets depicted as burning holes. Just as anti-barn movement left us without one tier of buildings and gaping mohole in career mode progression.

He said it ISN'T a democracy. The votes don't matter, it's what Squad thinks is best. I believe they do take our input but they get to decide which they agree with.

I hope they do come up with a way to make the turbines work for a future build but if they are truly not in there, then I'm glad they decided to push them out of 1.0.5 to look for a better option. I don't think this will be the same as the barn. Everyone here against the turbines was saying they just wanted them in a better way, but it was so late they couldn't possible do re-do them in a week.

[Glaran K'erman]

Still hope they'll make into release build.

Otherwise it'll be a repeat of a shameful barn story, when vocal minority shoot down a good idea.

Me too, vocal minorities always ruin the party, lol. LOOK AT THE POLL PEOPLE, haha.

[Noname117]

He said it ISN'T a democracy. The votes don't matter, it's what Squad thinks is best. I believe they do take our input but they get to decide which they agree with.

I hope they do come up with a way to make the turbines work for a future build but if they are truly not in there, then I'm glad they decided to push them out of 1.0.5 to look for a better option. I don't think this will be the same as the barn. Everyone here against the turbines was saying they just wanted them in a better way, but it was so late they couldn't possible do re-do them in a week.

Pretty much. They could easily add them in 1.1 or 1.2 (Or some update in between), and make them far better than they would've if they came out in 1.0.5. I do want turbines, I just value good-looking VTOLs more.

- - - Updated - - -

Me too' date=' vocal minorities always ruin the party, lol. LOOK AT THE POLL PEOPLE, haha.[/quote']

This vocal minority would have their craft destroyed without really the ability to build replacement craft while the vocal majority gets a purely cosmetic benefit. We suffer for a small benefit on your part. This is why democracy shouldn't be based on what the majority says, but rather on if almost everyone shares the same opinion on a subject.

Also, tell me what you gain from the turbine parts if they were to get implemented. I'm sure whatever you gain would be worth far less than the VTOLs I would lose.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Noname117

[Glaran K'erman]

I just don't like to see ideas that most of the community find cool get shot down by VTOL builders, I don't care what you build. Or the 4 other people who have been complaining non-stop.

[Noname117]

I just don't like to see ideas that most of the community find cool get shot down by VTOL builders' date=' I don't care what you build. Or the 4 other people who have been complaining non-stop.[/quote']

So you would rather force me and those 4 other people not to build what we want to build and what we could build before so you can have a cool little trinket which will be not-visible in almost every case you'd use it in? Really?

Edited November 7, 2015 by Noname117

[Bloody_looser]

So you would rather force me and those 4 other people not to build what we want to build and what we could build before so you can have a cool little trinket which will be not-visible in almost every case you'd use it in? Really?

That's what psy-planers and k-drive lovers told about new aero.

[r4pt0r]

So you would rather force me and those 4 other people not to build what we want to build and what we could build before so you can have a cool little trinket which will be not-visible in almost every case you'd use it in? Really?

Yes. The majority always take precedence. Catering to the minority is always bad.

[Motokid600]

They should go ahead and do the same thing with fuel tanks by having individual fuel and oxidizer tanks inside. Seriously.

[klgraham1013]

They should go ahead and do the same thing with fuel tanks by having individual fuel and oxidizer tanks inside. Seriously.

I've actually wanted some standalone OX tanks.

[Azimech]

Again, VTOL is only ONE of the uses for jet engines. I've seen a whole bunch of things you can do with them.

This is one of them:

[Yakuzi]

That's what psy-planers and k-drive lovers told about new aero.

Of course VTOLs are just a glitch and are completely impossible in real life. Just an exploit like infiglide or K-drive or airhogging. They have no place in a realistic physics game. /s

Reply from earlier in this thread, let's not go round in circular arguments please.

Me too' date=' vocal minorities always ruin the party, lol. LOOK AT THE POLL PEOPLE, haha.[/quote']

As mentioned before, all polls are flawed and this poll particularly. Furthermore, introducing a poorly planned system to fix a poorly planned system doesn't by default make it good system.

Let's wait and see what Squad comes up with in the future*, I'm sure they'll find a better way to include turbines after giving it a bit more thought.

* turbines might even be in 1.0.5, maybe they just didn't make it for the late experimental builds streamed on twitch atm... but let's hope not

[Red Iron Crown]

As mentioned before, all polls are flawed and this poll particularly.

And as mentioned before, poll options are accurate for what is feasible for this update.

[Yakuzi]

And as mentioned before, poll options are accurate for what is feasible for this update.

And as also mentioned before, I understand . However, what is feasible for this update may not be the best solution to address the off-set jet CoM in the game as a whole.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Yakuzi
links are the bane to my existence

[Frozen_Heart]

I would be happy for these turbines to be added if Squad added some dedicated VTOL engines. As they are it will simply take away something without adding anything.

[Temeter]

IMO it would be best if they'd just be shown before attaching and vanish as soon they are connected.

Or even better, a toggle in the editor. I imagine you could create some cool designs with the turbine parts sticking out!

Otherwise I'm fine with them. Btw, seems like they aren't in the experimental version thats being streamed in KSPTV?

[Pthigrivi]

Not a big deal guys (though jesus for 30 pages you'd think they killed off Jeb). Hopefully they just decided to wait for 1.1 and maybe throw the VTOLers a few options before they add the turbine/compressor extension.

[regex]

though jesus for 30 pages you'd think they killed off Jeb

I can only dream...

[Alshain]

Keep in mind, the streamers may not be using the current version. We don't know for certain they did choose to leave them out.

[Red Iron Crown]

I can't believe I have to write this, but: Please do not turn this thread about engine models into a political discussion.

[Alshain]

I can't believe I have to write this, but: Please do not turn this thread about engine models into a political discussion.

I can't believe I have to write this but, then maybe you should get rid of the stupid meaningless poll already. If you make a biased poll engineered for a specific outcome you can expect that kind of conversation RIC.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

I can't believe I have to write this but, then maybe you should get rid of the stupid meaningless poll already. If you make a biased poll engineered for a specific outcome you can expect that kind of conversation RIC.

The poll is just a data point, the devs are under no obligation to follow it. I don't really have a horse in this race (I can take or leave the turbine models, they don't matter to me), how do you feel the poll was biased?

[Alshain]

The poll is just a data point, the devs are under no obligation to follow it. I don't really have a horse in this race (I can take or leave the turbine models, they don't matter to me), how do you feel the poll was biased?

It's black and white. It assumes the only two options are 'take it or leave it'. I think that has been said, and you dismiss it as not possible in this build, but not all of the options presented are impossible. If you had an option to toggle them off with an animation as mentioned earlier, what do you think the vote would be then? It would be the best of both worlds.

Squad isn't obligated, but people are using the poll and 'majority rules' as a discussion point in the thread, and then you expect us not to refute it. Sure sounds like a horse to me.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Alshain

[Noname117]

Squad isn't obligated, but people are using the poll and 'majority rules' as a discussion point in the thread, and then you expect us not to refute it.

I was just about to say the same thing.