Jump to content

The new, longer jet engine models

Red Iron Crown
 Share

Do you like the new, longer jet engine models?  

261 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you like the new, longer jet engine models?

    • I like them.
      114
    • I dislike them.
      61
    • I have no strong opinion/don't care.
      51

Recommended Posts

klgraham1013

klgraham1013

Posted
Posted

Ted just said they pushed it to 1.1 on the KSPTV stream.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, My opinion, I think this thread needs to be closed, it was ill conceived from post #1. In either case, I'm done with it.

Post #1 seems pretty even handed to be honest. Even the poll options at the time made sense. There's been some good ideas since that make the poll obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
VTOL builders can go on with cubic strut abuse their creative stuff. Congrats.
What does it matter to you how someone else enjoys the game? If you like the artwork, keep it to that. There's already plenty of lambasting others for how they play the game in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frozen_Heart

Frozen_Heart

Posted
Posted

I assume that we will get VTOL engines if they are delaying it to 1.1. Can't think of another reason to.

~VTOL builders can go on with cubic strut abuse their creative stuff. Congrats

Is it the very idea of VTOLs you dislike or just the current engines don't suit them and have to be clipped in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bloody_looser

Bloody_looser

Posted
Posted
What does it matter to you how someone else enjoys the game? If you like the artwork, keep it to that. There's already plenty of lambasting others for how they play the game in this thread.

I do care about jet engine lacking the very engine. One man's flawed mechanic is another man's gameplay.

Is it the very idea of VTOLs you dislike or just the current engines don't suit them and have to be clipped in?

Well, I guess my opinion got lost in this mess.

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.

I'm totally fine with the idea of a VTOL itself. Harrier/Yak-38 style engine would be a nice addition to the game. But airbreathers are limited to only two bodies in the stock system, thus some kind of all-purpose prop is needed as well. It'll be useful both for VTOLs and conventional crafts. Heck, propulsion for non-oxygen atmospheres is completely ignored. And prop covers three other bodies (and even Sun, if you manage to stay cool :cool:)

Hopefully, it clarifies my opinion.

P.S. I'd also like having stock nuke ramjet, but it's kinda another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlueCanary

BlueCanary

Posted
Posted
I assume that we will get VTOL engines if they are delaying it to 1.1. Can't think of another reason to.

Is it the very idea of VTOLs you dislike or just the current engines don't suit them and have to be clipped in?

Also, the vast majority of VTOL's I've seen, except Star Wars replicas and the like which aren't even trying to be realistic, are not "cubic strut abuse" at all. There's usually plenty of thought about where the engines and other equipment would go, and they really look completely implausible.

About the delay to 1.1, could it be that they just want more time to think about the best implementation of the idea, or to perfect the models? (as others have mentioned they were quite low poly, I'm not complaining since I thought they looked quite good anyway but I know others wanted higher-poly models.) By the way it was talked about in the Devnotes it sounded like it was quite a new and quickly implemented idea, it may be they decided it just wasn't ready or they weren't sure about it in the first place. Still, I hope it's VTOL engines. Or props. Or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yakuzi

Yakuzi

Posted
Posted
They will be in a later update. We want to give them more time for design and overall fleshing-out. :)

Note: This is in no way a confirmation of VTOL engines.

Awesome! Thanks for the reply and the amazing work you guys have done on 1.0.5 (enjoying the streams quite a bit!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Azimech

Azimech

Posted
Posted
They will be in a later update. We want to give them more time for design and overall fleshing-out. :)

Note: This is in no way a confirmation of VTOL engines.

That's nice. But please don't forget the big picture, KSP's biggest selling point is the editor, look to where you guys want to be in a couple of years. One day most users will have lost interest in the whole space thing, make sure the editor is the reason they stay (I for one haven't been in space for almost half a year).

Don't make the mistake some software companies made in the past: be backwards compatible, this is not an alpha or beta product anymore. All the new users who bought after 1.0 arrived will be very upset when their craft files turn ugly or unusable without their consent. Take a look at the amount of craft files that have arrived on KerbalX.com in the last months, the rate is accelerating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John FX

John FX

Posted
Posted

Well that was a lot of fuss. I quite like the new jets, they have a model to show the actual size of the part now. Before, they had an invisible part affecting the centre of mass, which was strange.

It seems most people, on the forum at least, also like the new part.

Myself, I`d rather have some 2.5M liquid fuel tanks but then again I spend most of my time out of an atmosphere and since the NERVA changed fuel type there is a lack of tanks to fuel it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pTrevTrevs

pTrevTrevs

Posted
Posted

I think the turbines look cool, but they will break a lot of designs. I like to build World War era fighter planes, but since KSP doesn't have propeller engines, I have to use a jet clipped somewhere inside. This works fine now, but when the turbines come, it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to continue to build planes in this style. I'm not sure if this has been suggested already, but if we get giant, cumbersome turbines for jet engines, we also need good old fashioned propeller engines.

TL;DR: turbines are cool, but propellers are cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John FX

John FX

Posted
Posted
I think the turbines look cool, but they will break a lot of designs. I like to build World War era fighter planes, but since KSP doesn't have propeller engines, I have to use a jet clipped somewhere inside. This works fine now, but when the turbines come, it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to continue to build planes in this style. I'm not sure if this has been suggested already, but if we get giant, cumbersome turbines for jet engines, we also need good old fashioned propeller engines.

TL;DR: turbines are cool, but propellers are cooler.

I would like to see propellers too, especially electrically powered ones. I`d rather have a propeller than the jet body to be honest.

I`ve always wanted to send a flying drone to Duna which could fly for more than a few minutes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Claw

Claw

Posted
Posted

I've deleted several posts. Again, stay on topic and stop devolving to accusations that someone else's decision of how to play is the wrong way to play. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion on their preferences, but you're not allowed to flamebait someone because you disagree with their play style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stoney3K

Stoney3K

Posted
Posted
As a VTOL builder, and sometimes user of nosecone or tail-connectors mounted engine nozzles, the adding of a turbine as an extension of the nozzle will cause some (too much in my opinion) constraints in plane design for a pure visual modification.

A more interesting approach, IMHO, would be to add turbines as an additional - necessary - part to get airbreathing thrust, requiring some modification to actual intake and nozzle parts.

An air breathing engine needing : an intake + a turbine + a nozzle

  • Intakes could then evolve with tech level into drag reduction and increased efficiency (increase air qty)
  • Turbines could evolve with tech level to increase in efficiency (More thrust at the cost of more air needs, less fuel consumption, possibility to use inboard oxydizing)
  • Nozzle could finally evolve with tech level into efficiency increase and versatility (More Thrust, allowing radial mount, and why not allowing large gimbal rate (up to 90°) and/or vector thrust that could be used for VTOL/advanced designs).

Well, thats a lot of change, I know... Still, one can dream.

Yup, I've been toying around with that idea for a while now. You could use a separate part that generates an "ExhaustAir" resource which is consumed by the jet nozzle as a propellant. That would also open up the opportunity to have "puffer duct" jet RCS nozzles for VTOL craft.

With a separate turbine, you could also use that for stationary applications (base power generators) or for engines that generate electical power to drive a rover's wheels or a ship's prop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlueCanary

BlueCanary

Posted
Posted
Will the new Panther engine allow SSTOs? I know it's not really set in stone or anything but you'll never see an SSTO get a significant help from the Wheasley.

It's hard to tell from the few short clips of it we've had but by the looks of it it doesn't really have the same kind of high speed thrust ability as the whiplash so I doubt it will be a good SSTO powerplant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kordolius

Kordolius

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi Folks,

Trying to be constructive, I gave some thoughts at how the system I proposed page 1 could be implemented. You'll find hereafter a few tables I made by parsing though .cfg files.

The initial idea is to replace the current system (intakes + jet engines with masked compressor/turbine/whatyacallit) with a Three part system : Intakes ==> Engine ==> Nozzles

First, actual Intakes :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Intakes

[/TD]

[TD]Size

[/TD]

[TD]Uses

[/TD]

[TD]area

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Structural

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Atm press[/TD]

[TD]0.006[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]0.6[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Circular

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Atm press[/TD]

[TD]0.0085[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]0.85[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Shock cone

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Atm press[/TD]

[TD]0.009[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]0.9[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Ramjet

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Atm press[/TD]

[TD]0.006[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]0.6[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

And... I wouldn't change them a bit.

Now, Actual Jet engines :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Jet Engines

[/TD]

[TD]Size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[TD]Gimbal Rge

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Basic (Wheesley)

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]80[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]40[/TD]

[TD]1.5 t[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Turbo (Whiplash)

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]130[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]75[/TD]

[TD]1.8 t[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]RAPIER (Airbreathing)

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]6[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]105[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]60[/TD]

[TD]2 t[/TD]

[TD]3[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]RAPIER (Closed)

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]0.9[/TD]

[TD]Oxydizer[/TD]

[TD]1.1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]180[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]133[/TD]

[TD]2 t[/TD]

[TD]3[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

My input is to create and intermediary system, which I will call here "Engine", that uses Air (or oxydizer) and LF to produce a new "Exhaust" Ressource (Puns possible and intended ^^)

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Engine

[/TD]

[TD]Size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[TD]Notes

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]basic standard

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]80[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]1.0 t[/TD]

[TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]advanced standard

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]118[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]25[/TD]

[TD]1.3 t[/TD]

[TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Dual-cycle Airbreathing

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]6[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]95[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]20[/TD]

[TD]1.4 t[/TD]

[TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Dual-cycle ClosedCycle

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]0.9[/TD]

[TD]Oxydizer[/TD]

[TD]1.1[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]160[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]60[/TD]

[TD]1.4 t[/TD]

[TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

and complete with Nozzle Parts :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Nozzles

[/TD]

[TD]size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]gimbal rge

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Basic

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]0.3[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]0.5 t[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Advanced

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]1.1[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]0.4[/TD]

[TD]3[/TD]

[TD]0.5 t[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

So, if we combine :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Engine

[/TD]

[TD]Nozzle

[/TD]

[TD]LF used

[/TD]

[TD]Intake used

[/TD]

[TD]Thrust

[/TD]

[TD]Heat

[/TD]

[TD]Notes

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]basic

[/TD]

[TD]Basic

[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]=80*1/1

80

[/TD]

[TD]=15+0.3x80

39

[/TD]

[TD]which is equivalent to the Wheesley engine

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]advanced

[/TD]

[TD]advanced

[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]=118*1.1/1

130

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]=25+0.4*118

72[/TD]

[TD]which is equivalent to the Whiplash engine[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]dual cycle airbreathing

[/TD]

[TD]advanced

[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]6[/TD]

[TD]=95*1.1/1

104

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]=20+0.4*95

58[/TD]

[TD]which is equivalent to the RAPIER engine in airbreathing mode[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

And then, you get a lot more flexibilty with all the combinations, and the possibility for career mode to unlock the new parts on different science nodes.

And, we can extrapolate new parts, for instance :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Engine

[/TD]

[TD]Size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]ratio

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[TD]Notes

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Radial .625 engine

[/TD]

[TD]Radial[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]TDB[/TD]

[TD]Atm Press[/TD]

[TD]TBD[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]TBD[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]TBD[/TD]

[TD]TDB[/TD]

[TD]There you have the new 1.0.5 .625 engine[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]High Efficiency, large

[/TD]

[TD]2.5[/TD]

[TD]LF[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]IntakeAir[/TD]

[TD]12[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]240[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]3.5 t[/TD]

[TD]Think about an airliner engine ?[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

with new intakes for 2.5 m size ?

Or these :

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Nozzles

[/TD]

[TD]size

[/TD]

[TD]uses

[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]produces[/TD]

[TD]amount

[/TD]

[TD]gimbal rge

[/TD]

[TD]mass

[/TD]

[TD]Notes

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Radial

[/TD]

[TD]radial[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]0.3[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]0.4 t[/TD]

[TD]radial mounted, for VTOL

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Turboprop[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]0.9[/TD]

[TD]Heat[/TD]

[TD]0.25[/TD]

[TD]0[/TD]

[TD]0.5 t[/TD]

[TD]hey, why not ?[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Vectored

[/TD]

[TD]1.25[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust[/TD]

[TD]1[/TD]

[TD]Thrust[/TD]

[TD]1.1

[/TD]

[TD]Heat

[/TD]

[TD]0.45[/TD]

[TD]10[/TD]

[TD]0.6 t[/TD]

[TD]large gimbal

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Generator

[/TD]

[TD]1.25

[/TD]

[TD]Exhaust

[/TD]

[TD]1

[/TD]

[TD]Electricity

[/TD]

[TD]TBD

[/TD]

[TD]Heat

[/TD]

[TD]0.3

[/TD]

[TD]0

[/TD]

[TD]0.4 t

[/TD]

[TD]Idea from Stoney3K a few posts ago

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

and so on... I'm sure there are more possibilities I overlooked.

Best to ya all,

Kord

Edited by Kordolius
Added Stoney3K idea + typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbalEssences

KerbalEssences

Posted
Posted

Sticking out turbines would make planes look like muscle cars... I don't know if people would like that. I would :)

However... I'm that kind of guy who would then complain about the unrealistic behavior of the tanks. If you stick the turbine inside to be more realistic you on the other hand have to also decrease the amount of fuel fitting inside that very tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
However... I'm that kind of guy who would then complain about the unrealistic behavior of the tanks. If you stick the turbine inside to be more realistic you on the other hand have to also decrease the amount of fuel fitting inside that very tank.
And you're not already complaining about the existing unrealistic behavior of tanks and engines? Plane parts already had a reduced fuel load for a long time, which could be explained by the inclusion of compressors; now everything has been adjusted to full loads. Furthermore, which tanks should have their fuel load reduced? Are those parts to always be used when attaching engines?

This is a purely artistic feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...