The new, longer jet engine models

[Joonatan1998]

Any people talking about mods should remember that they are making a console version of the game.

Modding won't be an option for console users.

[Capt Snuggler]

Any people talking about mods should remember that they are making a console version of the game.

Modding won't be an option for console users.

lol, no one cares about console users

but seriously, people shouldn't have to mod their game. mods are an option, not a requirement.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[KerbMav]

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.

They called it an experiment though.

And yes, they are most likely well informed of this latest uproar.

Edited November 6, 2015 by KerbMav

[Capt Snuggler]

as the option is not in the poll. can we have a show of hands of who is in favour of a separate turbine part.

intake + turbine + nozzle + fuel source

and reduce the mass of the nozzle and intake to offset the extra mass of a new turbine part.

this would allow people to put the turbine where ever they want and preserve the majority of VTOL designs.

[Azimech]

Or we open a new topic with a poll including the option, and we do it as well on Facebook and Reddit.

I vote separate.

[Starwaster]

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.

Nobody expects 100% acceptance and you know it.

Or did you expect them to dwell on one minor aspect of the update when there's more important things that require their attention than the new jet model?

And toxicity isn't constructive at all.

[Red Iron Crown]

as the option is not in the poll. can we have a show of hands of who is in favour of a separate turbine part.

intake + turbine + nozzle + fuel source

and reduce the mass of the nozzle and intake to offset the extra mass of a new turbine part.

this would allow people to put the turbine where ever they want and preserve the majority of VTOL designs.

Or we open a new topic with a poll including the option, and we do it as well on Facebook and Reddit.

I vote separate.

This has been brought up a few times and explained on the first page, but let me elaborate on why that is not a poll option: That is not an option in this update.

The idea is to give feedback on the shown concept, where the two options for the devs in this update are "implement this and release" and "leave it as is". Asking for some third option is like being offered the choice of a hotdog or a hamburger at a barbeque and responding "I want steak".

[BlueCanary]

as the option is not in the poll. can we have a show of hands of who is in favour of a separate turbine part.

intake + turbine + nozzle + fuel source.

I'd like to see this tested as a mod, maybe just stock parts with edited configs to see how well the concept works in gameplay?

- - - Updated - - -

This has been brought up a few times and explained on the first page, but let me elaborate on why that is not a poll option: That is not an option in this update.

The idea is to give feedback on the shown concept, where the two options for the devs in this update are "implement this and release" and "leave it as is". Asking for some third option is like being offered the choice of a hotdog or a hamburger at a barbeque and responding "I want steak".

Do you think there's still time to mame it toggleable or something though? I'd imagine that'd be way less work than the seperate part idea?

[Red Iron Crown]

Do you think there's still time to mame it toggleable or something though? I'd imagine that'd be way less work than the seperate part idea?

I would think that would require a new part module, but I'm not a programmer so can't really say for sure.

[pizzaoverhead]

Or we open a new topic with a poll including the option, and we do it as well on Facebook and Reddit.

I vote separate.

A vote is pointless without a discussion and enumeration of the pros and cons of each method. On looking at it in this way, the three-part system doesn't solve the problem, only move it. Aside from requiring extra VTOL parts to be designed, the main issue is the form factor of the part:

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?

If the gas turbine is modelled and has collision (whether or not it is attached to the nozzle), a method of reconciling it with the multiple part profiles is needed. Porkjet's solution is the simplest and most compatible with KSP's core gameplay: Remove collision and allow it to be used with any part, at the cost of potentially odd clipping and having the engine parts overlap with other functional volumes such as fuel in non-physical ways (part clipping).

If the engine is to have collision, a reasonable solution for this has to be provided. Here are some possible solutions off the top of my head, all with varying problems:

• Make one engine for each form factor (including adaptors and parts like the pants), with the cowling shaped to fit the part profile. This creates a huge number of parts for zero gain, and goes against KSP's theme of combining things in novel ways rather than having prefabricated models.
  
• Use the proposed model but with collisions, cover it in user-designed procedural cowling in the same way that fairings are currently designed. This method prevents short bicoupler designs, and would require special development for dealing with the Mk2 part profiles.
  
• Don't use collision for the model, but subtract the model's volume from the capacity of any tank parts it clips through, or strip them of their resource capacity entirely.
  

In this regard, the proposed change causes the least amount of difficulty.

Any other options or ideas?

EDIT:

This has been brought up a few times and explained on the first page, but let me elaborate on why that is not a poll option: That is not an option in this update.

I don't believe anyone expects a new engine system to be designed for an update that's already in testing. The discussion is around whether or not the proposed solution is the best one. That depends on whether there is a better solution, not whether a better solution can be delivered in time for the update. Either way, there is no harm in making sure people understand that any other solution won't be part of the upcoming update.

Edited November 6, 2015 by pizzaoverhead

[Azimech]

This has been brought up a few times and explained on the first page, but let me elaborate on why that is not a poll option: That is not an option in this update.

The idea is to give feedback on the shown concept, where the two options for the devs in this update are "implement this and release" and "leave it as is". Asking for some third option is like being offered the choice of a hotdog or a hamburger at a barbeque and responding "I want steak".

I didn't say it had to be included in 1.0.5 ;-)

Anyway ... what I don't understand is this: will the new models be only for the new turbojet and 0.625 engines, or for the Wheesley and Whiplash as well?

If the existing jets will be updated ...

Wouldn't that make thousands of crafts built before 1.0.5 unusable?

Edited November 6, 2015 by Azimech

[Noname117]

I would think that would require a new part module, but I'm not a programmer so can't really say for sure.

Well, you're the mod and the thread's creator. Is there any chance you could at least forward the toggle-able turbine idea up the chain of command and get back to us on whether it is viable or not? Or at least provide us with a good method of doing so?

[Red Iron Crown]

I didn't say it had to be included in 1.0.5 ;-)

So vote that you don't like this one.

Well, you're the mod and the thread's creator. Is there any chance you could at least forward the toggle-able turbine idea up the chain of command and get back to us on whether it is viable or not? Or at least provide us with a good method of doing so?

I can tell you that they're aware of this thread.

[cantab]

I would think that would require a new part module, but I'm not a programmer so can't really say for sure.

I think it's already possible. I know that automatically toggling some of a part is possible, and IIRC manual toggle is possible too.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think it's already possible. I know that automatically toggling some of a part is possible, and IIRC manual toggle is possible too.

I was thinking that the autofairing function might work, but that adds a mesh when attached rather than removing it and I'm not sure if it can be easily bent to work the opposite way.

[Capt Snuggler]

The discussion is around whether or not the proposed solution is the best one. That depends on whether there is a better solution, not whether a better solution can be delivered in time for the update.

This is what I was thinking. I'm not expecting anything from this discussion really. devs will do what they want. I'm just hoping we can get both sides of the argument to come to a comfortable middle ground. yes I know its all academic and will not change anything.

I was thinking that the autofairing function might work, but that adds a mesh when attached rather than removing it and I'm not sure if it can be easily bent to work the opposite way.

this wouldn't do anything to solve/help the VTOL crowds issue of long engine meshes that cant be placed on the underside of an air craft.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[pizzaoverhead]

This is what I was thinking. I'm not expecting anything from this discussion really. devs will do what they want. I'm just hoping we can get both sides of the argument to come to a comfortable middle ground. yes I know its all academic and will not change anything.

We're the game's community: We can use our strength of numbers to brute-force all the solutions and their shortcomings that the small number of developers wouldn't be able to. We won't see all the reasoning, challenges and restrictions that drive the devs' decisions (we could suggest something without realising that it would require months worth of rewriting large parts of the game to make it work for example), but we can provide eyes to spot any pitfalls or opportunities different choices can provide. It isn't our place to decide, but we can advise.

this wouldn't do anything to solve/help the VTOL crowds issue of long engine meshes that cant be placed on the underside of an air craft.

As one potential solution to this, we could solve the problem in the same way as it was solved in real life: Stumpy, compact engines designed specifically for VTOL use, such as the Rolls Royce RB108 used in the Thrust Measuring Rig mentioned earlier in this thread. The new smaller engines due in this update could potentially fill that niche.

Edited November 6, 2015 by pizzaoverhead

[Red Iron Crown]

this wouldn't do anything to solve/help the VTOL crowds issue of long engine meshes that cant be placed on the underside of an air craft.

The idea being that the long engine mesh would be toggleable.

[Pthigrivi]

I'm surprised more people don't use small rocket motors for VTOL. The TWR and responsiveness seem like obvious advantages. You'd only need a small amount of LF/O for the short time you were taking off and landing.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm surprised more people don't use small rocket motors for VTOL. The TWR and responsiveness seem like obvious advantages. You'd only need a small amount of LF/O for the short time you were taking off and landing.

That's what I did the few times I experimented with that style of VTOL. 48-7Ss in inverted cargo bays, the spool times on jets were too much of a challenge for my piloting skills and, as you say, the time in VTOL mode was quite short.

Different I guess if the player likes to spend a lot of time hovering around, then the better fuel economy of jets is a bigger factor.

[Whirligig Girl]

So far I think the best option suggested is to take the turbine model and put it on the stack intakes. It's like having the choice between a hot dog and a burger and asking if you can have a hot dog bun to fill your potato chips with.

I am with the "The jet engines should have sensible COM" crowd, so the jet engines will have to be reverted to not have the crazy COM.

The problem is that if the intakes change their COM that would change aircraft design rather significantly.

I think turbines on the engines are better than no turbines and much much much better than magic COM.

Edited November 6, 2015 by GregroxMun

[SpaceplaneAddict]

The magic COM of jets always did irritate me. And I Get the crowd who wants this in seperate components, but I myself would have to sacrifice performance. Yeah yeah, I get that a lot of you want gameplay over performance, try playing with a mid range 2013 laptop, with a safe part count limit of 130. Yep not the best.

I want the turbines on the engine. No more Magic COM of weird. Plus, those turbines look bad455

[hazard-ish]

I never really minded the COM offset of jets so, in that regard, I am impartial. However, I do feel like this change only prevents unique designs whilst not making already realistic ones any better - since we wont see the internals! For example, I used to be a big fan of having jet-assisted rockets that had, say, one FL-T100 Fuel Tank for fuel (since they use it so efficiently and ascent doesn't take long) with a intake on top but now I cannot do that.

I just get he feeling that the game is now focusing more on realism and less on making an enjoyable game that encourages unique and interesting designs. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the latter is certainly not the reason why I started playing KSP.

Edit: I've just seen that the internals will be toggle-able. Since this is the case, I embrace the change since everyone will be happy

[BlueCanary]

Edit: I've just seen that the internals will be toggle-able. Since this is the case, I embrace the change since everyone will be happy

Awesome, where did you see this? This is exactly the solution I was hoping for.

[Red Iron Crown]

Edit: I've just seen that the internals will be toggle-able. Since this is the case, I embrace the change since everyone will be happy

Link?