The new, longer jet engine models

[percyPrune]

I've just seen that the internals will be toggle-able

Unless that is true then I'm against. The problem is that the model only looks like one possible configuration of a jet engine, which does limit creativity in the engineering sense. As others have posted, IRL the layout of the intake, compressor/power stage and thrust nozzle(s) can be varied to suit the aircraft, eg the Pegasus (obviously!) & the Nene in the Sea Hawk, which had long bifurcated jetpipe aft of the turbine.

Anyway, I always assumed that the 'invisible turbine' was a tradeoff so that we could use the fuselage for fuel as most of our wings don't have tanks.

PS: R.I.C. - VTOL rockets consume far too much fuel and (heavy!) oxidiser. I suggest you practice your piloting and learn to anticipate turbine lag

[Red Iron Crown]

R.I.C. - VTOL rockets consume far too much fuel and (heavy!) oxidiser. I suggest you practice your piloting and learn to anticipate turbine lag

Meh, it was just a lark for me. I don't find that type of craft overly useful for the way I play, so I haven't put much time into getting good with them.

[Majorjim!]

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.

Check out the VTOL master Cupcakes videos. He uses a combination of jet and rocket thrust. If you assign the intake to an action group you can instantly cut the thrust of the jet negating the spool up/down time.

[hazard-ish]

Link?

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

Sorry! Maybe I looked at the wrong thing but am I missing something? I think I'm mistaken and that he toggle-ability was just a suggestion. Sorry about the confusion!

Edited November 6, 2015 by hazard-ish

[Red Iron Crown]

Sorry! Maybe I looked at the wrong thing but am I missing something? I think I'm mistaken and that he toggle-ability was just a suggestion. Sorry about the confusion!

Ah, we're in that awkward place where people mistake my personal opinion for an official statement. I am not a dev nor a Squad employee, I just volunteer to help out with their forum. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Yakuzi]

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.

I feel this is what the whole discussion boils down to. Squad originally introduced the the off-set jet CoM as a indication that there is more to a jet than just the nozzle. While this did solve a minor issue that hardly affected gameplay, this introduced several significant problems, including:

1. confusion of new (and veteran) KSP players (due to the magic out-of-body jet mass experience)

2. CoM problems with VTOL designs and other craft designs where jets aren't positioned along the longitudinal or lateral axes of the craft

3. serious stability exploits (used particularly in rovers)

Now it seems Squad is trying to address issue 1 by introducing a visual representation of the previous "invisible magic jet mass". However, this partial solution won't do anything to fix issues 2 and 3. Additionally, since the turbines apparently won't interact with the environment (and may or may not generate drag), the proposed turbine mechanism will introduce a new generation of confused new (and veteran) KSP players and the circle of faulty design implementation will be complete once again...

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".

A better analogy would be asking for cooked steak at a BBQ but only being offered raw steak or no steak at all (I like mine medium/rare please).

Edited November 6, 2015 by Yakuzi

[regex]

A better analogy would be asking for cooked steak at a BBQ but only being offered raw steak or no steak (I like mine medium/rare please).

No, it's the difference between the same artwork, more artwork (inconvenient or not), or programming with more artwork. Two involve one person, the third potentially involves two and a lot more person-hours (testing included). It's like being offered hamburgers or hotdogs at a barbeque, asking for a hotdog, and then turning to someone else and asking for a pulled pork sandwich as a side.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

KSP has never focused on realism and it never will. There are just some things missing in the simulation.

[Alshain]

No, it's the difference between the same artwork, more artwork (inconvenient or not), or programming with more artwork. Two involve one person, the third potentially involves two and a lot more person-hours (testing included). It's like being offered hamburgers or hotdogs at a barbeque, asking for a hotdog, and then turning to someone else and asking for a pulled pork sandwich as a side.

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

It wouldn't require more programming if they just did it at a tweakable model animation. That is already in the game. It would require more time on PorkJet's part to implement the animation in the model. This is no different than the ladders or landing gear, except those have an animation into them that you can see. Instead of an animation like that, you would just have the offending piece 'magically disappear' in the editor. That said, you aren't a programmer, I'm am a programmer but not a modeler, so this is all theory.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I vote remove this poll and don't make another as no matter what options you include it will be inaccurate and meaningless. (I think Squad should just ban all polls in the Suggestion forum at all)

Edited November 6, 2015 by Alshain

[Yakuzi]

A better analogy would be asking for cooked steak at a BBQ but only being offered raw steak or no steak at all (I like mine medium/rare please).

No, it's the difference between the same artwork, more artwork (inconvenient or not), or programming with more artwork. Two involve one person, the third potentially involves two and a lot more person-hours (testing included).

What steps are required are secondary to finding the best solution for the problem at hand. Squad decided to introduce the offset CoM for jet nozzles to give players a half-baked impression that there's more to a jet engine than a nozzle. With 1.0.5 Squad is trying to fix some of the problems resulting from that original decision with another half-baked solution (which will lead to even more problems). I agree with you that more work would be required in order to provide a comprehensive solution potentially involving the characters you listed above, however, since Squad decided to go the "there's more to a jet than a nozzle" path, they should do it properly (or revert to pre-offset CoM jets).

[NWM]

I like this idea, but:

For more realism, there is a "flag" needed for those parts can these engines be attached to, avoiding to attach them to mini fuel tanks and etc...

[regex]

since Squad decided to go the "there's more to a jet than a nozzle" path, they should do it properly

But ... they are doing it properly. Adding an exhaust tilt engine could be a logical next step.

[Yakuzi]

But ... they are doing it properly.

They are doing something partially. How is introducing a magic turbine that defies interaction with the world doing something properly?

Adding an exhaust tilt engine could be a logical next step.

On this we agree. But why the step-wise introduction? We're post-launch I've been told, no more placeholders, new mechanics should be introduced in complete form...

[regex]

They are doing something partially.

Clearly debatable.

How is introducing a magic turbine that defies interaction with the world doing something properly?

How is having a "magical nozzle" without any indication of its mass or the reason for that mass somehow a complete and proper system?

On this we agree. But why the step-wise introduction? We're post-launch I've been told, no more placeholders, new mechanics should be introduced in complete form...

Clearly the game is still in development, new systems are still being added. We're getting additional ISRU parts in the next major update, which means the ISRU isn't considered complete and we're getting a "step-wise introduction". Alternatively, we could say that a need was seen for smaller ISRU parts after the fact, similarly to how a need might be seen for tilt exhausts for jet engines, now with a proper compressor representation. Or not.

[Noname117]

Clearly the game is still in development, new systems are still being added. We're getting additional ISRU parts in the next major update, which means the ISRU isn't considered complete and we're getting a "step-wise introduction". Alternatively, we could say that a need was seen for smaller ISRU parts after the fact, similarly to how a need might be seen for tilt exhausts for jet engines, now with a proper compressor representation. Or not.

The thing is VTOLs are not a new system. They've existed since we got jet engines. They shouldn't take a step back and then a step forward to return us to a spot only slightly forward of where we were at. Especially with the long times it takes to get updates pushed out.

If they're going to add in tilt exhausts for jet engines to compensate for the turbines they're adding in, they should add them both at the same time so we only get gains instead of a minor gain for a major loss. Step-wise introductions shouldn't involve removing something that you had only to give it back months later.

[KerbMav]

So I will vote no, as I think the VTOL crowd should either get a seperate "L-shaped" engine with a 90° rotated outlet or a tweakable maybe even inflight movable outlet.

[Sanic]

I really don't care as long as there's something to bridge the gap between the pitiful Wheesly and the space-quality turbo ramjet, which there is. I'm fine with the new jet engine models.

Then again, I tend to lean towards realism over gameplay, so something to explain the offset COM would be kind of nice.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Sanic

[Yakuzi]

They are doing something partially. How is introducing a magic turbine that defies interaction with the world doing something properly?

How is having a "magical nozzle" without any indication of its mass or the reason for that mass somehow a complete and proper system?

Exactly, why replace one half-baked system with another half-baked one... one that will only introduce more problems and additionally limits design freedom. VTOLs have real-life applications and have been part of KSP since the introduction of jets, so why marginalise them now by introducing another "magic" quickfix mechanism, while instead a comprehensive modular approach that is so typical for KSP should be used to address this problem.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Yakuzi

[BudgetHedgehog]

Modular design is part of core KSP, modular engine design isn't. You don't have to attach turbopumps or nozzles to rocket engines, you get a whole complete engine (even get something that should be part of the fuel tank thrown in too). Why should jets be any different?

[Azimech]

I'm watching KSPTV with newb streaming 1.0.5. The new jet models aren't in there. So ... I'm happy!

[Noname117]

I'm watching KSPTV with newb streaming 1.0.5. The new jet models aren't in there. So ... I'm happy!

I guess that's good. It would be an absolutely horrible birthday present to lose VTOLs.

I do have to say, the turbines still looked nice. I hope they add them in a non-VTOL-killing way in the future.

[Yakuzi]

I'm watching KSPTV with newb streaming 1.0.5. The new jet models aren't in there. So ... I'm happy!

So am I! Though I also hope that we'll see them implemented as a reworked part in a later version.

Also the afterburner on the new turbojet model looks fantastic, great work Porkjet!

Modular design is part of core KSP, modular engine design isn't. You don't have to attach turbopumps or nozzles to rocket engines, you get a whole complete engine (even get something that should be part of the fuel tank thrown in too). Why should jets be any different?

Jet nozzles aren't always directly attached to,- or inline with turbines (nor are air intakes). Please reread the thread, enough examples are provided.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Yakuzi

[klgraham1013]

I'm watching KSPTV with newb streaming 1.0.5. The new jet models aren't in there. So ... I'm happy!

The continuing tales of invisible mass!

[BudgetHedgehog]

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

[Bloody_looser]

I'm watching KSPTV with newb streaming 1.0.5. The new jet models aren't in there. So ... I'm happy!

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.

[Azimech]

Bloody_looser, democracy isn't always a good idea. Or we would still use Errordynamics. New aero isn't perfect, invisible external CoM isn't perfect either, but not using the monolithic jet engines gives the devs time to find the optimal solution (adjustable nozzle).