The new, longer jet engine models

[Foxster]

It does rather seem as though they are like a broken pencil.

[BlueCanary]

Just because I don't use exploit, it won't disappear. Cubic strutted nozzles have nothing to do with real life.

Vertically placed nozzles with the actual engine there in all but appearance (in pretty much every VTOL I've seen on the Spacecraft Exchange there is space where the engine could be in real life, and the nozzle weighs as much as the engine would) don't seem at all like an exploit to me. All this is doing is limiting designs to ones where the engine is directly in front of the nozzle, which is not a limitation present in real life, and is also one that will be a huge issue for a lot of people.

- - - Updated - - -

Debatable at the least. Creativity, or so I've been told around here, is working within the confines of the given pieces to create something new and unexpected. Pieces are changing and you won't be able to create the old, tired things you've been creating. Try something new! We're getting a 0.625m engine to go with the bigger ones, no reason a few of those can't be clipped into an airframe for VTOL work.

This is exactly like the arguments against changing to a new aerodynamic model; pure doom and gloom. You either adapt, mod it to your liking, or walk away. If this change goes through, that is. I hope it does, the parts look pretty good (more polys please).

This is completely different from arguments against a new aerodynamic model - the new aerodynamic meant considerably more realistic gameplay and quite a lot of extra options in how people played the game. This is a change that will barely affect some people, but also be a massive annoyance for a lot of others, and doesn't bring any substantial benefits to make up for the negatives.

And yes, we are getting a 0.625m jet. It also has a great big awkward engine sticking out of it.

[Frozen_Heart]

Just because I don't use exploit, it won't disappear. Cubic strutted nozzles have nothing to do with real life.

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

[Majorjim!]

point is the poll says people are pro turbine.

I'm only in favour of the turbine(compressor/tubewithspinnyblades) part being present on the craft somewhere, but not necessarily attached directly to the nozzle part. id rather it be a separate part.(with additional functions) but ill settle for squads idea rather than no turbine at all.

It says some people are interested in it. The way I look at it is it only makes sense if the turbine can be separate from the nozzle. This would keep both camps happy.

- - - Updated - - -

Debatable at the least. Creativity, or so I've been told around here, is working within the confines of the given pieces to create something new and unexpected. Pieces are changing and you won't be able to create the old, tired things you've been creating. Try something new! We're getting a 0.625m engine to go with the bigger ones, no reason a few of those can't be clipped into an airframe for VTOL work.

This is exactly like the arguments against changing to a new aerodynamic model; pure doom and gloom. You either adapt, mod it to your liking, or walk away. If this change goes through, that is. I hope it does, the parts look pretty good (more polys please).

You keep saying that Regex, "creativity, or so I'm told here.." Do you have your own interpretation of what 'creativity' is?

[Noname117]

Yeah, as it's been mentioned several times, this change gives limited benefit for major losses, especially with the VTOL crowd. Now I'm not saying turbines should never be added to the game, but I think we should leave them out for this next update. The turbines should only be added when they add a way to still build nice looking VTOLS. This would entitle either adding in VTOL engines, or making the turbines a separate part. If they can't do either before 1.0.5 comes out, then they shouldn't add the turbines.

[regex]

This is completely different from arguments against a new aerodynamic model

I disagree.

the new aerodynamic meant considerably more realistic gameplay and quite a lot of extra options in how people played the game. This is a change that will barely affect some people, but also be a massive annoyance for a lot of others, and doesn't bring any substantial benefits to make up for the negatives.

Au contraire, it looks much better/more realistic and will open up new options in craft building. It will also spur "creativity" in people who want to use it in unintended or innovative ways.

And yes, we are getting a 0.625m jet. It also has a great big awkward engine sticking out of it.

Do you think it'll have a 1.25m wide engine sticking out of it? I have a hard time believing it'll be all doom and gloom like you're saying, especially if it generally conforms in proportion to the larger one.

Do you have your own interpretation of what 'creativity' is?

It doesn't particularly matter what my definition is, people have used that definition of "creativity" as a cudgel against procedural parts suggestions for a long time. Some of the arguments against actually make a decent amount of sense in the context of bare-bones KSP: The Game Not So Much Designed By Squad (despite being dumb in the context of a total conversion like RO/RSS), and those arguments apply in this context as well.

[SpenSpaceCorp]

I like the turbine idea, however would like to see something along the lines of having its visibility toggle-able or rotatable (for VTOL purposes and such).

[Bloody_looser]

Vertically placed nozzles with the actual engine there in all but appearance (in pretty much every VTOL I've seen on the Spacecraft Exchange there is space where the engine could be in real life, and the nozzle weighs as much as the engine would) don't seem at all like an exploit to me. All this is doing is limiting designs to ones where the engine is directly in front of the nozzle, which is not a limitation present in real life, and is also one that will be a huge issue for a lot of people.

Since 1.0 aero implementation drag is not based on mass. Let's take a micronode and give it parameters and mass of the jet engine. It will behave differently, like clipped tanks will behave differently in flight than stacked ones. Thus, argument 'mass is still there' won't do.

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

Y u no read?

Regarding VTOL builder problems - I do not VTOL, since I don't like cubic strut madness 'creative' VTOL-building methods. All that stuff feels like airhogging, engine clipping etc. One more exploit down.

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.

[Noname117]

Au contraire, it looks much better/more realistic and will open up new options in craft building. It will also spur "creativity" in people who want to use it in unintended or innovative ways.

It does definitely look more realistic and opens up new options in craft building, but it closes down others. The others which it closes down, primarily having to do with VTOLS, are far greater than the ones it opens up, which have to do more with decoration. I'd honestly rather have my VTOLS be able to not be extremely tall or not have massive amounts of tiny, drag producing engines attached to them than to have some future craft I build look slightly prettier.

This. Very much this. It's an easy solution to the problem which would make nobody angry. Probably the best thing SQUAD could do. Is there any way we could get SQUAD to notice this brilliant idea right here?

[Azimech]

Debatable at the least. Creativity, or so I've been told around here, is working within the confines of the given pieces to create something new and unexpected. Pieces are changing and you won't be able to create the old, tired things you've been creating. Try something new! We're getting a 0.625m engine to go with the bigger ones, no reason a few of those can't be clipped into an airframe for VTOL work.

Regex, have you seen anything of what I've built in the last few years? I mod myself, but it's the creating of new, exciting stuff with stock parts way beyond the mental confines of anything "space" that attracts me. And for creating something new, here goes: In KSP I've invented the stock turboshaft helicopter and turboprop airplane, the stock coaxial helicopter, a propeller/turboshaft engine thrust measuring device, the double sided open bearing, a working audio synthesizer, a multi-speed planetary gearbox, a stock automotive clutch, a stock self-reloading rotating barrel missile launcher and a totally new way of building huge spacecraft hulls. Probably forgot a few. So yeah, I'm pretty good at creating new and unexpected things and my opinion on a monolithic jet engine is this: it sucks! Take a look at Bubbadevlin's walker or the other turbine powered creations, now try to imagine them with these long, thick things sticking out.

This is exactly like the arguments against changing to a new aerodynamic model; pure doom and gloom. You either adapt, mod it to your liking, or walk away. If this change goes through, that is. I hope it does, the parts look pretty good (more polys please).

Most of us engineering types will turn to modding, thus be less inspiring to a lot of people when we create something new and exciting. All for a few more polygons.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Azimech

[paul23]

Y u no read?

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.

Well this argument could be taken to many systems: RCS is equally magical. As are electronic equipment.

Basically KSP abstracts the pipes away. You do not have to add wires/tubes for electricity/monopropellant. - So how is it "weird" that you can also have a "magical duct" for the hot air?

Also: do we then get more fuselage/construct options available early in career? Right now when you open the first yet engine, and you wish to not make a fuselage strutted engine you probably use two engines and the very small 1.25L tank in front of it (no need for more fuel for simple aircraft, while you might very much wish to have more power with that first engine).

Edited November 6, 2015 by paul23

[regex]

Regex, have you seen anything of what I've built in the last few years?

Nope. Browsing through craft made from stock parts is not my cup of tea in the least.

Most of us engineering types will turn to modding, thus be less inspiring to a lot of people when we create something new and exciting.

I'm curious why, exactly, modding makes things less inspiring?

Anyway, I'm sure the "engineering types" will find new inspiration from the new limits imposed upon them (if this goes through, that is). They survived the new aerodynamic simulation, after all.

[Noname117]

I'm curious why, exactly, modding makes things less inspiring?

Anyway, I'm sure the "engineering types" will find new inspiration from the new limits imposed upon them (if this goes through, that is). They survived the new aerodynamic simulation, after all.

Modding makes things far less available for everyone, as they have to then download every single mod involved in the craft. Stock craft are far more available for everyone to use, so when one sees something impressive done with it they can think "Oh, I can do that too!." Plus something is far more impressive when you build something out of only the parts the devs put in the game, rather than something out of a set of modded parts more designed for that purpose. Adding the longer jet models just makes there a little less to do with stock craft, unless you are OK with your craft looking hideous

And yes, the engineers did survive 1.0, but quite a few got peeved with some parts functioning entirely differently than they used to. Plus, the new aero had benefits towards gameplay and engineering challenges, this just has drawbacks.

[klgraham1013]

It doesn't particularly matter what my definition is, people have used that definition of "creativity" as a cudgel against procedural parts suggestions for a long time. Some of the arguments against actually make a decent amount of sense in the context of bare-bones KSP: The Game Not So Much Designed By Squad (despite being dumb in the context of a total conversion like RO/RSS), and those arguments apply in this context as well.

The lego approach to building was established since the initial release of KSP. I believe in a consistent design ethos. So, that's why I encourage the lego approach in KSP parts.

Whether building in lego or molding in clay, it's all creativity in the end.

- - - Updated - - -

snip

I've never understood the...discrediting?...of mods, because it makes craft harder to share. I would much rather have a 5m tank than hodgepodge something together in stock.

...but, maybe I'm less about sharing, and more about what parts can do for me.

[regex]

Modding makes things far less available for everyone

I guess. Maybe I don't see that side of things because I don't really care to download other people's craft or see any value in sharing my own.

Plus something is far more impressive when you build something out of only the parts the devs put in the game, rather than something out of a set of modded parts more designed for that purpose.

vOv I suppose, if that's your cup of tea. Personally I find most entirely-stock "artsy" craft to just look ... bodged together at the best.

Adding the longer jet models just makes there a little less to do with stock craft, unless you are OK with your craft looking hideous

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.

[Azimech]

Nope. Browsing through craft made from stock parts is not my cup of tea in the least.

Then why are you in this discussion? You automatically assume I only build using stock parts -> so you didn't even read the thing about the gearbox and synthesizer. This is not about my creations, but your attitude towards the community.

I'm curious why, exactly, modding makes things less inspiring?

You're blasting at people because a number of them might become confined in their creativity because they like to use stock parts, yet you cannot conceive what the problem is if using mods like procedural parts, having almost no confines at all. That's what I call a double standard.

Anyway, I'm sure the "engineering types" will find new inspiration from the new limits imposed upon them (if this goes through, that is). They survived the new aerodynamic simulation, after all.

Using quotation marks in this case is very condescending.

Yes, making increasingly heavy, bulky, draggy but most of all part intensive crafts.

And forget about VTOL, I'm talking this 100% stock turboprop as an example:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

It uses my own developed PO8R: 8 blowers & 16 turbine blades, with a 3 bladed 3-4-4 standard issue compound propeller, producing 170kN static thrust.

Now tell me about your engineering, please.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Azimech

[BlueCanary]

I've never understood the...discrediting?...of mods, because it makes craft harder to share. I would much rather have a 5m tank than hodgepodge something together in stock.

...but, maybe I'm less about sharing, and more about what parts can do for me.

It's hard to share mod craft because anyone wanting to use that craft would have to download all the right mods too, and also for some people (for me at least) it's not even an option most of the time because of not having a fast enough computer to handle the mods. I would like to use 5m tanks and stuff for some things, but with the combination of crashes and difficulty sharing I find it's just easier to stay stock.

[cantab]

So yeah, I'm pretty good at creating new and unexpected things and my opinion on a monolithic jet engine is this: it sucks! Take a look at Bubbadevlin's walker or the other turbine powered creations, now try to imagine them with these long, thick things sticking out.

Taking a step back, while that kind of thing is brilliant, it borders on exploiting game oddities and unrealisms and is not the intended use of the parts. And while using parts for unintended purposes should be and will be possible in KSP, those unintended purposes should not be used to defend keeping the parts in a way that is unrealistic and/or detrimental to their intended purpose.

(The current offset CoM is detrimental to the intended purpose of the jet because it's non-obvious, and has sent players chasing the apparent bug instead of playing the game. The pre-offset-CoM behaviour was somewhat detrimental because it made some planes tail-heavy, though I consider it vastly preferably to the current shenanigans.)

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.

[regex]

Then why are you in this discussion?

Because it's about the future of a part I will use. A large basis for Realism Overhaul is in stock parts.

You're blasting at people

I'm not "blasting at" anyone, you're imagining things.

because a number of them might become confined in their creativity because they like to use stock parts,

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!

yet you cannot conceive what the problem is if using mods like procedural parts, having almost no confines at all.

No, I can't see any problem with procedural parts at all.

[Azimech]

Because it's about the future of a part I will use. A large basis for Realism Overhaul is in stock parts.

That's even worse. You're trying to influence stock parts, thereby trying to steer how others experience the program, then going to use modded version of those parts anyway. Create your own damn engines, I do it as well for my other (modded) installs.

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!

Like I said, you have a double standard. And my confinement is my own free will based on random intervals. Here's a video for ya ;-)

Edited November 6, 2015 by Azimech

[Alshain]

Because it's about the future of a part I will use. A large basis for Realism Overhaul is in stock parts.

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.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Alshain

[regex]

That's even worse. You're trying to influence stock parts

In terms of looks? Yeah, you bet.

Except you are hung up on black and white.

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.

[Alshain]

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.

Porkjet doesn't make the decisions. He can say whatever he wants, but it isn't his game. If Harvester changes his mind after community feedback, guess what is going to happen.

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

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.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Alshain

[Glaran K'erman]

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.

[Alshain]

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.

Mods are not the solution for doing things we used to could do with stock. What if I said they should remove all decouplers and those that want them can use mods. That's insane, right? Well this suggestion is no less insane.