Vector engine possibly a little too good?

[Foxster]

The Vector engine has 5 times the thrust of a Swivel but just 2.6 times the mass. It has insane vectoring. Loads of thrust. Very good sea level to vacuum isp ratio, meaning you can use it anywhere. Pretty good isps anyway. It can be surface attached. It comes in an attractive black colour. And all in a Mk1 size.

What's not to love?

[sal_vager]

It's ¼ of a Mammoth, just as the Mammoth description says the Mammoth is made from four Vectors

The cost is from all the gubbins for the gimball.

[Temeter]

1.25m engines like the swivel are really bad, the vector is better compared against the mainsail. In which case it performs 5 to 10 isp better, uses a smaller node and got strong vectoring. Somewhat better, but not by much. The vectoring hardly ever comes into play, in most cases you actually want to turn down gimbal, even for mainsails. It's also super expensive in career mode.

The only real advantage is getting high vectoring for crafts like the space shuttle, which aren't exactly minmaxing anyway, and (the real strength) a lot more more thrust in a smaller packet than usual.

That said, I'm gonna spam that thing everywhere.

[sal_vager]

You can recoup that cost by not throwing the engines away

Also, no tankbutt.

[fourfa]

How do we investigate the Vector's performance at Eve sea level?

[regex]

How do we investigate the Vector's performance at Eve sea level?

Launch a rocket to Eve, test.

Alternatively, maths.

[Motokid600]

"If something is overpowered in this game then your payload is not large enough."

- Me.

[Gaarst]

This engine is so cool: you can actually strap tanks or your payload wherever you want, put one of these under your rocket and poof, you're in space !

[Parkaboy]

Is that why NASA retired the Shuttle? Because it made space too easy?

[fourfa]

Oh, I see. Should perform the same on Eve as the Mammoth. In which case this thing is going to be extremely useful there.

(according to KER, which seems to be working - 193.2s at Eve sea level, 300s at around 12km, 314s by 33km. Same as Mammoth.)

Edited November 9, 2015 by fourfa

[Nansuchao]

No, but probably is the reason why NASA wants to use the same engines on the new SLS.

[Alshain]

What's not to love?

The cost. It is incredibly expensive and unlocks in the same tier as the mammoth.

[Laie]

I've long complained that the 1.25m engines are too feeble. Starting tech, yes, but as a side effect it left Mk2 planes rather underpowered. Even the recently revamped Aerospike felt quite inadequate. Going full Mammoth feels totally OP in comparison, but it's a welcome change.

[More Boosters]

This is a huge boon for SSTOs, and the high price promoting recovery further cements that.

[Temeter]

Keep in mind that thing weighs 4 tons, tho. That's a lot, even for a spaceplane.

[luizopiloto]

and they changed something in aero... that added 15-20% more drag to crafts... and the RAPIER lost performance because of that.... again... every little update... Squad succed in make the RAPIER weaker... the Only SABRE engine we have... no other option... weaker every update... ¬¬"

[ajburges]

Keep in mind that thing weighs 4 tons, tho. That's a lot, even for a spaceplane.

Depends on the plane. 1000 kN of rocket power is also a lot for a plane. (Don't actually have Vector stats handy, so I'm guessing it's ¼ a Mammoth). It is the most weight and node efficient source of thrust in the 1.25 regime.

[Red Iron Crown]

Feels more like a 2.5m engine than a 1.25m one so far. It's almost too much for a 1.25m stack, it gets way wobbly when loaded. I'm not sure it's OP, any more than the Mammoth is anyway.

[Gaarst]

Please don't nerf the Vector, please don't nerf the Vector, please don't nerf the Vector, please don't nerf the Vector...

[Franklin]

The cost. It is incredibly expensive and unlocks in the same tier as the mammoth.

ding-ding. as well as the weight given its size class.

sure, this means nothing to sandboxers or people so far into their careers that money/research mean nothing, but hopefully Squad considered that.

[skepticon]

and they changed something in aero... that added 15-20% more drag to crafts... and the RAPIER lost performance because of that.... again... every little update... Squad succed in make the RAPIER weaker... the Only SABRE engine we have... no other option... weaker every update... ¬¬"

Actually, in air-breathing mode the performance is the same as 1.0.4. In closed cycle mode, I definitely noticed an ISP drop - I'm okay with it. The closed cycle thrust on the RAPIER was really, really strong before.

[Red Iron Crown]

The propulsive stats for the Rapier are unchanged from 1.0.4, both in open and closed cycle modes.

[MGCJerry]

I like this engine. The gimball range, the power... A lot more power than I expected especially for its size. I was honestly expecting something within the range of 500-600 thrust, not 1000 but they suck down the fuel. If anything, for its size I think it might be a bit much. It is fun to build a rockomax sized mammoth with them and watch the fuel disappear when you light them.

However, I play purely in the sandbox.

[Streetwind]

The thing that makes the Vector look overpowered is this:

All other 1.25m engines are starter tech. They have between 14 and 17 TWR. When the tech tree then proceeds to unlock better engines, they are suddenly not 1.25m anymore - they're all 2.5m. Their TWR suddenly goes up to between 25 and 32, with comparable Isp and gimbaling across the board. When the 3.75m engines come, they pretty much conform to that same format.

As a result, there is something "missing" - an 1.25m engine that conforms to the same standards as other "high tech" engines. It's not that the other engines are overpowered, but that the 1.25m ones are underpowered due to their earlygame status. And they never get updated to the state of the art that all other engines conform to. You'd expect there to be a version of the Swivel that has perhaps 350 kN thrust. But it never comes.

Well, there was one other 1.25m rocket engine, the aerospike. But it comes extremely late, and it isn't even in the rocket branch! Additionally it has no gimbal, and a TWR of 18, not 25+. Its Isp is impressive, but its price is high and it lacks both the power and the versatility of the baseline that the 2.5m and 3.75m engines conform to. It's not a higher-tech replacement, it's a gimmick spaceplane engine unsuitable for things that get staged away.

And now, after all this time, and at the very end of the tech tree, you suddenly get an 1.25m engine that conforms to the same power level as the 2.5m/3.75m engine sets. Yes, at first glance it's another expensive gimmick spaceplane engine, introduced solely to make STS replicas work; but assuming you have the money, or play sandbox, this time you actually can use it for a rocket. It has everything a rocket engine needs and is straight up better than a Swivel in every way, just like a Skipper is straight up better than a Swivel in every way. It even has the added advantage of working well on Eve, which will no doubt make it the default Eve ascent engine from now on.

However, there's two things that make the Vector feel completely off the curve: progression and scaling. Firstly, it takes that complete lack of better 1.25m engines that everyone ignored and shoves it into the spotlight. Previously the player thought "well, maybe the huge TWR jump between 1.25m and 2.5m is justified, because it's a big jump in size, and the smaller ones simply cannot give that sort of performance." But now the Vector shows that small ones are very well capable of matching performance, and that the sudden jump isn't in any way justified. It shows just how far behind the curve the other 1.25m engines really are, and just how large of a gap there is in both tech node progression and performance where other engines should be but aren't. You look at the Vector and cannot help but feel that it is out of place, simply because there is nothing that gradually leads up to it.

Secondly, while the performance conforms to the same baseline as the other large engines, a baseline alone is a very variable thing. You can have 25 TWR with 1000 kN, but you can have the same with 10 kN. It's all a matter of scaling - you can assign it any arbitrary thrust and any arbitrary weight, so long as the math spits out a TWR of 25. And the problem is, with the second most powerful 1.25m engine topping out at 215 kN, placing the Vector at 1,000 kN cannot ever possibly hope to feel like it belongs. I mean, how many tanks do you usually put on top of your typical booster before you add another stage on top? Two FL-T800 for a Swivel, two-three orange jumbos for a Mainsail, two-three S3-14400's for a Mammoth... And now what? Ten FL-T800's on a Vector? That'll just look absurd!

TL;DR: The Vector is not overpowered compared to most other engines, but it sticks out like a sore thumb for several different reasons. I don't feel like it is a particularly good addition to the game. It just doesn't fit.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Streetwind

[More Boosters]

The thing that makes the Vector look overpowered is this:

All other 1.25m engines are starter tech. They have between 14 and 17 TWR. When the tech tree then proceeds to unlock better engines, they are suddenly not 1.25m anymore - they're all 2.5m. Their TWR suddenly goes up to between 25 and 32, with comparable Isp and gimbaling across the board. When the 3.75m engines come, they pretty much conform to that same format.

As a result, there is something "missing" - an 1.25m engine that conforms to the same standards as other "high tech" engines. It's not that the other engines are overpowered, but that the 1.25m ones are underpowered due to their earlygame status. And they never get updated to the state of the art that all other engines conform to. You'd expect there to be a version of the Swivel that has perhaps 350 kN thrust. But it never comes.

Well, there was one other 1.25m rocket engine, the aerospike. But it comes extremely late, and it isn't even in the rocket branch! Additionally it has no gimbal, and a TWR of 18, not 25+. Its Isp is impressive, but its price is high and it lacks both the power and the versatility of the baseline that the 2.5m and 3.75m engines conform to. It's not a higher-tech replacement, it's a gimmick spaceplane engine unsuitable for things that get staged away.

And now, after all this time, and at the very end of the tech tree, you suddenly get an 1.25m engine that conforms to the same power level as the 2.5m/3.75m engine sets. Yes, at first glance it's another expensive gimmick spaceplane engine, introduced solely to make STS replicas work; but assuming you have the money, or play sandbox, this time you actually can use it for a rocket. It has everything a rocket engine needs and is straight up better than a Swivel in every way, just like a Skipper is straight up better than a Swivel in every way. It even has the added advantage of working well on Eve, which will no doubt make it the default Eve ascent engine from now on.

However, there's two things that make the Vector feel completely off the curve: progression and scaling. Firstly, it takes that complete lack of better 1.25m engines that everyone ignored and shoves it into the spotlight. Previously the player thought "well, maybe the huge TWR jump between 1.25m and 2.5m is justified, because it's a big jump in size, and the smaller ones simply cannot give that sort of performance." But now the Vector shows that small ones are very well capable of matching performance, and that the sudden jump isn't in any way justified. It shows just how far behind the curve the other 1.25m engines really are, and just how large of a gap there is in both tech node progression and performance where other engines should be but aren't. You look at the Vector and cannot help but feel that it is out of place, simply because there is nothing that gradually leads up to it.

Secondly, while the performance conforms to the same baseline as the other large engines, a baseline alone is a very variable thing. You can have 25 TWR with 1000 kN, but you can have the same with 10 kN. It's all a matter of scaling - you can assign it any arbitrary thrust and any arbitrary weight, so long as the math spits out a TWR of 25. And the problem is, with the second most powerful 1.25m engine topping out at 215 kN, placing the Vector at 1,000 kN cannot ever possibly hope to feel like it belongs. I mean, how many tanks do you usually put on top of your typical booster before you add another stage on top? Two FL-T800 for a Swivel, two-three orange jumbos for a Mainsail, two-three S3-14400's for a Mammoth... And now what? Ten FL-T800's on a Vector? That'll just look absurd!

TL;DR: The Vector is not overpowered compared to most other engines, but it sticks out like a sore thumb for several different reasons. I don't feel like it is a particularly good addition to the game. It just doesn't fit.

I see your point, but the Vector isn't supposed to be used in 1.25m stacks to begin with. You may argue that's not the case for any other engine, but the numbers don't say anything out of ordinary. It's just the square cube law in effect.

Edited November 10, 2015 by More Boosters