Vector engine possibly a little too good?

[More Boosters]

The skipper has slightly (5) better vacuum isp, but that's all as far as I can tell, aside from the obscene cost the Vector has.

EDIT: You know what might balance the Vector? Remove it's bottom attachment point; that way it's strictly a first stage engine, either that or you bend your entire craft around to include it elsewhere.

Not sure why you guys insist that it is imbalanced. It has the same TWR as Mainsail. Are you arguing that cost can't be balancing mechanic? I mean if you were so concerned about balance, why is this coming up now that there's a decent 1.25m engine? Why not ask to get Reliant and Swivel up par? In retrospect this sounds a bit aggressive but I'm really just not seeing what's overpowered about it when it is so expensive.

[Red Iron Crown]

Not everyone plays career mode.

[More Boosters]

Not everyone plays career mode.

And balancing does not matter in those modes. If it did you would see people talk about how underpowered Reliant and Swivel are. At least in career you have to use them at some point.

[Red Iron Crown]

And balancing does not matter in those modes. If it did you would see people talk about how underpowered Reliant and Swivel are. At least in career you have to use them at some point.

Sure it does. We argued about part balancing long, long before career mode or science mode were things.

[More Boosters]

Sure it does. We argued about part balancing long, long before career mode or science mode were things.

Okay then let me rephrase my position to sound less dismissive. I don't think that the existence of modes where funds don't matter should preclude some parts being balanced over cost. The Vector is reasonably powerful and definitely an interesting choice, and yes, it is clearly one of the best lift engines if not the best in Sandbox but Sandbox is where there is no limit to anything. Nothing keeping you from "more boosters". And it's not like Vector has a better TWR or Isp than other engines. It has a better gimbal rate that doesn't matter for most launches, which are symmetrical.

[r_rolo1]

Indeed, we did, Red Iron Crown That said, I don't think we can actually have balance in all the game modes at the same time and it has been clear from the side of the devs that they prioritize balance in Career over the other modes ...

Edited November 10, 2015 by r_rolo1

[paul23]

And balancing does not matter in those modes. If it did you would see people talk about how underpowered Reliant and Swivel are. At least in career you have to use them at some point.

I play carreer mode - and even with 30% gold gains I find gold of no importance once you start building space bases. The vector reeks to me too much of a "one size fits all" idea. Just use vector + 909/poodle and you're done. Where does the mainsail/skipper really fit in? Costs? For that the vector should be about the double in price of what it is now.

When talking about high TWR you have to take into account also the maximum amount it can lift: that is also very high for the vector. Simply it should've had a vacuum I-specific worse than the mainsail. Or the TWR should be slightly worse than the skipper.

[More Boosters]

I play carreer mode - and even with 30% gold gains I find gold of no importance once you start building space bases. The vector reeks to me too much of a "one size fits all" idea. Just use vector + 909/poodle and you're done. Where does the mainsail/skipper really fit in? Costs? For that the vector should be about the double in price of what it is now.

When talking about high TWR you have to take into account also the maximum amount it can lift: that is also very high for the vector. Simply it should've had a vacuum I-specific worse than the mainsail. Or the TWR should be slightly worse than the skipper.

How can it be a lift engine if its TWR is worse than the Skipper? The Skipper is usually middle stage or good for lifting relatively light loads.

It does have a worse vacuum Isp than the Mainsail by 5 seconds. Are you saying Mainsail + 909/Poodle wasn't the same thing? Because right now, if Skipper can pull your load, you should definitely use it over the Vector. It's not like it doesn't have a better Isp and a third of the price.

[Jouni]

You're missing the point, if you think the Vector as an 1.25 m engine.

The Reliant is an 1.25-tonne engine and the Swivel is an 1.5-tonne engine. The Vector is a 4-tonne engine with performance appropriately between the 3-tonne Skipper and the 6-tonne Mainsail. If you place a Vector in a 1.25 m stack, you will almost always get worse performance than with a Swivel (and a couple of boosters for heavier payloads) due to the extra mass.

The Vector is a nice special-purpose engine for the situations, where you need a lot of thrust but don't have room for bigger engines. It's also useful as a midrange first stage engine for rockets, where a Skipper would be too weak and a Mainsail would be too heavy.

[Red Iron Crown]

Okay then let me rephrase my position to sound less dismissive. I don't think that the existence of modes where funds don't matter should preclude some parts being balanced over cost. The Vector is reasonably powerful and definitely an interesting choice, and yes, it is clearly one of the best lift engines if not the best in Sandbox but Sandbox is where there is no limit to anything. Nothing keeping you from "more boosters". And it's not like Vector has a better TWR or Isp than other engines. It has a better gimbal rate that doesn't matter for most launches, which are symmetrical.

For balance reasons, the engines in KSP have generally followed a curve that pits Isp against TWR. Higher TWR meant lower Isp, and vice versa. Career mode started with the middle of that curve and gradually unlocked engines that were closer to the extremes, more specialized engines. This worked for both career and sandbox, as there was always a tradeoff.

Then 0.23.5 arrived with its ARM engines. These were above the curve, having great TWR *and* great Isp, and there were howls of "unbalanced" when they were released. But it turned out they had a different sort of balance: You had to use 3.75m of them to get that great combo, so they didn't really obsolete the smaller engines in a lot of cases.

Now that "above-the-curve" TWR/Isp relationship is available in a smaller form factor, meaning it does obsolete a few engines in some scenarios.

All this is not meant to slag on the Vector, to be honest I haven't played with it enough to have a strong opinion on it. Just giving the context for sandbox balance, and why this can be seen as upsetting it.

[cantab]

Cost is only a factor in career and tech tree placement is only a factor in career and science and even then only in the early and mid game. In my view both are appropriate for "fine tuning" but the game balance should still be reasonably good in sandbox.

I think the biggest snag with the Vector is the form factor. The Isp and TWR are pretty reasonable, but being able to put 2000, 3000, even 4000 kN under a 2.5m stack without clipping the engine bells is jarring. Or how about seven of them under a 3.75m stack, and in a format that means that can be an upper stage (though Kraken knows what you'd use as a first stage for that). It's also got the low profile to make it a powerful lander engine, because for some reason it's a bare bell with no visible combustion machinery - I expect we'll see big Tylo and maybe Moho landers using Vectors

[More Boosters]

For balance reasons, the engines in KSP have generally followed a curve that pits Isp against TWR. Higher TWR meant lower Isp, and vice versa. Career mode started with the middle of that curve and gradually unlocked engines that were closer to the extremes, more specialized engines. This worked for both career and sandbox, as there was always a tradeoff.

Then 0.23.5 arrived with its ARM engines. These were above the curve, having great TWR *and* great Isp, and there were howls of "unbalanced" when they were released. But it turned out they had a different sort of balance: You had to use 3.75m of them to get that great combo, so they didn't really obsolete the smaller engines in a lot of cases.

Now that "above-the-curve" TWR/Isp relationship is available in a smaller form factor, meaning it does obsolete a few engines in some scenarios.

All this is not meant to slag on the Vector, to be honest I haven't played with it enough to have a strong opinion on it. Just giving the context for sandbox balance, and why this can be seen as upsetting it.

If this was once the case it hasn't been so for a long time. Skipper is better than Swivel at both TWR and Isp, not sure about LV-909 vs Poodle but the latter has better Isp and Reliant doesn't even have a gimbal! (Or anything to make up for that)

[Red Iron Crown]

Yeah, the adjustments to Isp in 1.0 threw it all for a loop.

[Findthepin1]

Works anywhere you say?

Time for the first Sun Landing in 1.0.5.

EDIT: Failed on launch. Vector engines are too fast.

It was the only survivor of an ascent explosion. I put it together in thirty seconds. There were only seven parts. It was very slow on "touchdown", maybe the drag is too high. It hit the launchpad at 27.6m/s.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Findthepin1
i'm starting with the man in the mirror i'm asking him to change his ways and no message could have been any clearer… lol jk

[paul23]

Cost is only a factor in career and tech tree placement is only a factor in career and science and even then only in the early and mid game. In my view both are appropriate for "fine tuning" but the game balance should still be reasonably good in sandbox.

I think the biggest snag with the Vector is the form factor. The Isp and TWR are pretty reasonable, but being able to put 2000, 3000, even 4000 kN under a 2.5m stack without clipping the engine bells is jarring. Or how about seven of them under a 3.75m stack, and in a format that means that can be an upper stage (though Kraken knows what you'd use as a first stage for that). It's also got the low profile to make it a powerful lander engine, because for some reason it's a bare bell with no visible combustion machinery - I expect we'll see big Tylo and maybe Moho landers using Vectors

So like I also identified: they are too much of a one-size-fits-all engine. And too good in that (one size fits all should be slightly worse than specialized choices for obvious reasons). Especially the fact you can place them radially is what I find making it "uniquely overpowered". - Unique is good, but that unique quality should come at an efficiency price. - Or maybe disable the bottom node as suggested (together with a slight increase in price).

Also since there is so much gimbal on this engine I would expect this engine to be "long", so maybe make it even longer than the standard 1.25m engines (just a bit), making landing with it hard.

Those three points: No bottom node, even higher priced so spamming it for just any contract isn't good, and more difficulty fitting it under a lander (a nerf most heavily felt in sandbox I think) would make it fit a unique profile.

[Wjolcz]

Wasn't shuttle's engine good too though? It ran on 110%, or sth because it was so well made. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: Just done some research. They are going to be used on SLS.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Veeltch

[Workable Goblin]

Wasn't shuttle's engine good too though? It ran on 110%, or sth because it was so well made. Correct me if I'm wrong.

104.5%; 109% was possible and achieved in ground tests, but it had extremely deleterious effects on the reliability of the engine and greatly increased engine wear, so it was reserved for "contingency" scenarios (aka "We need to get the hell out of Dodge"). The Block III engines might have been able to tolerate it, but they were never actually introduced due to Columbia, and IIRC it was still intended to be a "reserve" capability.

I'm not particularly miffed that the SSME is a good engine in game, since it, well, was; the best rocket engine ever designed, in my opinion, though that's partially due to factors that don't appear in game (it was a very ambitious design goal that was achieved with great success).

[PanzerAce]

Edit: Just done some research. They are going to be used on SLS.

Using them on the SLS also has to do with the relative lack of US made liquid fuel engines. We simply don't have a huge number of options unless we want to rely on the Russians, combined with the RS25 engines already being a mature design. (Clearly SpaceX has the Merlin engine right now, with their larger methane engines coming online in the future, but right now the RS25 is a better option)

[Temeter]

Well, it will be a better option when they finally get the simplified design and don't use superexpensive reusable engines on throwaway rockets.

[More Boosters]

Well, it will be a better option when they finally get the simplified design and don't use superexpensive reusable engines on throwaway rockets.

To be fair I think they're using the existing stocks and not producing new ones. Don't quote me on this tho.

[Temeter]

To be fair I think they're using the existing stocks and not producing new ones. Don't quote me on this tho.

Okay, that sounds a lot more reasonable!

[PanzerAce]

To be fair I think they're using the existing stocks and not producing new ones. Don't quote me on this tho.

Just did. Because you're right.

[silent_prtoagonist]

I'm just amused that the vector feels so over powered when in fact it's the closest ksp engines have come the performance of real rocket engines, at least in terms of thrust/physical size. Thrust to weight is still horrible by real world standards, though.

[cantab]

No bottom node I think would just be plain annoying, we already had the aerospike spoiled by that (changed in 1.0.5, hurrah!)

A model that actually shows the engine would be good, not just for balance but also for a more consistent art style. But it can't be too long or it would cause problems for Shuttles, and the real SSME has a big bell on relatively small machinery - which is simply a feature of a vacuum-optimised engine.

I wonder if it could have simply been made a little wider? And then it could be a 2.5 m engine, fitting nicely between the Skipper and Mainsail in performance, and that bit trickier to put in a 1.25m stack (you'd need a bulging interstage fairing) or make such compact clusters out of (assuming you avoid clippingness).

[NathanKell]

It's worth noting that despite its looks, you really should think of the Vector as an RD-191 (or RD-253, more like, since Isp for KSP engines is based off storable propellant engines). This is because KSP doesn't really *have* high thrust engines; all its engines are low thrust, so boosted cores make sense.

(Compare the thrust ratios of the Kickback to the Vector/Mammoth, when considering whether you're building SLS, or a boosted Mega-Proton.)