What do you feel is missing from the STOCK game as far as parts goes ?

[Wjolcz]

[quote name='Capt Snuggler']surely scaling the electrical requirement would discourage spamming. How would making it LF+O dependent prevent spamming and more than its electrical consumption?[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't have unlimited range if it had limited fuel. Unless there was ISRU on board.

[Capt Snuggler]

[quote name='Veeltch']It wouldn't have unlimited range if it had limited fuel. Unless there was ISRU on board.[/QUOTE]

well then technically all craft can have unlimited range. EC craft need solar panels/RTGs. LF craft need ISRU kit.

[Wjolcz]

[quote name='Capt Snuggler']well then technically all craft can have unlimited range. EC craft need solar panels/RTGs. LF craft need ISRU kit.[/QUOTE]

Yup, pretty much, but only one of those needs less resources to work.

I kind of get what RIC is trying to say. Electric propellers would be a great way to abuse science grind on atmospheric bodies, but I still think they are a pretty nice thing to have. They could be balanced.

E: I'm thinking about that cooling liquid some people mentioned. Maybe it could be a way to make them more balanced? On hotter bodies the liquid would get hot faster than on the cooler worlds. If you had the propeller set to 100% thrust on Eve it would overheat after, let's say 5 minutes, but if you did the same thing on Laythe it would overheat after 15 minutes. Edited November 17, 2015 by Veeltch

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Capt Snuggler']surely scaling the electrical requirement would discourage spamming.[/quote]
Not really. If one electric prop can carry the requisite wings, power generation and a small payload, then two can carry twice that, three can carry three times, and so on. All these things scale linearly (or better) with payload mass. Unless something new is added to the game, like additional props using more energy than the first or something (and I think people would rightfully call foul on that).

[quote]How would making it LF+O dependent prevent spamming and more than its electrical consumption?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't, it prevents unlimited endurance, which is what I've been trying to argue against. An LF+O powered plane must land sooner or later, even if it has onboard ISRU. An electric plane need never land. The spamming line of discussion is about the idea "just make it small so it's only good for tiny planes", which is just balancing through part count.


Maybe I should turn this around and ask: What does an electric prop offer that an LF+O powered one does not, aside from infinite endurance?

[Wjolcz]

[QUOTE=]Red Iron Crown;2301235

Maybe I should turn this around and ask: What does an electric prop offer that an LF+O powered one does not, aside from infinite endurance?[/QUOTE]

Not much tbh. But I've never heard of a prop that uses liquid rocket fuel in order to work. Unless we're talking about LF+Air. If so, I have nothing against that.

E: oh wth touchscreens are a real pain to work on. I'm not fixing that quote Edited November 17, 2015 by Veeltch

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Veeltch']Not much tbh. But I've never heard of a prop that uses liquid rocket fuel in order to work.[/quote]
Mostly because we've never run props in an oxygen-free atmosphere. There's not any theoretical reason to keep it from working.

[quote]Unless we're talking about LF+Air. If so, I have nothing against that.[/QUOTE]
I suggest dual mode, LF+IntakeAir and LF+O, with higher Isp using IntakeAir. That way we get a prop for both types of atmo from just one part.

[Tricky14]

Like I said in my thread, pretty much rover wheels you can access around the time you're allowed to build your first planes in carreer mode. More conventional and car like perhaps, definitely not usuable in space. Land rovers won't get you into space, but neither will the first airplanes. Both are contract work and precursors to later gameplay involving space planes and planet rovers. It's good to get early experience with both modes of transportation, so please level the playing field if you can. And let us drive over it.

[Captain Vlad]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']
Maybe I should turn this around and ask: What does an electric prop offer that an LF+O powered one does not, aside from infinite endurance?[/QUOTE]

Turning it around was a good decision.:) Only things I can think of off the top of my head is A: the relative lack of very small LF-only tanks you might use to build micro aircraft. And that situation is better than it used to be thanks to the new tanks introduced in 1.05 and B: the fact that you [i]couldn't[/i] try stuff like solar-powered electric entirely-airborne circumnavigations.

One thing though here is fuel efficiency; people have literally flown around Earth without landing in a propeller powered planes, and it seems like a positive to me if we could end up doing the same thing is KSP. But isn't that kind of range capability going to result in the same things you're worrying about regardless of the fuel source? If you're worried about spamming biome science (I acknowledge you didn't say that) with infinite range, wouldn't building a prop job with 'really really awesome range' result in the same thing?

Maybe the trouble here is more RTGs than the concept of an electric propeller... Edited November 18, 2015 by Captain Vlad

[Starwaster]

Electric prop would be valuable for a remote mission to Duna

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Captain Vlad']Turning it around was a good decision.:) Only things I can think of off the top of my head is A: the relative lack of very small LF-only tanks you might use to build micro aircraft. And that situation is better than it used to be thanks to the new tanks introduced in 1.05 and B: the fact that you [i]couldn't[/i] try stuff like solar-powered electric entirely-airborne circumnavigations.[/quote]
B is a valid point. I just don't see how it could be made possible without enabling big things with infinite range, too.

[quote]One thing though here is fuel efficiency; people have literally flown around Earth without landing in a propeller powered planes, and it seems like a positive to me if we could end up doing the same thing is KSP. But isn't that kind of range capability going to result in the same things you're worrying about regardless of the fuel source? If you're worried about spamming biome science (I acknowledge you didn't say that) with infinite range, wouldn't building a prop job with 'really really awesome range' result in the same thing?[/quote]
There's a big difference between tweaking a design to stretch out the fuel as far as it will go and just adding enough power generation to go anywhere. It's that loss of challenge that I'm hoping will be avoided.

[quote]Maybe the trouble here is more RTGs than the concept of an electric propeller...[/QUOTE]
I've thought along those lines, too. It led to "make it power hungry enough that only fuel cells will suffice, mass-wise" to "why not cut out the middle man and just run the thing on LF+O?". :)

[Captain Vlad]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']
I've thought along those lines, too. It led to "make it power hungry enough that only fuel cells will suffice, mass-wise" to "why not cut out the middle man and just run the thing on LF+O?". :)[/QUOTE]

In my head the fuel cells make more realistic sense in a non-oxygen environment, but I'm a bit of a submarine fan so of course it does.

This goes completely opposite your opposition to heavy loads with unlimited range but larger electric props combined with the reactors some people are asking for would make it possible to go farther than the USAF did with the "nuclear powered bomber" concept.

Bwahahaha.

I get what you're saying about range-challenge, btw, though honestly I feel spamming that many propellers, batteries, RTGs/panels, making it fly controllably, etc. is just as much of a challenge as stretching out a single-engine plane's range. I'm not Whackjob, that stuff doesn't seem easy to me.;) Edited November 18, 2015 by Captain Vlad

[fireblade274]

Bigger nukes (maybe a little better isp too, e.g. its at 800, maybe 850) but dont decrease anything (regarding all parts) and brake crafts
stock hinges
and propellers, i dont care if they are electric or liquid fuel.

[Joonatan1998]

Electric propellers that work in liquids. I used to thing atmospheric ones would be nice, but this thread convinced me that they would be unbalanced.

But liquid propellers would be essentially the same as rover wheels.
Maybe they could produce tiny amount of thrust in air, but not enough for flying.

Some might say they would be too specialized, there only being 3 places they can be used in.
But we already have a huge amount of parts only useful in 5 places... Edited November 18, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[Capt Snuggler]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']There's a big difference between tweaking a design to stretch out the fuel as far as it will go and just adding enough power generation to go anywhere. It's that loss of challenge that I'm hoping will be avoided.[/QUOTE]

I don't see it as a loss of challenge. potentially a loss of "grind" which isn't really a loss, but more a gain in my book.

rovers already have unlimited range and now they can be amphibious too. This is at worst offering potentially unlimited atmospheric flight time with small payload margin... so what.

are we supposed to believe the kerbals can make electric wheels but not electric propellers?

Limiting flight time by way of motor temp is a valid restriction though and also offers unique challenges for different planets. (high temp, low pressure, distance from sun, etc) Edited November 18, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Capt Snuggler']I don't see it as a loss of challenge. potentially a loss of "grind" which isn't really a loss but more a gain in my book. rovers already have unlimited range and now they can be amphibious too. This is at worst offering potentially unlimited atmospheric flight time with small payload margin... so what.[/quote]
Rovers are balanced by low speed and terrain restrictions. If they were faster and one could safely set a course with them and crank up the timewarp they would be overpowered in gameplay terms, there would be little reason to fly anywhere once arriving on a planet's surface.

[quote]are we supposed to believe the kerbals can make electric wheels but not propellers? [/quote]
We are to believe that the challenges for electric-powered flight are just as difficult for kerbals as they are for humans. :)

[quote]Limiting flight time by way of engine temp is a valid restriction though and also offers unique challenges for different planets. (high temp, low pressure, distance from sun, etc)[/QUOTE]
That's an approach to balancing them that I haven't thought about, that might work.

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Rovers are balanced by low speed and terrain restrictions. If they were faster and one could safely set a course with them and crank up the timewarp they would be overpowered in gameplay terms, there would be little reason to fly anywhere once arriving on a planet's surface.


We are to believe that the challenges for electric-powered flight are just as difficult for kerbals as they are for humans. :)


That's an approach to balancing them that I haven't thought about, that might work.[/QUOTE]

I am confused by this talk of 'balance'. In what way exactly would having a slow moving but efficient aircraft be 'unbalanced'. What is there to be gained other than having fun? It gives you no game advantage what so ever.

What do you guys have against fun?

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Majorjim']I am confused by this talk of 'balance'. In what way exactly would having a slow moving but efficient aircraft be 'unbalanced'. What is there to be gained other than having fun? It gives you no game advantage what so ever.[/quote]
I don't have a problem with "slow moving and efficient" at all. It's infinite endurance that I dislike, because it removes challenge from the game. An example would be making a circumnavigation-capable plane. Right now, it takes a bit of design know-how as well as a bit of knowledge of efficient flight profiles to do. An electric atmospheric propulsion system removes much of the former and all of the latter, for the most part. Once you get any RTG-powered plane off the ground and capable of sustained flight the problem is solved, it's just a matter of patience. There is no tension or wondering if you will make it, and not much sense of accomplishment to actually flying the flight.

[quote]What do you guys have against fun?[/QUOTE]
So turn on infinite fuel. That's more fun then, right?

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']I don't have a problem with "slow moving and efficient" at all. It's infinite endurance that I dislike, because it removes challenge from the game. An example would be making a circumnavigation-capable plane. Right now, it takes a bit of design know-how as well as a bit of knowledge of efficient flight profiles to do. An electric atmospheric propulsion system removes much of the former and all of the latter, for the most part. Once you get any RTG-powered plane off the ground and capable of sustained flight the problem is solved, it's just a matter of patience. There is no tension or wondering if you will make it, and not much sense of accomplishment to actually flying the flight.


So turn on infinite fuel. That's more fun then, right?[/QUOTE]

Ok, you misunderstand me. Why would props have to be unlimited in range? I never said anything about electric props.. Why cant they just run on liquid fuel?

Also, circumnavigating Kerbin is not a 'problem' it is an activity.

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Majorjim']Ok, you misunderstand me. Why would props have to be unlimited in range? I never said anything about electric props.. Why cant they just run on liquid fuel?[/quote]
OK now I'm confused. My whole position in this thread is that electric props are undesirable while fueled ones are more desirable.

[quote]Also, circumnavigating Kerbin is not a 'problem' it is an activity.[/QUOTE]
Designing for it and flying it are the problems. Is this a semantic thing?

[Mister Dilsby]

[quote name='Majorjim']Also, circumnavigating Kerbin is not a 'problem' it is an activity.[/QUOTE]
I like that line a lot :) My two funds--"free" movement on a planet's surface is already a thing, with electric rover wheels. Free movement [I]over [/I]a planet with electric props does (literally) add another dimension. Right now if you want to go to every biome of a world, you have a few choices. All have upsides and downsides--meaning that whatever way you choose, you have to earn those biomes.

1. Ballistic hops in a traditional rocket. Requires good targeting, repeated demonstration of landing skills, and fuel management and/or good ISRU design.
2. Traversing surface in an electrically driven rover. Requires extreme patience, robust rover design, and driving skill to avoid crashes.
3. Atmospheric flying. Requires repeated landings and fuel management/ISRU.

Electric props [I]could [/I]make #3 a lot easier... IMO the way to balance it is to make the power requirements appropriately high. A [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12"]huge turboprop like the one on the Tupolev bomber[/URL] would require more than 10MW to run electrically at full power. That's why real electric props are more on the order of 50kW. So, I could see a Kerbal aircraft of Mk0 or Mk1 size with an electric prop and enough surface-mount solar panels to run it indefinitely. You could make a tiny biome hopper/circumnavigator that would be fun to fly, but you'd have to make some challenging design decisions to make it work. If you wanted to make an electrically driven TU-95, though, you'd never be able to generate enough on board to keep the props spinning. 40MW worth of RTGs [I]should [/I]be too heavy for the wings to lift, and Gigantor solar panels would shear off in flight. So you'd need to run the motors from fuel cells--which means limited range so it's all good (and, I think, very Kerbal :))

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Kuzzter']I like that line a lot :) My two funds--"free" movement on a planet's surface is already a thing, with electric rover wheels. Free movement [I]over [/I]a planet with electric props does (literally) add another dimension. Right now if you want to go to every biome of a world, you have a few choices. All have upsides and downsides--meaning that whatever way you choose, you have to earn those biomes.

1. Ballistic hops in a traditional rocket. Requires good targeting, repeated demonstration of landing skills, and fuel management and/or good ISRU design.
2. Traversing surface in an electrically driven rover. Requires extreme patience, robust rover design, and driving skill to avoid crashes.
3. Atmospheric flying. Requires repeated landings and fuel management/ISRU.

Electric props [I]could [/I]make #3 a lot easier... IMO the way to balance it is to make the power requirements appropriately high. A [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12"]huge turboprop like the one on the Tupolev bomber[/URL] would require more than 10MW to run electrically at full power. That's why real electric props are more on the order of 50kW. So, I could see a Kerbal aircraft of Mk0 or Mk1 size with an electric prop and enough surface-mount solar panels to run it indefinitely. You could make a tiny biome hopper/circumnavigator that would be fun to fly, but you'd have to make some challenging design decisions to make it work. If you wanted to make an electrically driven TU-95, though, you'd never be able to generate enough on board to keep the props spinning. 40MW worth of RTGs [I]should [/I]be too heavy for the wings to lift, and Gigantor solar panels would shear off in flight. So you'd need to run the motors from fuel cells--which means limited range so it's all good (and, I think, very Kerbal :))[/QUOTE]

This.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']OK now I'm confused. My whole position in this thread is that electric props are undesirable while fueled ones are more desirable.


Designing for it and flying it are the problems. Is this a semantic thing?[/QUOTE]

My mistake, we agree fuel props would be better but not essential. Elec props would be cool but would be MUCH slower. Like a glider really.
I don't see how slowly flying around a planet even without refueling would be anything other than fun. The game needs more fun!

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Kuzzter']So, I could see a Kerbal aircraft of Mk0 or Mk1 size with an electric prop and enough surface-mount solar panels to run it indefinitely.[/QUOTE]
What, to your mind, would prevent this from being scaled to arbitrarily large sizes, aside from part count?

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']What, to your mind, would prevent this from being scaled to arbitrarily large sizes, aside from part count?[/QUOTE]

The elecric props would be weak, the craft very light. This would make glider/elec prop probes a possibility and replace the nuts under water jets. Whilst simultaneously eliminating the scaling issue you mentioned.

[Red Iron Crown]

If it works for a very small payload, it will also work for large payloads via spamming. Like the old overpowered 48-7S, it was a small, weak engine meant for probes, but you could just spam enough of them to make overpowered lifters. Balancing via part count is undesirable on its face, IMO.

[Mister Dilsby]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']What, to your mind, would prevent this from being scaled to arbitrarily large sizes, aside from part count?[/QUOTE]
I hear you-- I'm arguing for a small payload fraction, which would make scaling to immense size [I]impractical[/I] but not [I]impossible[/I]. Personally I don't have a problem with that in KSP; there are already a lot of impractical possibilities that can be overcome with Whackjob-level part count. If your design has to look completely ridiculous to do something ridiculous, well, that's being Kerbal. And then we can all moan about people spamming electric motors with a 1.05 payload fraction to make 1000 ton infinite range lifters the same way we moan about clipped fuel tanks :)

Maybe the model to follow is the ion engine. Somehow it's balanced enough in the game that there are very few large interplanetary ships that spam ions... I guess it's that there are more practical ways to do the job, like with LV-Ns. So, if it were [I]possible [/I]to build a monster electric prop plane, but so [I]impractical [/I]that almost everyone would do biome hopping/circumnavigation some other way, then the electric Tupolev would just be a curiosity, a stunt for the amusement of onlookers, and no harm done.

ETA: Ninja'd by last two posts, but I think my argument stands as-is.