The Vector: Your thoughts

[Tweeker]

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 11:43 AM, Psycho_zs said:

Another analogy with things IRL (not going into details about fuels, volumes, etc., because it is pointless, but into concepts):

SLS uses 4 SSMEs on main lifter stage, and that is a pretty heavy rocket. These engines are up to task. Mammoth is influenced directly by SLS lifter cluster, Vector is basically Mammoth/4. Not many people seem to complain that Mammoth is overpowered. So Vector stats are fine.

Crossections of engines do not matter, because they're just crossections of engines' tankbutts. And from what I heard recently, devs have some promising thoughts about future of tankbutts...

My only complaint about Vector is the lack of guts on the model.

     The Mammoth is infact, unbalanced being based on the SLS it should have about  25% of the thrust of  2 kickbacks,  {7,400Kn for the mammoth vs. 32,000 for 2 Kickbacks.  Instead it has 300%  more thrust, {3,746 for the Mammoth vs. 1186 for the 2 kickbacks}

     This isn't really a problem with the Mammoth which is a forced cluster instead of an adapter and a single engine, for a couple of reasons,  Because it is a forced cluster it is locked into it's role, as a 3.75m engine. so it doesn't beg to be compared to other engines the way the Vector does.. The Vector on the other hand can be installed outside it's intended role of SSME. So it is more obvious how out if line with the rest of the engines it is. .

 

[Snark]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

That said, the Vector is not "overpowered" by any definition

Sure it is.  It's overpowered by my definition.  And by the definition of the other 2,000 people who have chosen to use my mod.

(Just for some context:  if we ask "how popular a feature would it be to rebalance the Vector?", then to go by the highly-unscientific method of counting mod downloads, rebalancing Vector is approximately as popular an idea as making static radiator panels toggle-able or having persistent crew assignments in the vehicle editor.)

I'm not saying that that's the right definition, or even a majority definition, just that it's a valid one, for a significant number of people.

If you want to say it's not overpowered by your definition, then fine. 

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

It does not obviate any other engine in the game

Agreed on that one.  I'm glad that they added an engine... just that I'm unhappy with its stats.

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

it is not so powerful as to be useless, even in pure rocket designs

...and that's where it sticks in my craw.  Depending on scenario, it's either overpowered, unnecessary, or useless, from my perspective.

• If I'm building a rocket where my design doesn't allow for anything bigger than 1.25m, and I have to have 1000 kN of thrust, then it's overpowered.  For me, that means I've failed as an engineer because I couldn't design a rocket to work within appropriate constraints.  1000 kN is just too much to require from a 1.25m stack.  I like the constraint that "more powerful engines are fatter."
• Or if I'm building a rocket where a 2.5m engine would fit, then it's unnecessary, because I could use a 2.5m engine.  It just becomes an intermediate step between a Skipper and a Mainsail, and I don't think one is needed there.
• Or if I'm playing career, and funds matter, then it's useless to me because it's so overpriced that you can't use it practically in anything except a recoverable ship, and I don't fly those.

I haven't been able to come up with any scenario in my games where the Vector fits in:  where it's actually useful to me, without feeling like cheating.

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

If you use it as a mid- range 2.5m engine, it's just fine.

Except that's my problem: It's not 2.5m engine.  It fits in a 1.25m stack.  And if I wanted a 2.5m engine, I'd use a Skipper or Mainsail.

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

If you use it as a SSTO booster, it's excellent... so long as you bring it home.

Except that I don't use SSTO's, generally speaking.  My designs involve high-TWR stages that are expendable, and low-TWR stages in orbit.  Other engines in the game are multipurpose; you can use them regardless of whether you prefer SSTO or multi-stage.  The Vector forces a very narrow use case, which would bug me even if that use case is one that I ever use (which it isn't).

 

Like I said:  I'm sure that there are plenty of folks for whom the Vector is the neatest thing since sliced bread, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But the fact remains that for a substantial number of other players, it's a travesty.  There's absolutely nothing you can say to persuade folks one way or the other, because it's based on personal preference of "what should KSP be," which is ultimately a subjective thing.  It's not worth arguing about, it would be like having an argument over which flavor of ice cream is "best." 

All I'm saying is, it's a legitimate viewpoint and reasonable people can differ on the subject.  It's not an obvious slam-dunk either way.  (Obviously so, or this thread wouldn't have kept going through 177-posts-and-counting...)

Edited January 17, 2016 by Snark

[Jouni]

I don't understand this discussion.

I'm a rocket guy, and while I haven't played 1.0.5 that much, it's obvious to me that the Vector fills a major gap in the 2.5 m engine range. For all intents and purposes, it's a 2/3 Mainsail. It's the main 2.5 m lifter engine, and it also looks better than the other 2.5 m engines.

Before 1.0, the Skipper was that engine. A two-stage Skipper/Poodle rocket could lift a decent payload to LKO, and the same rocket with boosters could lift almost all 2.5 m payloads. Then 1.0 nerfed both Isp and sea-level thrust, making the Skipper too weak to lift almost anything on its own. For most 2.5 m payloads, you had to add boosters or use the Mainsail, which is too heavy and too powerful for most payloads.

Now we have a 2/3 Mainsail. A simple Vector/Poodle combo lifts 15-18 tonnes, depending on the target orbit. As most of my payloads are about that size, I'm happy.

[GoSlash27]

Snark,

 I appreciate where you're coming from. Really, I do. And even more, I appreciate your level- headed attitude about it.  I just have a couple minor points of contention with your argument...

7 hours ago, Snark said:

If I'm building a rocket where my design doesn't allow for anything bigger than 1.25m, and I have to have 1000 kN of thrust, then it's overpowered.  For me, that means I've failed as an engineer because I couldn't design a rocket to work within appropriate constraints.  1000 kN is just too much to require from a 1.25m stack.  I like the constraint that "more powerful engines are fatter."

 For me, this doesn't imply that the engine itself is overpowered. It simply indicates poor engineering choices. As the old saying goes, "The fact that they make it in your size doesn't mean that you should wear it".

7 hours ago, Snark said:

Or if I'm building a rocket where a 2.5m engine would fit, then it's unnecessary, because I could use a 2.5m engine.  It just becomes an intermediate step between a Skipper and a Mainsail, and I don't think one is needed there.

I disagree here. I believe that an intermediate engine is needed in this range. Even more importantly, I believe a 2.5m engine that's weaker than the Skipper is needed as well.

7 hours ago, Snark said:

Or if I'm playing career, and funds matter, then it's useless to me because it's so overpriced that you can't use it practically in anything except a recoverable ship, and I don't fly those.

No argument here. If you're not going to recover this engine, then it's just plain not cost- effective. Not everyone wants to go through that hassle.

Best,

-Slashy
 

 

[Guest]

Has anyone considered that they may have balanced it with the Dynawing?  It isn't really OP with that.  Just a thought.

                                                                                                                            ^{_{OK, maybe not.}}

[regex]

8 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

Has anyone considered that they may have balanced it with the Dynawing?  It isn't really OP with that.  Just a thought.

No, of course not, the Dynawing has two engines.  Real shuttles have three.  

[Guest]

Just now, regex said:

No, of course not, the Dynawing has two engines.  Real shuttles have three.  

VERY true.

I think they were in a scramble to get 1.0.5 released.  I still like it, though.

[Snark]

14 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I disagree here. I believe that an intermediate engine is needed in this range. Even more importantly, I believe a 2.5m engine that's weaker than the Skipper is needed as well.

Oh, I certainly wouldn't say "no" if they wanted to offer something there! 

It's just that I think a higher-tech 1.25m engine is more needed.  Put another way, if someone came to me and said "We're finally going to give you a new piece of rocket equipment for the first time in the past year and a half, and it's going to be an engine, and you can only have one, what would you like?", then it probably wouldn't be "a 2.5m engine midway between a Skipper and Mainsail," for me.

I kinda like the Poodle-Skipper-Mainsail trinity.  Each one is roughly a factor of three times more powerful than the last (slightly less, actually).  I find that it works out pretty well in practice.

I'd like to have a similar trinity for 1.25m.  Terrier, Swivel, ___   ... something around 2-3 times a Swivel's power.

(The other engines I'd like to see would be upscaled and downscaled nuke engines.  I'm a big fan of Atomic Age, would love to see the Candle and Nuclear Lightbulb in stock.)

Oh well, we've heard some rumors that rockets may finally be getting some love in 1.2... we'll just have to wait and see what Santa Porkjet brings. 

[Temstar]

Is a 2.5m engine between Skipper and Mainsail really needed though? Why not just:

[regex]

1 hour ago, Temstar said:

Is a 2.5m engine between Skipper and Mainsail really needed though? Why not just:

9 parts for engines versus 1.  There is a need.

[Temstar]

Come to think of it, why shouldn't all 1.25m engines be surface attachable like Vector and Aerospike. That would make the Reliant and Swivel more useful. After all their form factor make them uniquely suitable for clustering.

[FungusForge]

3 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

"The fact that they make it in your size doesn't mean that you should wear it"

Best,

-Slashy
 

 

Welp. Nothing more I could say. This perfectly covers it.

[NathanKell]

1 hour ago, Temstar said:

Come to think of it, why shouldn't all 1.25m engines be surface attachable like Vector and Aerospike. That would make the Reliant and Swivel more useful. After all their form factor make them uniquely suitable for clustering.

FTFY.

 

Well, the main reason right now is higher drag, since surface-attached parts don't get stack occlusion.

[Tweeker]

      I had time to mess around today, and I found that if the game had a SRB of about 2500 Kn thrust the vector would only need to be about 400 Kn of thrust.  I used the dynawing for testing, and after a bit of tweeking the only real sticking points are the fact that the SRB thrust doesn't taper, and the fuel tank proportions are off, visually.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Tweeker

[Jouni]

4 hours ago, Temstar said:

Is a 2.5m engine between Skipper and Mainsail really needed though? Why not just:

That looks like 6.5 tonnes, so it's even heavier than the Mainsail. What I needed was something with more thrust than the Skipper and less mass than the Mainsail. The Skipper used to be my favorite engine, but 1.0 made it too weak for many purposes. 1.0.5 solved that problem with the Vector.

[GoSlash27]

7 hours ago, Snark said:

It's just that I think a higher-tech 1.25m engine is more needed.  Put another way, if someone came to me and said "We're finally going to give you a new piece of rocket equipment for the first time in the past year and a half, and it's going to be an engine, and you can only have one, what would you like?", then it probably wouldn't be "a 2.5m engine midway between a Skipper and Mainsail," for me.

Snark,

 Yeah, I agree with this. It's all the same to me whether it's 1.25m or 2.5m, but there's a glaring hole between the Reliant and the Skipper. This hampers gameplay in early career because you get the Skipper early, but it's a bit much for the pad limit.

Best,

-Slashy

[Frozen_Heart]

I think we're just going in circles here. It always comes down to we need better SRBs to the Vectors aren't having to life the shuttle essentially by themselves. Then the Vectors can be nerfed down to a more reasonable level.

Also the tank butts argument is going to be moot as they're getting removed on all rockets.  I'm very happy with that as it makes them a lot more modular.

[Jouni]

4 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Yeah, I agree with this. It's all the same to me whether it's 1.25m or 2.5m, but there's a glaring hole between the Reliant and the Skipper. This hampers gameplay in early career because you get the Skipper early, but it's a bit much for the pad limit.

The gap is caused by the lack of 1.875 m parts. There is roughly a 3x gap in thrust and a 4x gap in stack size between the Reliant and the Skipper, meaning that the Reliant can lift a taller rocket. A Mainsail-equivalent 350-400 kN engine might be useful, but it would make an 1.25 m rocket so tall that there would be problems with the joints.

[regex]

5 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Then the Vectors can be nerfed down to a more reasonable level.

But they don't need to be nerfed.  At all.

[Tweeker]

1 hour ago, Jouni said:

The gap is caused by the lack of 1.875 m parts. There is roughly a 3x gap in thrust and a 4x gap in stack size between the Reliant and the Skipper, meaning that the Reliant can lift a taller rocket. A Mainsail-equivalent 350-400 kN engine might be useful, but it would make an 1.25 m rocket so tall that there would be problems with the joints.

   I think If you re-balanced the SRBs this gap would end up being filled. Moving the kickback up to a more shuttle equivalent range would open a big gap in the SRB range, In turn the rest of the range would need to rise to balance to the Kickback.

[Wjolcz]

What's Vector's TWR compared to, let's say Reliant's?

[blowfish]

4 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

What's Vector's TWR compared to, let's say Reliant's?

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Liquid_Fuel_Engines -> sort by TWR.

[Wjolcz]

4 minutes ago, blowfish said:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Liquid_Fuel_Engines -> sort by TWR.

Huh. Damn, seems like it's the best engine in the game. Weird that the TWR isn't stated on the actual engines' wiki sites.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Veeltch

[Red Iron Crown]

TWR of the engine itself doesn't tell the whole story though. It needs to be taken in context of the stage in which it is used.

[blowfish]

5 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Huh. Damn, seems like it's the best engine in the game. Weird that the TWR isn't stated on the actual engines' wiki sites.

Well it actually still has lower TWR than the Mammoth, and it's incredibly expensive.