Very easy to implement features and parts that would add a lot to the game

[Hodo]

On 12/22/2015 at 5:57 PM, einzelgaenger said:

This, a million times. Funny how people who don't do software development think it must be a trivial job to design and make something in code.

I here the samething in the automotive world also...

 

Hell changing sparkplugs thats easy.  LOL till you show them that the 5.7L LS1 that they have under the hood of that Camaro is wedged so tight in their that you have to have a special tool to get to them.

 

 

[Francois424]

6 hours ago, The Optimist said:

Do you actually think a 100 thrust ion engine is a good idea? Please say no, please say no...

Personally I actually think yes, but Kerbal Space Program is not an MMO, it's a personal game everyone plays in his or her own style.
That being said, in order to keep the basic, un-modded game balanced, I agree with KerikBalm on the proposed Ion engines : 2kn(current, 0,625) - 8kn (1,25m) - 32 kn (2,5m)
If anyone disagrees with the stats, everything is easily changeable into the files afterwards.

Why do I think that a 2,5m engine should have 100kn, even Ions ?   Because my mothership had 2000kn of thrust and it still took 30 IN-GAME minutes to do a 5k burn (or about 1h10min of my RL time).
It was borderline what I can stomach.  Now imagine my same mothership with say, 4 of these 2,5m 100kn ion engines...  that makes it a 5h burn.  Completely insane, lol.
But that's just me.   Again, number are adjustable after the developers introduces beautiful quality parts into the stock game, and who knows, 128kn (4x 2.5m) might be enough since I'll carry 5x less fuel.

Looking forward to the future of KSP after 64-bits.
 

[Hodo]

1 minute ago, Francois424 said:

Personally I actually think yes, but Kerbal Space Program is not an MMO, it's a personal game everyone plays in his or her own style.
That being said, in order to keep the basic, un-modded game balanced, I agree with KerikBalm on the proposed Ion engines : 2kn(current, 0,625) - 8kn (1,25m) - 32 kn (2,5m)
If anyone disagrees with the stats, everything is easily changeable into the files afterwards.

Why do I think that a 2,5m engine should have 100kn, even Ions ?   Because my mothership had 2000kn of thrust and it still took 30 IN-GAME minutes to do a 5k burn (or about 1h10min of my RL time).
It was borderline what I can stomach.  Now imagine my same mothership with say, 4 of these 2,5m 100kn ion engines...  that makes it a 5h burn.  Completely insane, lol.
But that's just me.   Again, number are adjustable after the developers introduces beautiful quality parts into the stock game, and who knows, 128kn (4x 2.5m) might be enough since I'll carry 5x less fuel.

Looking forward to the future of KSP after 64-bits.
 

 

Why do you need more powerful Ion engines, they are already 10x more powerful than anything found today.   If you need to take a craft that far into space, you should use nukes. 

 

I have had a very successful Ion powered ship in the past. 

used a couple of nukes as an gravity kicker, to get it out of the gravity wells of some planets. 

[KerikBalm]

13 hours ago, Hodo said:

I here the samething in the automotive world also...

 

Hell changing sparkplugs thats easy.  LOL till you show them that the 5.7L LS1 that they have under the hood of that Camaro is wedged so tight in their that you have to have a special tool to get to them.

 

 

Except what he proposed really was a 5 minute job, like checking tire pressure on a standard car.

He acknowledged that to do a retexturing job(which is nice but not needed would significantly increase the time required.

9 hours ago, Francois424 said:

Why do I think that a 2,5m engine should have 100kn, even Ions ?   Because my mothership had 2000kn of thrust and it still took 30 IN-GAME minutes to do a 5k burn (or about 1h10min of my RL time).
It was borderline what I can stomach.  Now imagine my same mothership with say, 4 of these 2,5m 100kn ion engines...  that makes it a 5h burn.  Completely insane, lol.
But that's just me.   Again, number are adjustable after the developers introduces beautiful quality parts into the stock game, and who knows, 128kn (4x 2.5m) might be enough since I'll carry 5x less fuel.

Looking forward to the future of KSP after 64-bits.
 

If you need to do a 5,000 m/s burn in a short period of time, ion engines aren't what you should use.

That argument is as valid as if I were to argue that the Isp of monoprop engines needs to be increasedd because of the obsecene size of the stages I would need to get 5km/s dV out of a monoprop stage.

Also, 30 min = 108,000 seconds.  5,000 m/s / 108,000s = 0.0463 m/s/s    (0.00472g)

1kN accelerates 1 ton at 1m/s/s. 2000 kN would accelerate 2000 tons at 1 m/s/s

1/0.0463 = 21.6.... so 21.6* 2000 = 43,200... Your mothership was about 43,000 tons?!?!?!?

An you were trying to push it with the equivalent of 1x KR-2L?????

I'm sorry, but I think the problem here is your design. (to me) the fund of this game is to make designs that work within the constraints of the capabilities of the parts.

Ships should be designed to work with the stats of the parts. The stats of the parts should not be changed just so that your one particular ship design will work.

[pandaman]

As I see it, the stock engines are intended to be sensibly realistic 'versions' of existing, or in development, RL engines.  We can't 'decide' to just stick a super powerful ion engine on a shuttle because we just don't have one, or the tech to make one in the foreseeable future, if we had I think NASA would have tried it by now, we have to use what's actually available and stock KSP should IMO be no different.  To me that is one of the appeals of the game.

If individual players want to defy the laws of physics by using mods or tweaking the numbers to achieve their dreams then that's fine.

[quasarrgames]

ooooo... *rubs hands together*        I have a LOT of stuff to add to this!

-small 1.25m nuclear reactor: generates lots of power at the expense of giving off CRAZY waste heat

-nuclear fuel/waste bin: generic heavy tank to store nuclear fuel and nuclear waste from the reactor

-thermal turbojet: requires intakeair and a huge amount of power but is more efficient in atmo than the rapier

-make these 1.25 and 2.5m ion engines require a nuclear amount of power in order to justify their crazyness

 

also, this thread is turning into an old one called the completely agreed addition thread

[klgraham1013]

A few things that wouldn't take much effort?

Change the default throttle to 0...or 100.  Not a single number in between.

Add an option for non-confetti fairings.  According to the mod maker, at least, it didn't take much effort.

[A35K]

I don't think that ion engines should be made more powerful. In fact, they are WAY overpowered currently, in fact I tweaked them back to their original thrust of 0.5kN, which is still overpowered.

[StarManta]

The problem with ion engines is a problem with the rails physics system - specifically, that to thrust at all you have to have the ship focused and not 'on rails', limiting you to 4x time. Anything proposed in this thread is going to be a stopgap at best. The proper solution would be a low-thrust-allowed time warp added to the rails physics system. 

The 'low-thrust-compatible time warp' is probably not an easy to implement feature so I've made it its own thread instead.