The 1.25m engines suck... Bad.

[Spaceception]

Just now, Kerbart said:

The four outer boosters feed into the central core and they drop off first (Vostok/Soyuz style). Does that count as onion staging?

I used to use a Skipper and Jumbo tank for this launcher but the Reliants/Swivel get the job done for considerably less money.

Oh, then yes, but in the picture you provided, I didn't see any fuel lines, also, may I ask, how far can it go before you can't return?

[Kerbart]

Just now, Spaceception said:

Oh, then yes, but in the picture you provided, I didn't see any fuel lines, also, may I ask, how far can it go before you can't return?

Yes, I like my designs as neat and tight as possible, and I run the fuel lines very short

It makes it easily into orbit with about 500 m/s DV left, I estimate (I haven’t really checked, but it is about half a tank) — enough to comfortably dock with my Kerbin station at a 300×300km orbit, not enough to visit the moons. But I don’t need more than that; for travel beyond LKO I have a fleet of specialized transporters at my space stations.

[numerobis]

4t payload and an equal amount of fuel is roughly what I had for a lunar orbit mission carrying eight passengers. I lifted that on a kickback first stage and second stage a reliant. I had whiskers up front, canard-style, to direct me (and to reenter).

[SlabGizor117]

On 3/30/2016 at 8:32 AM, Nich said:

You are so wrong on SRBs.  Using LFBs are the equivalent of using $100 dollar gold plated Monster HDMI cables when a $2 chinese cable will work just fine.

If I was playing Career, yeah.  But I'm playing sandbox! Why not use $100 gold plated monster HDMI cables?  Like I said, I just prefer the aesthetics of LFBs.

[Xyphos]

if you don't like the 1.25m engines, feel free to edit the cfg file to your liking, nobody's forcing you to play stock. it's either that or tweakscale the rhinos, your pick.

[GoSlash27]

On 3/28/2016 at 5:30 PM, Red Iron Crown said:

Well yeah, they're going to "suck" if you play a mode where their biggest advantages (low cost, early availability) are negated.

^ I'll second that.

For career use, you want to use whatever engine will get your payload to orbit as cheap and light as possible. Not only are the 1.25m engines available early in the tech progression, but they are among the best engines in the entire game for career use. They are *horribly* underrated IMO.

Their advantages won't be noticed by people who primarily play sandbox, but for career use they're absolutely awesome.

Best,
-Slashy

 

[Nich]

20 minutes ago, SlabGizor117 said:

If I was playing Career, yeah.  But I'm playing sandbox! Why not use $100 gold plated monster HDMI cables?  Like I said, I just prefer the aesthetics of LFBs.

I guess to each his own.  If I played sandbox I would still use SRBs off the pad because it is more accurate/realistic to me same reason my kerbals do not go up in chairs.

Although after about 150t I stop using SRBs due to part count limitations.  I really wish they had some 2.5m SRBs to go with the 3.75m stuff

[Tw1]

On 28/03/2016 at 2:09 PM, bewing said:

The swivel and reliant are the very lowest tech engines on the tech tree for a reason, ya know. 

This is one reason the whole tech tree thing is a bit dumb. The engines can't be balanced evenly because someone need to be "earlier tech".

It's a resonable argument for using post tech tree science gains to unlock some upgrades to the early parts, (and having the improved version available from the start in sandbox.)

Yeah, they have a place, but it could be bigger. Once apon a time, they where the default choice for small rockets. 

Edited April 3, 2016 by Tw1

[Rune]

11 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

^ I'll second that.

For career use, you want to use whatever engine will get your payload to orbit as cheap and light as possible. Not only are the 1.25m engines available early in the tech progression, but they are among the best engines in the entire game for career use. They are *horribly* underrated IMO.

Their advantages won't be noticed by people who primarily play sandbox, but for career use they're absolutely awesome.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Yup, exactly that.

In late game and sandbox, yeah, it is hard to justify their use, and you end up using something else. Mainly, 100% recoverable SSTO's running Vectors and/or RAPIERs.

But in the beginning/middle of a career game, you are guaranteed to see no such advanced engines, and that is where you spend most of the time you play career... unless you are like me and keep using the same savegame where you have the science tree maxed out and five million in the bank, just to see how high you can get the rep bar. But that is pretty much playing sandbox, right? Whenever I start a new sandbox save, the very first thing I fly using liquid fuel is a Reliant, just like everybody else. And I use it for quite a long time in my expendable little rockets afterwards, until I am mostly completing the tech tree and can build the good recoverable stuff, because they are so cheap.

 

Rune. All in all, it is likelier that you play less with the more advanced engines, if you stick to short-ish career playthroughs.

[Norcalplanner]

13 hours ago, Nich said:

Although after about 150t I stop using SRBs due to part count limitations.  I really wish they had some 2.5m SRBs to go with the 3.75m stuff

SpaceY, my friend, SpaceY.

[Empress Neptune]

I think the 1.25 engines are perfectly usable, even in sandbox. I play sandbox with cost in mind so that advantage isn't lost in my game. Even if I didn't consider cost though, there is weight and thrust to consider. KSP only has so many parts which means that not many parts truly overlap with each other in function. When you're building smaller ships the difference in stat values between parts becomes more and more important because it gets harder to fine tune things. If you want 50% more thrust and you don't want dead weight (thrust limiting) you either need to find an engine that will provide exactly the needed thrust or use multiple engines that provide a small thrust increase. The second case is harder to do when you're on a small scale and can be hard on the large scale because of part number limitations among other things. This has led to some cases where the Reliant has been the best engine available for certain designs. In particular there was a light SSTO I was working on that couldn't get to orbit with Darts, but could easily make it with Reliants because of the better overall TWR.

 

I'm also working on a Moho rocket right now that uses Reliant and Swivel to lift and decided to change that first stage to a Skipper stage that will give the same total delta V. The performance and price are nearly the same. However, if you want more controlled acceleration, the 1.25 powered rocket is better because the TWR doesn't spike up nearly as much.

 

 

[Hysterrics]

On 3/28/2016 at 11:42 PM, Scotius said:

Vector is overpowered

Yeah, I've always thought that having a 2.5m mammoth engine is a little op.

(Quadcoupler + 4 vectors)

[samstarman5]

On 3/29/2016 at 9:31 PM, RocketBlam said:

I guess I'll say this here... I don't really know why the Juno exists, although it's kind of fun early on. What I REALLY don't understand is why the Goliath exists. It's of no use for SSTOs, so... I just wonder why they included it. I guess some people use it, for big cargo planes, though I have no idea why you'd want a big cargo plane.

I'm not saying get rid of it, I just don't know why it exists. It would be like if Squad put a locomotive engine in the game. It's like... why do I want this...

You answered your first question, so no reason to go on to that. Just last night I did my first intercontinental flight using Juno engines and they performed excellently compared to what people tend to say about them on here.

As to the Goliath, not everything has to be a SSTO. It's Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Single Stage to Orbit Program.  If it's not really applicable to your space program, don't use it. But try to keep in mind there are more ways to have a space program than just yours.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

I TOTALLY AGREE. Add some more advanced 1.25M engines!

[Tw1]

1 minute ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

I TOTALLY AGREE. Add some more advanced 1.25M engines!

Or maybe make it possible to upgrade the existing two to bring them closer to par. 

[samstarman5]

On 4/2/2016 at 8:04 PM, GoSlash27 said:

^ I'll second that.

For career use, you want to use whatever engine will get your payload to orbit as cheap and light as possible. Not only are the 1.25m engines available early in the tech progression, but they are among the best engines in the entire game for career use. They are *horribly* underrated IMO.

Their advantages won't be noticed by people who primarily play sandbox, but for career use they're absolutely awesome.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Especially when one tends to end up with Rockomax tanks before being able to get the Mainsails and Skippers on the tech tree(that fuel line makes things so much easier for Mun missions).  It's even economical to put at least four LVT-30 Reliant engines onto that for a launch stage.

4 minutes ago, Tw1 said:

Or maybe make it possible to upgrade the existing two to bring them closer to par. 

Why?  By the time any sort of upgrade becomes necessary, you should already have unlocked the Rapier and Aerospike for more push for that size.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

25 minutes ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

I TOTALLY AGREE. Add some more advanced 1.25M engines!

you mean like the vector?

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

1 minute ago, I_Killed_Jeb said:

you mean like the vector?

No, like the SpaceY 1.25M engine

[I_Killed_Jeb]

2 minutes ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

No, like the SpaceY 1.25M engine

I don't have that mod so don't know what you're referring to I'm afraid, but if anything, 1.25 has the best engines in the game - the nuke (highest ISP), the vector (highest gimblal, thrust-to-size), rapiers...

[max_creative]

1.25 meter engines suck. Mostly. The vector has really high thrust and gimbal and the LV-N has really good isp (but terrible thrust) but other than that, they suck. 3.75 are awesome though. Really high thrust and who cares about efficiency FTW!!!

[OutlawFarmer]

On 4/2/2016 at 1:15 PM, Tw1 said:

This is one reason the whole tech tree thing is a bit dumb. The engines can't be balanced evenly because someone need to be "earlier tech".

It's a resonable argument for using post tech tree science gains to unlock some upgrades to the early parts, (and having the improved version available from the start in sandbox.)

Yeah, they have a place, but it could be bigger. Once apon a time, they where the default choice for small rockets. 

The upgrade thing is genius, this way you also have more stuff to do with your hard earned science, you can make simple upgrades like 'better materials' and such to improve isp at sl/vac, trust and gimbal.

 

And I must say, I'm wishing for 2.5 SRBS for a long time

[Hodari]

On 4/2/2016 at 6:15 AM, Tw1 said:

This is one reason the whole tech tree thing is a bit dumb. The engines can't be balanced evenly because someone need to be "earlier tech".

How is it "dumb" to have a sense of progression in a game like this?  If you don't like the Career mode, no one is forcing you to play it, but a lot of people DO enjoy starting out with only the most basic parts and having to work their way up to everything else. 

[Tw1]

30 minutes ago, Hodari said:

How is it "dumb" to have a sense of progression in a game like this?  If you don't like the Career mode, no one is forcing you to play it, but a lot of people DO enjoy starting out with only the most basic parts and having to work their way up to everything else. 

My main issue with the way tech tree is implemented is that it becomes too much of a goal in and of itself.  Career mode basically runs out when the tech tree and space centre are fully completed, when really, once you're at full capability, it's time to really get going.  The Techtree and buildings seem to have become the goal of career over systems to represent other space program activites, most of which so far have been shoehorned into contracts.  Plus the balancing of the whole set of parts issue I mentioned before. Less of an issue if you have lots of RAM, especially with the comming unity 5, but it still seems a pity for me that parts get left behind.

I'm not against progression, and the tech tree can be fun.  I just don't think the way they've implemented things is as good as it could have been. 
But career's good and bad points is probably better debated in another thread. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Tw1

[Hodari]

1 minute ago, Tw1 said:

My main issue with the way tech tree is implemented is that it becomes too much of a goal in and of itself.  Career mode basically runs out when the tech tree and space centre are fully completed, when really, once you're at full capability, it's time to really get going.  The Techtree and buildings seem to have become the goal of career over systems to represent other space program activites, most of which so far have been shoehorned into contracts.  Plus the balancing of the whole set of parts issue I mentioned before. 

I'm not against progression, and the tech tree can be fun.  I just don't think the way they've implemented things is as good as it could have been. 

But this is a debate for another thread. 

 

1 minute ago, Tw1 said:

My main issue with the way tech tree is implemented is that it becomes too much of a goal in and of itself.  Career mode basically runs out when the tech tree and space centre are fully completed, when really, once you're at full capability, it's time to really get going.  The Techtree and buildings seem to have become the goal of career over systems to represent other space program activites, most of which so far have been shoehorned into contracts.  Plus the balancing of the whole set of parts issue I mentioned before. 

I'm not against progression, and the tech tree can be fun.  I just don't think the way they've implemented things is as good as it could have been. 

But this is a debate for another thread. 

Yeah, I can definitely agree with that.  There's definitely issues with how the tree is implemented(I'd also prefer a more realistic progression) and with not having any real goal beyond it.  But that still doesn't mean the idea of having a tech tree in the first place and having some things available early on that will be replaced later is dumb.

[Kosmognome]

Most people who think the 1.25m engines "suck" either completely disregard their advanatges or simply don't care.

 

The Terrier is the second most efficient chemical rocket in the game. It is only bested by the poodle, and the LV-N. So you could technically say that the poodle is "better" in some sense, but that doesn't even come close to the truth.

If you compare the terrier and the poddle, its an Isp of 345 against 350. So clearly the poodle is better, yes? Except it isn't. Take for example a munar mission for one kerbal. Using the terrier engine on both the lander and the transfer stage is highly efficient. It has good thrust for that kind of application and is only slightly less efficient then the poodle. But the poodle has much more weight. So everything you gain in efficiency of the engine is lost because you need a bigger LV to get it into space in the first place.

 

The 1.25 engines - even the sviwel and reliant, are often cost-efficient and/or weight efficient alternatives to building bigger stacks. Keeping stacks small means less overall cost. Yes, you *can* simply build bigger rockets, and for sandbox, that is ok (until you hit part count limits, where smaller stacks get desirable again), but for career, it is quite important to build efficient stacks.

 

The reliant works great as engine on LF booster stages for 2.5m or 3.75m stacks. I prefer LF boosters over SRB most of the times because they are more efficient.

 

All of the engines have their applications where they excel, and where they get beaten by other engines. But even after having access to every part, I still regularly use a lot of the 1.25m engines and 2.5m engines. Its often more important to keep the vessel small in order to save weight in the lower stages then to actually be the most efficient.

 

Imagine slapping a LV-N on the smallest fuel tank. Thats just dumb, because the engine itself has an enormous weight. You are much better of using a spark, which is a lot less eficcient, but also weighs only a fraction.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Hodari said:

 

Yeah, I can definitely agree with that.  There's definitely issues with how the tree is implemented(I'd also prefer a more realistic progression) and with not having any real goal beyond it.  But that still doesn't mean the idea of having a tech tree in the first place and having some things available early on that will be replaced later is dumb.

Maybe the way you play career, but that is not how I play career. I mostl finish the tech tree within 3-4 missions. Just some quick mun and minmus hopping does all the nodes.

 

But for me, the fun starts there in career. after that I get to do fun things. Picking contracts to explore, line them up to reap big rewards, build my orbital infrastructure on the budget I'm getting and much more. career mode has *a lot* more to offer then finishing the tech tree.