Worst engine in KSP

[GoSlash27]

5 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I have to disagree with this statement. Mathematically there may be absolute scenarios in which a 'best' engine can be said to exist, but any engineering process is a matter of compromises - thrust for mass, drag for stability - and in some cases a runner-up engine in a specific application may be the best compromise in practice for multiple applications or in situ.

The_Rocketeer,

 I can't really speak to this, since my engineering process is almost completely mathematical. For any payload, DV, t/w, and environment, I instantly know which engine/ tank combo is ideal in terms of mass and/ or cost... as well as how they all rank.

 There are some engines in the game that are just plain a poor fit, no matter what the job is. These are the ones I consider "bad".

Best,
-Slashy

[The_Rocketeer]

21 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

For any payload, DV, t/w, and environment, I instantly know which engine/ tank combo is ideal in terms of mass and/ or cost... as well as how they all rank.

Rockets are very simple vehicles but KSP has a much greater bredth of scope than simply going to space and back.

[wumpus]

59 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 There are some engines in the game that are just plain a poor fit, no matter what the job is. These are the ones I consider "bad".

I would call these "overnerfed".  I can't think of any in game, but I'm pretty sure the aerospike fit, at least between its "nerfing" (.25ish?  Before I started) and roughly 1.0 when the thrust depended on atmospheric conditions.  The ion engine has all sorts of issues since it really wants to work in full (more than exists in physics time acceleration) time acceleration, but is hardly a "bad engine".

[Joonatan1998]

The largest jet engine is pretty useless, there is almost no situation where you couldn't get better results by using several small engines.

 

It is almost purely an decorative part.

[kiwi1960]

Rocketeer put my thoughts down better than I did.

A bad engine would be RCS only going to Dres.... as an example... you might get there... one day... assuming you can actually slow down when you do get there... that is a bad engine, yes, but you'd never use it for that job... but you would use an RCS engione for what they were designed for.... in which case.... its a good engine...

ergo... no such thing as a good or bad engine... each engine has its job.... if it can do that job, then its a good engine.

The ultimate bad engine for any job would be using an air breathing propeller engine to go to the Mun... but you'd never be that foolish, would you?

So... if you design a rocket... then YOU decide what is the best engine..... there can be no "bad" engine unless you're an idiot... and no one here is an idiot.

 

6 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I have to disagree with this statement. Mathematically there may be absolute scenarios in which a 'best' engine can be said to exist, but any engineering process is a matter of compromises - thrust for mass, drag for stability - and in some cases a runner-up engine in a specific application may be the best compromise in practice for multiple applications or in situ.

dammit.... I didn't notice there were other posts on a new page, this is the post I was referring to.

[Red Iron Crown]

4 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

ergo... no such thing as a good or bad engine... each engine has its job.... if it can do that job, then its a good engine.

I would say the Twitch qualifies as a bad engine. It's stablemate, the Spark, is lighter, is more efficient in both atmosphere and vacuum, has more thrust, can be mounted axially, is available earlier in the tech tree, and is half the price. If radial mounting is important then adding a 0.625m nosecone as a mount for it makes it equal in mass while still being cheaper and retaining its other advantages. About the only thing the Twitch has going for it is greater gimbal range, and I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where that factor outweighs all the others (the difference between small vs large gimbal range being way less important than any gimbal vs no gimbal). The Twitch is just bad as it is completely outclassed by its sibling.

[kiwi1960]

4 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I would say the Twitch qualifies as a bad engine. It's stablemate, the Spark, is lighter, is more efficient in both atmosphere and vacuum, has more thrust, can be mounted axially, is available earlier in the tech tree, and is half the price. If radial mounting is important then adding a 0.625m nosecone as a mount for it makes it equal in mass while still being cheaper and retaining its other advantages. About the only thing the Twitch has going for it is greater gimbal range, and I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where that factor outweighs all the others (the difference between small vs large gimbal range being way less important than any gimbal vs no gimbal). The Twitch is just bad as it is completely outclassed by its sibling.

Yesssss...... but then, you are using the GOOD engine... the sister engine... not the "bad" engine... so if you never use the bad engine, and only the good engine, it cannot be a bad engine... as such. As I said, we are all clever and always pick the "best engine for the job".... right.... but one day.... one day... you might have a need for the Twitch ... then it comes a good engine.

 

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

The MP engine. Too low ISP

[KerikBalm]

and what would that need be?

I use the twitch from time to time, when I don't care so much about what its actually meant for and/or aesthetics.

I use a quad of them on my miner ship:

Spoiler

At most I only ever use them for a few m/s dV to slow down the docking approach. On a ship that size, RCS blocks are too weak unless you have a lot of them.

So I've got vernors for translation, the main engine I tweak down to 5% (yea, not realistic), and for retrograde thrust, I fire those 4x twitch. Could I use sparks? Yes.

Do I really care about the Isp or mass different in this application? No. Slapping them on radially without using a small nose cone (you can surface attach those I guess based on that previous post? I never tried) as suggested for the spark was just easier.

Do I really need 4x 1.25m docking ports? nope, so far I've only used two of them at once (and SSTO that transfered to Mun and docked, and then a Mun lander to go down to different biomes and return... although I considered leaving another ship docked to it that I had recently refueled... I undocked it and moved it away to lower total part count and load on my computer). I could have used a pair of 909s for retro thrust.. or a pair of sparks... whatever... I meant to use the ship for a long time in the future, so I used all the nodes for docking ports just in case.

Its a similar situation for thuds... I only use them when the dV required of them is low, and the total TWR is low. Thus the system, whatever engine chosen, doesn't have to meet very high demands. The radial attachment is convenient, and I don't like the part count expansion caused by by using adaptors to allow axial mount engines to be used in place of radial mounted engines

Edited July 30, 2016 by KerikBalm

[GoSlash27]

38 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

Yesssss...... but then, you are using the GOOD engine... the sister engine... not the "bad" engine... so if you never use the bad engine, and only the good engine, it cannot be a bad engine... as such. As I said, we are all clever and always pick the "best engine for the job".... right.... but one day.... one day... you might have a need for the Twitch ... then it comes a good engine.

 

kiwi1960,

 I suppose this is where we differ. The fact that I never use certain engines is *because* I consider them to be bad. Their non- use does not make them "good" engines by my criteria, it merely makes them so bad that I can't justify their use. 

 But again... I'm going by strictly stock career. I'm sure deviating from that opens things up quite a bit.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

Edited July 30, 2016 by GoSlash27

[kiwi1960]

27 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

kiwi1960,

 I suppose this is where we differ. The fact that I never use certain engines is *because* I consider them to be bad. Their non- use does not make them "good" engines by my criteria, it merely makes them so bad that I can't justify their use. 

 But again... I'm going by strictly stock career. I'm sure deviating from that opens things up quite a bit.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

I don't mind agreeing to disagree... except.... never say never! I play sandbox, all engines are good, the ones you may consider bad are engines I just haven't found a need for yet.

Unless.... well... really, to me, the only BAD engine is one with a bug and doesn't work.... at all...

[Red Iron Crown]

1 hour ago, kiwi1960 said:

Yesssss...... but then, you are using the GOOD engine... the sister engine... not the "bad" engine... so if you never use the bad engine, and only the good engine, it cannot be a bad engine... as such. As I said, we are all clever and always pick the "best engine for the job".... right.... but one day.... one day... you might have a need for the Twitch ... then it comes a good engine.

 

This post confuses me. Yes, it is a bad engine because I am comparing it to a good one that pretty much strictly outclasses it. If it was a good engine there would be characteristics of it that would make it worthwhile to use versus the other engines in some cases, as is the case with almost all the others.

56 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I use the twitch from time to time, when I don't care so much about what its actually meant for and/or aesthetics.

I would never argue against the Rule of Cool. If you like how it aesthetically or find it more convenient to use then have at it, I won't criticize. But for a (generally) by-the-numbers person like me it really doesn't offer much.

56 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Slapping them on radially without using a small nose cone (you can surface attach those I guess based on that previous post? I never tried) as suggested for the spark was just easier.

Yes, nose cones work very well as radial engine mounts, they are all radially attachable and don't need fuel lines (I think, haven't tried with the 2.5m one). It's a bit more useful for engines that have no similar radial mount versions, like the LV-N.

[cantab]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

If radial mounting is important then adding a 0.625m nosecone as a mount for it makes it equal in mass while still being cheaper and retaining its other advantages.

Except that the Twitch is considerably more compact. That matters if the ship has to fit inside a cargo bay, or might mean it can use a narrower fairing which makes the launcher more stable.

[Jarin]

20 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

I don't mind agreeing to disagree... except.... never say never! I play sandbox, all engines are good, the ones you may consider bad are engines I just haven't found a need for yet.

Unless.... well... really, to me, the only BAD engine is one with a bug and doesn't work.... at all...

I think for this argument to work, you have to actually come up with a scenario - ANY scenario - where the Twitch would be better used than the Spark.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I would say the Twitch qualifies as a bad engine. It's stablemate, the Spark, is lighter, is more efficient in both atmosphere and vacuum, has more thrust, can be mounted axially, is available earlier in the tech tree, and is half the price. If radial mounting is important then adding a 0.625m nosecone as a mount for it makes it equal in mass while still being cheaper and retaining its other advantages. About the only thing the Twitch has going for it is greater gimbal range, and I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where that factor outweighs all the others (the difference between small vs large gimbal range being way less important than any gimbal vs no gimbal). The Twitch is just bad as it is completely outclassed by its sibling.

Twitch and puff get an penalty from being radial, this might be too high as experienced players has various workarounds.  

[Wildcat111]

On 2016-07-03 at 5:31 PM, Dfthu said:

The flea SRB. Nobody ever uses it besides their first flight in career mode.

I use the Flea SRB a lot. It gives your vessel a little kick. I personally dislike the LV-909, but I only dislike it when it is in the atmosphere, where it has little thrust.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Wildcat111

[Geschosskopf]

On 7/3/2016 at 6:13 PM, goduranus said:

does anyone think that there may be a worst engine?

That's easy!  Unity!

[GoSlash27]

25 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

That's easy!  Unity!

We have a winner!

[kiwi1960]

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

This post confuses me. Yes, it is a bad engine because I am comparing it to a good one that pretty much strictly outclasses it. If it was a good engine there would be characteristics of it that would make it worthwhile to use versus the other engines in some cases, as is the case with almost all the others.

I would have a need for such an engine, maybe, for slight orbital changes or docking... I cannot say I ever used that engine because there are those engines I use all the time, to the exclusion of all others... however.... if you class an engine as bad before you have even used it, then, in my case, chances are you won't even look at it as a viable option when it comes to selecting an engine for a particular task... do that and you lose out on how good the engine can be for that task. I think I used it on a rover once, but not sure now.

Anyhow... I'm not a subtle person... if a skipper can get me to the Mun in half the time, then so be it... but all engines have their place in the game... never say never... they could add a mission to the stock game and the little twitch will have found its place in the game... chances are, if you can convince the devs to dump a "bad" engine, 30 minutes are its gone you might find a use for it.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone's opinion... you say its a bad engine... I say.... maybe when you NEED it, you will appreciate it ... that is all... you may never have a need for it, but why take the chance.

Edited July 31, 2016 by kiwi1960
typo

[Wildcat111]

4 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

That's easy!  Unity!

What is the Unity engine?

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, Wildcat111 said:

What is the Unity engine?

 That's beyond our borders. You must never go there, Simba...

 Seriously, it's the game engine that KSP switched to in ( I think) 1.1.1. It caused all sorts of problems, some of which have yet to be fixed.

Best,
-Slashy

[W. Kerman]

1 hour ago, Wildcat111 said:

What is the Unity engine?

What KSP runs on, worst engine in my opinion is the... Kraken Drive, hard to make, hard to use, and cheaty.

[Alshain]

15 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 That's beyond our borders. You must never go there, Simba...

 Seriously, it's the game engine that KSP switched to in ( I think) 1.1.1. It caused all sorts of problems, some of which have yet to be fixed.

Best,
-Slashy

KSP has always been Unity, it just upgraded to a newer version in 1.1.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Alshain

[Geschosskopf]

8 hours ago, Wildcat111 said:

What is the Unity engine?

To explain in a little more detail than others have above.

Pretty much all games these days have what's called an "engine".  The engine is the core functionality that handles most of the way the game actually crunches numbers, handles I/O, etc.  These core functions are common to all games of a certain genre so game engines have become a commodity.  If you want to make your own game, you can buy an off-the-shelf engine instead of having to write your own, then just hang your own graphics and sounds on it.  It's somewhat more complicated than that, but that's the concept of a "game engine" it in a nutshell.

Thing is, there are bunch of game engines on the market.  Some are specialized for one genre or other, some are more generic.  Some are specialized for 1 platform, others are cross-platform.  Some are top-shelf and very expensive, some aren't so good and are relatively cheap.  Due to lack of money, indie game devs are often forced to use the inferior, generic engines.  The Unity engine is a member of this class and can be found in a huge number of indie games of many different genres.

The reason I say that Unity is the worst engine in KSP is because, being very generic, it doesn't do anything particularly well.

 

 

[Wildcat111]

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

To explain in a little more detail than others have above.

Pretty much all games these days have what's called an "engine".  The engine is the core functionality that handles most of the way the game actually crunches numbers, handles I/O, etc.  These core functions are common to all games of a certain genre so game engines have become a commodity.  If you want to make your own game, you can buy an off-the-shelf engine instead of having to write your own, then just hang your own graphics and sounds on it.  It's somewhat more complicated than that, but that's the concept of a "game engine" it in a nutshell.

Thing is, there are bunch of game engines on the market.  Some are specialized for one genre or other, some are more generic.  Some are specialized for 1 platform, others are cross-platform.  Some are top-shelf and very expensive, some aren't so good and are relatively cheap.  Due to lack of money, indie game devs are often forced to use the inferior, generic engines.  The Unity engine is a member of this class and can be found in a huge number of indie games of many different genres.

The reason I say that Unity is the worst enginein KSP is because, being very generic, it doesn't do anything particularly well.

I totally forgot about that! I thought you were talking about the physical parts.