Engines revamp - Thrust and performance changes discussion

[passinglurker]

I don't mind that people have the ability to part clip just don't expect me to watch a streamer mold a mass of thermometers and wing panels and lander cans into the shape of Soyuz for hours on end only to see it all bug out and here the streamer repeat "why isn't it working!?" Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over when they finally launch the dang thing. (Looking at you ej and das)

But ghost meshes like compact vector or jet engine compressors are fine by me they don't cause krakens.  As for looks I don't care about jet vtol's there has only been one operational jet vtol in history (harrier) and the rest are ducted fans and helicopter rotors driven off a turbo shaft engine so I'd think it would be better to give the enthusiasts more specialized parts.

Edited September 19, 2016 by passinglurker

[Red Iron Crown]

15 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

there has only been one operational jet vtol in history (harrier)

Yak-38 though.

[Tweeker]

On 9/14/2016 at 10:08 PM, Aegolius13 said:

Like the Whiplash?  I know very little about real life engines, but aren't the SR-71 engines ramjet-ish, and still capable of flying from standstill (albeit not at great performance)?  Ditto for the SABRE, at least as designed.  

The engines where standard turbo-jets, except there where bypass ducts installed from the middle of the compressor section(I don't remember what stage)  to the afterburner.  At high speed the afterburner supplied all of the thrust, with the core engine only running to turn the front 1/2 of the compressor.

   So ramjet-ish

[Tweeker]

12 hours ago, regex said:

 

It hasn't been cut down. At all. In any case with a compact engine. You're literally imagining things.

If you look at most of the compact engines, they are the same height, or taller.

The Vector, and Rhino on the other hand are noticeably shorter and  narrower,

 

 

Making these 2  compact engines as tall as their full sized counter parts would cause no problems. All the other compact engines are no narrower than the width of the engine bell. There is literally no reason for then to be so much shorter or narrow than the rest of the engines.

 

Bringing them in line with the rest of the engines creates no problems.

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Tweeker

[regex]

7 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Making these 2  compact engines as tall as their full sized counter parts would cause no problems. All the other compact engines are no narrower than the width of the engine bell. There is literally no reason for then to be so much shorter or narrow than the rest of the engines.

And there is literally no reason to make them larger because there is nothing wrong with them. In fact, the Vector is probably made the way it is so we can make an STS-thing what looks kind of like the STS. The Rhino just deals away with the tankbutt and puts a smaller thrust structure where the combustion chamber ends, NBD.

7 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Bringing them in line with the rest of the engines creates no problems.

It also solves no problems. vOv

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

If you look at most of the compact engines, they are the same height, or taller.

They appear taller because the tank butt is thicker in order to comply with the design objective that the compact parts be rotation friendly. in reality the attachment node is in the middle of this thick butt and no further from the end of the nozzle than the standard or boat tail modes meaning half the tank butt clips into the structure above by design. You can see this rotation friendly behavior in the current aerospike and vector engines.

2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

The Vector, and Rhino on the other hand are noticeably shorter and  narrower,

Because of legacy reasons the standard mode rhino is taller than it needs to be engineering wise in order to fit the dimensions of the old rhino it's replacing. most of its height is  just structural more so than any other engine. The compact rhino isn't so constrained and as a result in compiling with the design objective that compact versions be as compact as mechanically possible the difference is much more pronounced but no part of the true power head is lost or cut off in the compacting process. only the structural elements are changed.

There is no problem here.

Vector has legacy reasons as well of its design. In order to fit into the same dimensions as the old part it is meant to replace one of the modes need to fit the old dimensions. For this reason compact can not be made taller without breaking saves still despite this all mechanical parts seen in standard mode are represented as ghost meshes in the design so no part of the power head is missing, and only the structural elements are different. Clipping a ghost mesh is an acceptable and in this case preferred solution in order to preserve save integrity and allow shuttle builds. Also its one engine and no one is making you use it in compact mode.

There is no problem here.

2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

Making these 2  compact engines as tall as their full sized counter parts would cause no problems

In the vectors case it would break saves in the rhino's case it would not conform to the design objectives as stated in the concept art document. your statement is completely false please rectify or retract it the debate is not helped by spreading outright falsehoods as absolute truth.

2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

There is literally no reason for then to be so much shorter or narrow than the rest of the engines.

save integrity preservation, compliance with design objectives, sticking radial parts between the butts on the bottom of the tank, simply granting greater creative freedom as a result of being end game top tier parts on the tech tree, also you used literally wrong

2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

Bringing them in line with the rest of the engines creates no problems.

As proven and detailed above doing what you are proposing creates problems. Your statement is false acknowledge this.

Edited September 20, 2016 by passinglurker

[Frozen_Heart]

6 hours ago, Tweeker said:

If you look at most of the compact engines, they are the same height, or taller.

 

The Vector, and Rhino on the other hand are noticeably shorter and  narrower,

 

 

Making these 2  compact engines as tall as their full sized counter parts would cause no problems. All the other compact engines are no narrower than the width of the engine bell. There is literally no reason for then to be so much shorter or narrow than the rest of the engines.

 

Bringing them in line with the rest of the engines creates no problems.

 

 

 

 

I agree that the Rhino would work just as fine with that extended section, and it would work just as well and look more realistic like that.

However I wouldn't want the Vector to be stuck that far out, and it should have its machinery recessed into the tank and therefore have its tankbutt closer to the nozzle, as the engine is designed for space shuttle use and having it sticking out with all the machiary showing would ruin those craft.

This pic shows that not all of the engine has to be on show.

[Tweeker]

18 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I agree that the Rhino would work just as fine with that extended section, and it would work just as well and look more realistic like that.

However I wouldn't want the Vector to be stuck that far out, and it should have its machinery recessed into the tank and therefore have its tankbutt closer to the nozzle, as the engine is designed for space shuttle use and having it sticking out with all the machiary showing would ruin those craft.

This pic shows that not all of the engine has to be on show.

I am glad you can see my point on the Rhino,.

I understand why you want the Vector to appear realistic when mounted to the Mk3 shuttle engine mount, But there is no reason that the MK3 shuttle engine mount could not be changed to have recessed mounting points.   

In that way you could mount the Vector and have it look right in this one situation, and It would not have to behave differently than the rest of the rocket engines.  There is no good or compelling reason for the Vector to be the way it is currently.

[Temeter]

If you don't like the vector, just use another engine. Currently it's big advantage is that it's a lot more versatile, being so tiny and having it's machinery below the node, combined with Sustainer-ISP and high vector range.

So no, we do not want Squad to make that engine just like any other just because it hurts your selfish idea of how a rocket engine in this game should work.

[regex]

6 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I agree that the Rhino would work just as fine with that extended section, and it would work just as well and look more realistic like that.

I'm curious why you think it'd be "more realistic"?

E: Take the AJ-10 on the Delta as an example. It is attached to the tank and thrust structure at a point much smaller than its bell. There is nothing "realistic" about a thrust structure or attachment point being at least as wide as the engine bell, that's all engineering. If anything, making that attachment point on the Rhino bigger rules out potential uses for no good reason.

5 hours ago, Tweeker said:

I understand why you want the Vector to appear realistic when mounted to the Mk3 shuttle engine mount, But there is no reason that the MK3 shuttle engine mount could not be changed to have recessed mounting points.

Well now you've ruined other uses of the Mk3 mount. I could have used that with a compact Rhino but it looks like utter crap now, and I can't have a two-engined STS, or a four engined STS...

I mean, if all you want it to see the machinery on the compact Vector then all Porkjet would have to do is make a second variant of the compact Vector without the fairing, the engine is perfectly fine as-is.

Edited September 20, 2016 by regex

[passinglurker]

5 hours ago, Tweeker said:

I understand why you want the Vector to appear realistic when mounted to the Mk3 shuttle engine mount, But there is no reason that the MK3 shuttle engine mount could not be changed to have recessed mounting points.

In that way you could mount the Vector and have it look right in this one situation, and It would not have to behave differently than the rest of the rocket engines.  There is no good or compelling reason for the Vector to be the way it is currently

ahem... again...

Changing the vector would break saves!!!

...how is this not a good reason to be the way it currently is? 

also a tall vector with a recessed mk3 mount is a jigsaw puzzle fit. Ksp parts are supposed to be like space legos not jigsaw puzzles you are basically ruling out any other use for the mk3 mount not to mention you can't rotate anything recessed into the mounting holes because the engines rotate at the top attachment node and that's not to mention how ridiculously complex the multi-mesh collider would have to be to have 3 recessed holes in it you clearly know nothing about what goes into making a part for kerbal.

Your statements of there being no good reasons are plainly false and I will have either you or every other reader of this thread acknowledge this.

[passinglurker]

1 hour ago, regex said:

I mean, if all you want it to see the machinery on the compact Vector then all Porkjet would have to do is make a second variant of the compact Vector without the fairing, the engine is perfectly fine as-is.

I could co-exist with two compact variants, but I doubt tweekers obsession could.  

[Temeter]

1 hour ago, regex said:

I mean, if all you want it to see the machinery on the compact Vector then all Porkjet would have to do is make a second variant of the compact Vector without the fairing, the engine is perfectly fine as-is.

You mean like... Just using the the normal size 2  vector :^)

Or just use gizmos to pull the compact vector down a bit, so you see exposed machinery.

[Frozen_Heart]

2 hours ago, regex said:

I'm curious why you think it'd be "more realistic"?

E: Take the AJ-10 on the Delta as an example. It is attached to the tank and thrust structure at a point much smaller than its bell. There is nothing "realistic" about a thrust structure or attachment point being at least as wide as the engine bell, that's all engineering. If anything, making that attachment point on the Rhino bigger rules out potential uses for no good reason.

Well now you've ruined other uses of the Mk3 mount. I could have used that with a compact Rhino but it looks like utter crap now, and I can't have a two-engined STS, or a four engined STS...

I mean, if all you want it to see the machinery on the compact Vector then all Porkjet would have to do is make a second variant of the compact Vector without the fairing, the engine is perfectly fine as-is.

I'm not an expert on rocket engines, so I assume that huge amorphous mass on top of the rhino is something important? I understand the machinery underneath that but no clue what that part is.

[IronCretin]

Actually, the rhino looks like it's based on the J-2X, which has a smaller upper thing (sorry, idk what its actual name is):

[regex]

22 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I'm not an expert on rocket engines, so I assume that huge amorphous mass on top of the rhino is something important? I understand the machinery underneath that but no clue what that part is.

You mean the cone? That's the bottom of the tank and some structural elements. It is in no way required for the engine to function properly and is, in fact, a part of the rocket, not the engine. It is the interface between the structural parts of the rocket and the engine. The fact that it is a part of the rocket is one of the reasons you see people mad about "tankbutts", because they restrict possible designs for no good (aesthetic or realistic) reason.

Rocket engines are attached to a craft in a structurally sound manner so that the structure can handle the tremendous force the engine is putting out and that will vary by design (E: a great example of this is the RS-25. They didn't exactly take the entire thrust structure of the STS and slap it on the bottom of the SLS, that would have been stupid). Artificially restricting how the engine can be attached (for instance, by including an expected thrust structure and tank end cap) reduces the possible uses for the engine. Again, the AJ-10 is a great example. On the Delta it is attached to the bottom of a tapered sphere whereas on the Transtage there are two attached to what is likely a wider structure. If the AJ-10 were modeled to include the Delta structure it would inhibit efforts to use it on the Transtage due to a larger than necessary model. The thrust-bearing structure is different on the Transtage than the Delta, but they both use the same engine (family). Therefore it is, IMO, always better to model the engine as separate from the structure. Porkjet has done a good job of that with the compact engines, providing a minimum (although not "bare minimum") of structure for aesthetics.

Edited September 20, 2016 by regex

[passinglurker]

35 minutes ago, IronCretin said:

Actually, the rhino looks like it's based on the J-2X, which has a smaller upper thing (sorry, idk what its actual name is):

more than that they are virtually identical minus some tiny details like thin pipes and wires, and give or take an artistic license.

Really the difference is so minute we can almost assume this is what porkjet used as a design reference.

[KSK]

16 hours ago, regex said:

And there is literally no reason to make them larger because there is nothing wrong with them. In fact, the Vector is probably made the way it is so we can make an STS-thing what looks kind of like the STS. The Rhino just deals away with the tankbutt and puts a smaller thrust structure where the combustion chamber ends, NBD.

It also solves no problems. vOv

Agree with this. Take Porkjet's engines, add extra tankbutt and voila - a different engine. Not really a better one in my opinion.

[HebaruSan]

This "compact" mode is an impressive bit of design work; I can hardly wait to play with the new clustering options and enjoy others' screenshots of same. Though I do wonder whether decouplers will need some additional options for situations when a tank bottom's central node is left empty.

On 9/17/2016 at 8:44 AM, Araym said:

Will a "surface attachable" one weight less compared to the other two version, even if probably more draggy to compensate?

That would make sense, and might even fall out of the existing drag model "naturally" if a node with a compact engine counted as completely non-occluded. I wonder whether we'll be able to work around that by combining a central boattail engine with a ring of compacts; this configuration is SSTO-capable in the 1.2 pre-release (but obviously uglified by the extra tankbutts sticking out and the legacy Skipper):

[regex]

21 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Though I do wonder whether decouplers will need some additional options for situations when a tank bottom's central node is left empty.

In that sort of situation I usually use a "post" of some sort that the decoupler can sit on, an I-beam or girder works, plus some space tape. That's for stock, though. Procedural Fairings has a configurable height node that you can place the upper stage on.

Quote

With this kind of thing the top nodes of the LV-T engines should still be clear, stick some nosecones or those long airplane tails on top (how we used to do clustering before surface attachment). That'll make it look pretty good. Of course, it would be really nice if we had ultra-compact engine mounting for things like that...

Edited September 20, 2016 by regex

[HebaruSan]

Just now, regex said:

In that sort of situation I usually use a "post" of some sort that the decoupler can sit on, an I-beam or girder works, plus some space tape.

Yeah, that works. It would be nice if we didn't have to construct our own interstage fairings somehow, but that's probably too much to ask.

Just now, regex said:

With this kind of thing the top nodes of the LV-T engines should still be clear, stick some nosecones or those long airplane tails on top (how we used to do clustering before surface attachment). That'll make it look pretty good. Of course, it would be really nice if we had ultra-compact engine mounting for things like that...

Oh, I just used cubic octagonals to simulate compact mode, solely to illustrate the boattail/compact hybrid concept. I kind of wanted it to look bad to illustrate a potential use case for compact mode.

[regex]

Just now, HebaruSan said:

Yeah, that works. It would be nice if we didn't have to construct our own interstage fairings somehow, but that's probably too much to ask.

I completely agree that Procedural Fairings is far superior. Also Procedural Tanks. Also B9 Procedural Wings.

Basically the LEGO paradigm is terrible.

But yeah, a configurable attach node would be fantastic.

Just now, HebaruSan said:

Oh, I just used cubic octagonals to simulate compact mode, solely to illustrate the boattail/compact hybrid concept. I kind of wanted it to look bad to illustrate a potential use case for compact mode.

Believe me, I've been wanting compact engines for years. I cannot wait for this to be stock all the way.

DEATH TO TANKBUTTS!

[Tweeker]

7 hours ago, regex said:

Well now you've ruined other uses of the Mk3 mount. I could have used that with a compact Rhino but it looks like utter crap now, and I can't have a two-engined STS, or a four engined STS...

I mean, if all you want it to see the machinery on the compact Vector then all Porkjet would have to do is make a second variant of the compact Vector without the fairing, the engine is perfectly fine as-is.

 

6 hours ago, passinglurker said:

ahem... again...

Changing the vector would break saves!!!

...how is this not a good reason to be the way it currently is? 

also a tall vector with a recessed mk3 mount is a jigsaw puzzle fit. Ksp parts are supposed to be like space legos not jigsaw puzzles you are basically ruling out any other use for the mk3 mount not to mention you can't rotate anything recessed into the mounting holes because the engines rotate at the top attachment node and that's not to mention how ridiculously complex the multi-mesh collider would have to be to have 3 recessed holes in it you clearly know nothing about what goes into making a part for kerbal.

Your statements of there being no good reasons are plainly false and I will have either you or every other reader of this thread acknowledge this.

The MK3 engine mount is going to have to be changed, you might as well get used to the idea. You seem to have made up your minds, but really you need to make peace with the idea. Otherwise you'l be right back here in 6 months or a year ranting and raving at Squad over the change. It is really for the best that you accept this.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Tweeker

[regex]

1 minute ago, Tweeker said:

The MK3 engine mount is going to have to be changed, you might as well get used to the idea. You seem to have made up your minds, but really you need to make peace with the idea. Otherwise you'l be right back here in 6 months or a year ranting and raving at Squad over the change. It is really for the best that you accept this.

 C'mon, don't you have any material left?

[passinglurker]

13 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

 

The MK3 engine mount is going to have to be changed, you might as well get used to the idea. You seem to have made up your minds, but really you need to make peace with the idea. Otherwise you'l be right back here in 6 months or a year ranting and raving at Squad over the change. It is really for the best that you accept this.

The Vector and MK3 engine mount is going to have to remain unchanged, you might as well get used to the idea. You seem to have made up your mind, but really you need to make peace with the idea. Otherwise you'l be right back here in 6 months or a year ranting and raving at Squad over the change. It is really for the best that you accept this.