Engines revamp - Thrust and performance changes discussion

[Tweeker]

13 minutes ago, regex said:

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

 

 

2 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

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.

The funny thing is your going to be upset if Squad doesn't change the mount.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Tweeker

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, Tweeker said:

 

 

The funny thing is your going to be upset if Squad doesn't change the mount.

Not really because they aren't changing how the engine attaches. It will attach at the throat as it should.

Really what makes you so sure I'd be so upset?

[regex]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

Really what makes you so sure I'd be so upset?

This'll be rich.

[HebaruSan]

21 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.

 

2 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The funny thing is your going to be upset if Squad doesn't change the mount.

In the abstract, I would also prefer a model where an engine is an engine and the only thing special about a Shuttle is that part of the engines are embedded in the fuselage, rather than which engines are used. It would restore some of the mix-and-match Lego building capability that's missing when only one otherwise ordinary engine is arbitrarily singled out for that role; it should be viable to swap in other engines and achieve the same style just as easily. Always having exactly 1000 kN of thrust on the orbiter is a bit limiting (consider a smaller shuttle where that would be overkill). Maybe a secondary "embedded mode" attach point could be defined for each engine, to be used by the Mk3 engine mount plus other similar parts when hiding the upper bits is desirable (perhaps some of the unfueled 2.5m -> 1.25m adapters could also take advantage of this?).

However, they're right about saves breaking, and this is a pretty rarefied complaint for such a major effort; anyone sufficiently invested in the game to want this is likely more than capable of clipping other engines as desired with gizmos. Besides, the Mk3 engine mount already has a more serious issue: the attach nodes point straight forwards/backwards in line with the craft's angle of attack by default, and there's no good way to tilt all 3 appropriately at once. A Shuttle needs them to be angled to point through the center of mass of the launch stack. I'll admit I've resorted to tilting the engine mount itself when the individual torque adjustments just got to be too tedious.

[Temeter]

I don't mind Squad breaking crafts. Rebuilding things to be better is one of the joys of KSP.

[Gaarst]

2 minutes ago, Temeter said:

I don't mind Squad breaking crafts. Rebuilding things to be better is one of the joys of KSP.

If Squad breaks crafts everything is going to be on fire again (with riots and stuff on the forums). 1.0 had the excuse of being the official game release but a "mijor" (or "manor") update will trigger the apocalypse on the forums for sure.

[Temeter]

43 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

If Squad breaks crafts everything is going to be on fire again (with riots and stuff on the forums). 1.0 had the excuse of being the official game release but a "mijor" (or "manor") update will trigger the apocalypse on the forums for sure.

Ha, that'll teach them. People need to git gud >:D

[Tweeker]

2 hours ago, regex said:

This'll be rich.

Because the engine re-vamp adds machinery to the top of the Vector. (and rightly so) So your shuttle will have the gimbals, and powerhead hanging out the back.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Because the engine re-vamp adds machinery to the top of the Vector. (and rightly so) So your shuttle will have the gimbals, and powerhead hanging out the back.

So what you're saying is that the devs will be removing the translation editing tools I can use to recess them?

THE HORROR!

[Tweeker]

2 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

 

In the abstract, I would also prefer a model where an engine is an engine and the only thing special about a Shuttle is that part of the engines are embedded in the fuselage, rather than which engines are used. It would restore some of the mix-and-match Lego building capability that's missing when only one otherwise ordinary engine is arbitrarily singled out for that role; it should be viable to swap in other engines and achieve the same style just as easily.

Exactly ! there is no reason the Vector should be any different than any engine. Squad created a problem when they gave us a hacked-off engine, rather than a proper engine mount.

[regex]

30 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Ha, that'll teach them. People need to git gud >:D

git gud scrub #MLG420NOSCOPEREBUILDERRYDAY

Edited September 21, 2016 by regex

[Tweeker]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

So what you're saying is that the devs will be removing the translation editing tools I can use to recess them?

THE HORROR!

Well your complaing now about  the idea of a full height Vector, saying that the only way it can be used is by having the power head cut off.

If you know how to use the translate tools then you should have no objection to fixing the Vector, But you've been ranting and raving against the idea for days.

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Tweeker

[regex]

1 minute ago, Tweeker said:

Well your complaing now about  the idea of a full height Vector, saying that the only way it can be used is by having the power head cut off.

The power head isn't cut off, I've been explaining this to you for several pages.

[ChickenNugger429]

As much as I appreciate reading repetitive discussions on 'magic nozzles', 'tankbutts', 'powerheads', and how this certain information about certain components of rockets isn't really getting through to certain individual(s?), thus having a vicious cycle of this argument over and over and over for god knows how long, and how much longer I don't want to think about, but this type of discussion should be transferred and more suited to this linked thread I think, because after all much of the discussions I'm referring to is largely arguing about the aesthetics and modelling of the parts design;
 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/147314-rocket-part-revamp-discussion-thread/

Otherwise, I think it would be nice for this thread to revert back to its core point of 'Thrust and performance changes discussion' because I'm sure there's a lot of potentially valuable discussion to be had about the thrust and performance of the future of these parts. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill or anything but.. y'know... 
Some people could have good ideas for the performances of these parts that might catch onto nice devs out there.

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by ChickenNugger429
typo

[Tweeker]

Just now, regex said:

The power head isn't cut off, I've been explaining this to you for several pages.

If you want to build a shuttle that looks real the then you need an engine that looks real, that was the whole reasoning behind introducing the vector, So it is fair to compare it to the real world equivalent. Back on page 3 I posted a  over lay of the silhouette of the new compact vector, overlaid on an RS-25

In case you can see from just the outline there is the powehead  of a compact vector overlaid below,  You can see how much bigger I needs to be.

 

Quote

So what you're saying is that the devs will be removing the translation editing tools I can use to recess them?

So if your going to have to translate it to hide the pumps etc on the new, compact model what  difference does it make how far you have to translate it?

 

 

4 minutes ago, ChickenNugger429 said:

As much as I appreciate reading repetitive discussions on 'magic nozzles', 'tankbutts', 'powerheads', and how this certain information about certain components of rockets isn't really getting through to certain individual(s?), thus having a vicious cycle of this argument over and over and over for god knows how long, and how much longer I don't want to think about, but this type of discussion should be transferred and more suited to this linked thread I think, because after all much of the discussions I'm referring to is largely arguing about the aesthetics and modelling of the parts design;
 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/147314-rocket-part-revamp-discussion-thread/

Otherwise, I think it would be nice for this thread to revert back to its core point of 'Thrust and performance changes discussion' because I'm sure there's a lot of potentially valuable discussion to be had about the thrust and performance of the future of these parts. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill or anything but.. y'know... 
Some people could have good ideas for the performances of these parts that might catch onto nice devs out there.

 

 I'd like that too, I thought that maybe, we where almost finished with this and could get back to discussing the Thrust and performance, but I'm sure that will turn into another big thing.

[Tweeker]

 

10 minutes ago, ChickenNugger429 said:

As much as I appreciate reading repetitive discussions on 'magic nozzles', 'tankbutts', 'powerheads', and how this certain information about certain components of rockets isn't really getting through to certain individual(s?), thus having a vicious cycle of this argument over and over and over for god knows how long, and how much longer I don't want to think about, but this type of discussion should be transferred and more suited to this linked thread I think, because after all much of the discussions I'm referring to is largely arguing about the aesthetics and modelling of the parts design;
 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/147314-rocket-part-revamp-discussion-thread/

Otherwise, I think it would be nice for this thread to revert back to its core point of 'Thrust and performance changes discussion' because I'm sure there's a lot of potentially valuable discussion to be had about the thrust and performance of the future of these parts. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill or anything but.. y'know... 
Some people could have good ideas for the performances of these parts that might catch onto nice devs out there.

 

 I'd like that too, I thought that maybe, we where almost finished with this and could get back to discussing the Thrust and performance, but I'm sure that will turn into another big thing

Back on page 4 I posted Some thought on The thrust & ISP changes, So in an effort to get back on topic I'll repeat them.

 

As far as the rest of the engines rest of the engines go,  I don't think a new art pass is needed, and I don't like the art I have seen. Some of the new engines seem a bit redundant, the 303 for example is almost exactly on top of the spark, thrust wise, It seems like the Isp will make it more space tuned, But still it is too close to the spark's niche.

For a longtime this was my main complaint about the LV-T 30 & T 45. They where essentially snow clones of each other I am glad you are pushing the farther apart, and very glad that one of them is is being pushed up to the 300 kN range. I am not entirely sold on the LV-T 15, It makes sense that it is  a fractional size of the other 2 engines, but the ISP wise the quoted stats are extremely bad.     

I am glad you are nerfing the Vector, it still needs to be nerfed more more, but it's getting closer to where it needs to be. 

I wish you would ditch the  Twin Boar and Mammoth entirely, and replace them with a bi- and quad- adapter, and add more adapters as well, maybe a 5 way for Apollo type applications, I think having adapters that you could mount whichever engine you choose, would be much more versatile than having dedicated dual and quad engines.

The poodle really needs a buff, it's main problem is the way it relates to the 2.5m parts,  While the poodle can be viewed as basically a 4X version of the LV-909, the other the equivilant parts don't follow this trend,. The small fuel tank in the 2.5m range is 9X heavier,  The capsule is  5X heavier, The lander can is  the best of the bunch at being just over 4X heavier than the 1.25m version. The result of this is that it's TWR in a stack moves in a very granular way. If it was 50% -60% larger it would give you a lot finer adjustment.  Buffing the LV-909s thrust will make the poodle shortcomings that much more obvious. Consider tweaking the poodle instead.  

 

[regex]

31 minutes ago, ChickenNugger429 said:

Otherwise, I think it would be nice for this thread to revert back to its core point of 'Thrust and performance changes discussion' because I'm sure there's a lot of potentially valuable discussion to be had about the thrust and performance of the future of these parts. I'm not trying to be a buzzkill or anything but.. y'know... 
Some people could have good ideas for the performances of these parts that might catch onto nice devs out there.

I tend to follow the flow of conversation sometimes rather than the topic, my apologies.

Before casting your criticism on the new thrust/isp values I suggest people take a look at the released engines and note how their values progress through the R&D tree.

Album showing some of that here: http://imgur.com/a/Ipy3A

[passinglurker]

12 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

-snip- nonsense based on wip place holder part stats that a dev came into this thread to say we shouldn't put stock in but what the heck I can just ignore that nitpick just as well as everything else that has been said in this thread the fact that they are a staff member means nothing to me -snip-

Abridgment mine. (Also I thoroughly picked this apart pages ago the bulk of which was largly ignored in favor of the vector debate.)

As far as talking engine stats go we can't assume that the stats present in stock or the revamp "mod" are in any way representative of the final product so we shouldn't bother referring to the old stats.

Due to the expected thoroughness of the upcoming overhaul I expect true ballance can only be achieved through thorough testing and tweaking working through the tech tree one tier at a time to create a tightly balanced and smooth flowing experience similar to the process flowerchild used to balance the better than starting manned mod.

As a result not to pop anyone's balloons but, low effort speculation and small proposals like this will get us no where.

that being said as for a broad model to follow and provide a good starting point I would favor something conducive to the "cheap and cheery" rules of thumb for rocket design (I'm on a phone so just Google it there is a tutorial and a few forum challenges on the subject) the less whackjob you have to be to make a practical rocket while still keeping relatively realistic stats the better.

[Tweeker]

8 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Abridgment mine. (Also I thoroughly picked this apart pages ago the bulk of which was largly ignored in favor of the vector debate.)

What you actually what you said was:

Quote

You know nothing of art, rocket science, or engineering then, and your critiques are unqualified and unwanted please go back to playing minecraft.

you know they can and will change and refine the balance right? nothing is going to be redundant @NathanKell already told you not to put stock into the stats.

@NathanKell said the stats aren't final they haven't had a chance to test these parts, but your input probably isn't wanted squad would be looking at the balance as a whole whereas short sighted change fearing nitpickers like you only obsess about tiny pieces that won't fit together properly after you finish filing them down.

I wish you would stop inflating my part count with your nonsense no one needs adapters when you can just surface attach compact mode engines that is infinitely more versatile than adapters. due to the limits of how big engines can realistically be made there is nothing wrong with having multi nozzle engines.

More nonsense nitpicky ramblings that won't matter cause they are giving kerbal its first real ballance pass with the revamp update so the mass of all these 2.5m parts you mention will change.

finally something we can agr-

-aaaaaand you had to go and ruin it with your rude ungratefulness.

great how about the apology for being wrong and ungrateful?

Pretty much nothing worth paying attention to.

If, instead you said something constructive, even if it is a different opinion it might lead to an actual discussion.

[Temeter]

1 hour ago, Tweeker said:

So it is fair to compare it to the real world equivalent.

No. It's not supposed to be a realistic engine.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Temeter

[passinglurker]

41 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

What you actually what you said was:

Pretty much nothing worth paying attention to.

If, instead you said something constructive, even if it is a different opinion it might lead to an actual discussion.

My god even on this topic you are full of it. Quit acting blind and lieing through your teeth.

I mentioned twice in that previous statement that the dev's said in this very thread that you shouldn't take stock in the current stats. They are essentially only place holders with no thought or testing. So your narrow scope of judgement is way off you need to look at the whole picture and start fresh to devise a balanced set of stats otherwise you are just wasting your time.

[Frozen_Heart]

6 hours ago, regex said:

I tend to follow the flow of conversation sometimes rather than the topic, my apologies.

Before casting your criticism on the new thrust/isp values I suggest people take a look at the released engines and note how their values progress through the R&D tree.

Album showing some of that here: http://imgur.com/a/Ipy3A

That better make it into 1.3!

 

The ISP has been nerfed quite a lot for some reason though. Not sure the reasoning with that as 1.25 is already the most underpowered lineup.

[Tweeker]

8 hours ago, regex said:

I tend to follow the flow of conversation sometimes rather than the topic, my apologies.

Before casting your criticism on the new thrust/isp values I suggest people take a look at the released engines and note how their values progress through the R&D tree.

Album showing some of that here: http://imgur.com/a/Ipy3A

I'm full on board with the idea of being able to upgrade parts via the tech tree. There were some topics that floated around about the idea a few years back:

in one of them.

I aid the following, which I still stand by.

Quote

I don't know if I agree with the argument that it would keep people from trading ship, I mean right now the tech tree keep you from being able to build some ship if you haven't unlocked radial decouplers, or 2.5M tanks

So I think this idea would make a lot of sense if it was integrated into the tech tree, for example maybe when you unlock electrics you gain the ability to add an alternator to an engine, as a tweakable. It adds a little weight, and fuel consumption. The same thing could be done with RCS, SAS, and sprinkle a few buffs and add-ons around the tree.

 The big challenge, from a game design standpoint  Is balancing the thrust range of single engine vs clusters, for example For example a cluster of compact LV909s  vs the Poodle. First you need to establish a paradigm for what size the full size version is vs the If you assume The compact is 1/2 the width of the full sized, (which seems to fall in line with the artwork from the first page) then the tightest you can cluster a poodle compact,1.25m  Poodle under a 2.5m stack,  is 2. otherwise you get part clipping. A compact Lv-909 on the other hand will fit 12. This suggests that the Poodle need to be bigger thrust wise, some where above 6x larger than the LV-909.

for example using the current Stats,you get the following comparison:

2X poodles, 500KN

12X 909s   720KN

This clearly illustrates the problem,

 

I suggest  a thrust of 400 KN based on current stats.This gives you:.

2X poodles, 800KN

12X 909s   720KN

Making a poodle cluster better than 909 cluster, and preserving the poodles niche.

Not knowing the starting and ending stats of both makes it hard to  throw out exact numbers. for the upgrade system.

 

7 hours ago, Temeter said:

No. It's not supposed to be a realistic engine.

When people discussing the Vector people often point out that it is supposed to be used to make a shuttle analog, so it make sense that the stats should reflect this.   

Edited September 21, 2016 by Tweeker

[Laie]

@Tweeker, you keep posting that picture. The Vector's nozzle texture is inspired by the SSME, I get that. But what makes you so sure that Porkjet now has to follow through and match all proportions? You seem to seriously believe that the sky will come down if he doesn't, and frankly, I don't see why it should.

[KSK]

1 hour ago, Tweeker said:

I'm full on board with the idea of being able to upgrade parts via the tech tree. There were some topics that floated around about the idea a few years back:

in one of them.

 The big challenge, from a game design standpoint  Is balancing the thrust range of single engine vs clusters, for example For example a cluster of compact LV909s  vs the Poodle. First you need to establish a paradigm for what size the full size version is vs the If you assume The compact is 1/2 the width of the full sized, (which seems to fall in line with the artwork from the first page) then the tightest you can cluster a poodle compact,1.25m  Poodle under a 2.5m stack,  is 2. otherwise you get part clipping. A compact Lv-909 on the other hand will fit 12. This suggests that the Poodle need to be bigger thrust wise, some where above 6x larger than the LV-909.

for example using the current Stats,you get the following comparison:

2X poodles, 500KN

12X 909s   720KN

This clearly illustrates the problem,

I suggest  a thrust of 400 KN based on current stats.This gives you:.

2X poodles, 800KN

12X 909s   720KN

Making a poodle cluster better than 909 cluster, and preserving the poodles niche.

Not knowing the starting and ending stats of both makes it hard to  throw out exact numbers. for the upgrade system.

Hang on - half the width means a quarter of the area surely? Which suggests you should be able to have a cluster of four Poodle Compacts. 

In which case the current balance looks OK to me. Even then I'm not convinced that you need to balance clusters the way you've suggested. Different tools for different jobs.