Engines revamp - Thrust and performance changes discussion

[panzer1b]

I just CANNOT understand the obsession for absolute "realism" in KSP.  There are PLENTY of mods out there if you absolutely must have your engines with real life models, ISP values, correct fuels, ect.  KSP never was and still is not intended to portray reality in its stock parts, planets, ect.  It takes certain aspects of reality and puts them together into a very fun and well made game.  Everyone who is obsessing with the whole compact engines arent showing machinery they need to operate and are against placing that inside a fuel tank need to chill out and look at KSP as what it is, a fun game with plausible physics and the universe somewhat modeled after what we have but by no means a copy of real life.  Afterall, since when do you see a kerbal when walking down the street?  There is nothing in this game dictating it has to follow the laws of earth (which btw are also invalid as soon as you go to area 51).

And yeah, im aware jet engine are also missing the so called turbine part, but i dont mind at all.  If you must have realism then there are turbines you can enable in the part.cfgs and make sure you dont put it in a fuel tank or the realism cops will tear your door down...

Ofc this is coming from someone who could care less about 100% realism and considers building capital ships, space carriers, and starfighters, and then using all of that in battles way more fun then trying to replicate real life space flight.  That and i care more about looks then realism (or to an extent function).

I bet half the realism focused crowd will end up crucifying me for habitually doing the following because i feel it looks nicer then having the nuke exposed...

And yeah, technically that wouldn't work IRL, but then again, the following wouldn't work either, and yet i made it work in KSP (despite being a sci-fi replica that should never be air worthy)...

And my final remark:

Noone is forcing those who dislike a certain engine or part to use them.  Feel reaction wheels are cheating, then dont use them on your ship, feel a compact engine is cheating, then use a full size model with the tank butt, but dont force your ways on those of us that dont consider part clipping or whatever cheating/unfair.

I dont normally get that annoyed about anything, but the hostility towards engines that arent identical to those in reality (and have some of their model inside the structure/fuel tank) is really high right now

[cfds]

11 hours ago, panzer1b said:

I just CANNOT understand the obsession for absolute "realism" in KSP.

The problem is that KSP also claims to be "educational". As that it should at least pay token attention to the fact that a rocket engine is more than a metal cone at the bottom of a rocket stack. Not to mention that the parts of a rocket engine that are not the metal cone are the actual hard part of rocket engineering. (Rocket science itself is comparably easy again)

[Kerbal101]

Edit: sorry, didn't mean to necro this.

 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Kerbal101

[Gaarst]

24 minutes ago, Kerbal101 said:

Edit: sorry, didn't mean to necro this.

 

The last answer is not even three weeks old and the topic is still somewhat relevant (no information about the revamps since PorkJet left, but nothing saying it is buried either), so if you have something to say/add, please do.

[Kerbal101]

On 10/16/2016 at 1:21 AM, Gaarst said:

The last answer is not even three weeks old and the topic is still somewhat relevant (no information about the revamps since PorkJet left, but nothing saying it is buried either), so if you have something to say/add, please do.

Ah, ok. Well, I really really like it! The three mount types allow much more flexibility and options for building stuff!

The only thing I don't understand is around "Boars and Vectors". Isn't Mammoth supposed to be 2x Vector? If it is, then why reduce the thrust on Vector? I mean, I am not against this - but this requires changes to Mammoth model to "visually" justify more thrust.

I like the change around Reliant and Swivel, as their current state cause them to be outdated/useless far too soon.
Boosters also need some attention, especially the two basic models - as they share even more pitiful destiny than Reliant/Swivel.

And I would like to see more nukes and ions (larger version basically, like what is "twin boar" to "vector")

 

About clipping (@panzer1b) - the current clipping freedom allows things not only far behind "reality", but actually far behind of "makes sense".

Clipping two+ engines: should block both engines
Clipping of two+ fuel tanks: they should explode
Clipping control surface inside anything: it should loose its properties to percentage of clip
Clipping any equipment far inside than touching borders by some tolerance: they should deactivate
Clipping of wings in each other: the clipped area of one wing should be completely ignored by physics (clipping 30% of one wing, should reduce lifting properties to 70%)

But stuff like:
anything put/inserted into the empty space of the hollow structure, like structural fuselage, so long it does not break above list,
part of the wing clipping inside fuselage (it can be cut),
girders/construction metal - anywhere (metal can be cut irl),
parts clipping in each other slightly by outer surface
- is ok. Stuff that "makes sense".

In that sense, I consider the upper cases to be a "exploit of the bug/limitation".
But if I say that, I expose myself to be mobbed around with an argument ranging from "don't touch my awesome bugs, they are magic behind the my awesome kraken drive" to "go back to your boring reality".

Edited October 17, 2016 by Kerbal101
fixed wrong engine ref

[septemberWaves]

On 9/26/2016 at 6:45 AM, cfds said:

The problem is that KSP also claims to be "educational". As that it should at least pay token attention to the fact that a rocket engine is more than a metal cone at the bottom of a rocket stack. Not to mention that the parts of a rocket engine that are not the metal cone are the actual hard part of rocket engineering. (Rocket science itself is comparably easy again)

KSP is educational. It teaches about the basics of orbital physics, drag, why rockets are usually staged, the complexities of planning a mission, etc. It may not be accurate in its representations of the engineering, but how many people who are complaining here about the lack of realism do you think knew a huge amount about rocket engines before playing KSP? I've found that in playing Kerbal Space Program, you learn some things by playing the game, and other things you learn by looking them up after you gained an incentive to learn about them whilst playing.

 

Edited October 15, 2016 by eloquentJane

[Third_OfFive]

I have a few things to say. Like this if you agree with me.

Criticisms:

-Leave the LV-1 “Ant”, LV-1R “Spider”, 24-77 “Twitch”, and Mk-55 “Thud” alone. They are fine the way they are, and the new versions overcomplicate them.

-The new RE-L10 “Poodle” kinda sucks.

-The 48-7S “Spark” should not have a ‘compact’ version.

-Oh, and the new 48-7S “Spark” kinda sucks.

 

Compliments / Suggestions:

-The new engine ideas (KR-1 “Boar”, LV-T15, LV-303 “Pug”, KS-25 “Vector”) are awesome.

-The new design for the RE-L10 “Poodle” could be great as a new engine entirely, rather than a replacement.

-Don’t touch the SRB’s

-Try to mirror the current style of KSP, especially with the texturing. The new engines should complement the ksp style as much as it might change it.

-You should also redo the Mk16 Parachute.