Engines revamp - Thrust and performance changes discussion

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The boat tail version is the closest to what we have now

No, actually, the "compact" Vector is closest to what we have now, but also includes some machinery on the back end.

2 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Judging by the design sheet, the Rhino in compact form will become another magic nozzle.

I have zero idea how you arrived at that conclusion. The compact Rhino is exactly the Rhino with a tankbutt, only without the tankbutt and the fuel lines going straight up.

[NoMrBond]

I like the plan overall, although I would prefer it if the TwinBoar was split up into its component parts instead of being a single-purpose/single-unit aggregate part

Separate them out into a nice mount (2.5m top to 2x 2.5m compact at the bottom, would then take any other Size2 w/ compact base), and the ARM 2.5m tank, the Boar is already there as a distinct part

Make the 2.5m ARM tank an upgrade of the 2.5m Jumbo64 with a better mass fraction

So to make the "TwinBoar" you assemble the upgraded 2.5m tank, the Twin mount (2.5 to 2x2.5c) and two Boar engines (which you've upgraded via the TechTree to access the compact mount).

[Tweeker]

13 minutes ago, NoMrBond said:

I like the plan overall, although I would prefer it if the TwinBoar was split up into its component parts instead of being a single-purpose/single-unit aggregate part

Separate them out into a nice mount (2.5m top to 2x 2.5m compact at the bottom, would then take any other Size2 w/ compact base), and the ARM 2.5m tank, the Boar is already there as a distinct part

Make the 2.5m ARM tank an upgrade of the 2.5m Jumbo64 with a better mass fraction

So to make the "TwinBoar" you assemble the upgraded 2.5m tank, the Twin mount (2.5 to 2x2.5c) and two Boar engines (which you've upgraded via the TechTree to access the compact mount).

Spot-on,  I've said this quite a few times.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tweeker

[regex]

16 minutes ago, NoMrBond said:

I like the plan overall, although I would prefer it if the TwinBoar was split up into its component parts instead of being a single-purpose/single-unit aggregate part

Same with the Mammoth, I don't particularly like the aggregate parts.

[Tweeker]

14 minutes ago, regex said:

No, actually, the "compact" Vector is closest to what we have now, but also includes some machinery on the back end.

I have zero idea how you arrived at that conclusion. The compact Rhino is exactly the Rhino with a tankbutt, only without the tankbutt and the fuel lines going straight up.

 

The Rhino is based on the J2

[regex]

5 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The Rhino is based on the J2

Okay, awesome. How is the compact base missing machinery? This image comprises the entirety of the J-2 type engine, anything else is thrust structure, plumbing, or tank.

Spoiler

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by regex

[Tweeker]

18 minutes ago, regex said:

No, actually, the "compact" Vector is closest to what we have now, but also includes some machinery on the back end.

I have zero idea how you arrived at that conclusion. The compact Rhino is exactly the Rhino with a tankbutt, only without the tankbutt and the fuel lines going straight up.

The Rhino is base on the j-2 However as you can see, The actual engine has much more machinery than the "compact" version, that's because the machinery is inside what you call the "Tank butt" It is an essential part of the engine. Hence why the "compact" version is a magic nozzle.   

[regex]

7 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The Rhino is base on the j-2 However as you can see, The actual engine has much more machinery than the "compact" version, that's because the machinery is inside what you call the "Tank butt" It is an essential part of the engine. Hence why the "compact" version is a magic nozzle.   

It can't possibly be behind the tankbutt, there's only a tiny passage through the thrust structure for it to go through.

All of that machinery has been vastly simplified for the KSP art style, you're seeing the most important bits to give the suggestion of turbomachinery.

E: In fact, it looks like the Rhino lacks an actual turbopump. vOv

E2: or it might be hidden on the other side of the 2D art. Either way, it looks proper even without the realistic detail, and that's the idea.

Edited September 16, 2016 by regex

[Tweeker]

 

25 minutes ago, regex said:

It can't possibly be behind the tankbutt, there's only a tiny passage through the thrust structure for it to go through.

All of that machinery has been vastly simplified for the KSP art style, you're seeing the most important bits to give the suggestion of turbomachinery.

E: In fact, it looks like the Rhino lacks an actual turbopump. vOv

E2: or it might be hidden on the other side of the 2D art. Either way, it looks proper even without the realistic detail, and that's the idea.

  

The compact model deletes pretty much everything above the throat of the nozzle, Comparing it with the real J-2x on the right you can see there is lot of the powerhead that has been removed. Without this the nozzle isn't much good. Normally this is hidden, along with the mounting hardware behind a shroud,

   A lot of people on this forum have taken to calling this the tankbutt,, and insinuating because it is part of the tank  (see the name)  it should be removed from the engine, Many of the legacy KSP engines at least suggest that all this machinery is there tucked under a fairing, but the vector, and it looks like now the Rhino omit, or truncate the powerhead.

 

Quote

E2: or it might be hidden on the other side of the 2D art. Either way, it looks proper even without the realistic detail, and that's the idea.

 At the risk of repeating myself, I doesn't look correct, For the machinery to be there it would have to be poking up into the fuel tank, or hidden inside the nozzle. The full sized Rhino has space space this machinery might be, but the compact one does not.  

[regex]

13 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The compact model deletes pretty much everything above the throat of the nozzle

No.

Purple is the thrust structure.

Red is the combustion chamber

Green is the engine throat.

As I have pointed out several times both here and in other threads, these are massively simplified because that is KSP's art style. Simple, clean, hand-drawn. If you want realistic looking engines you should find some mods that fit the bill, like SSTU or BobCat's old Soviet Pack.

What is important here is that the engines look like they could work, they give the suggestion of complex machinery. That not only reduces mesh complexity, decreasing the time it takes to produce one, but also reduces the performance requirements of the machine needed to run KSP.

Quote

A lot of people on this forum have taken to calling this the tankbutt,, and insinuating because it is part of the tank

It is. The J-2 is attached to the tankbutt exactly as described in real life. KSP's new art will be a massively simplified version that gives the "suggestion" of a J-2.

Edited September 16, 2016 by regex

[Tweeker]

1 minute ago, regex said:

No.

Purple is the thrust structure.

Red is the combustion chamber

Green is the engine throat.

As I have pointed out several times both here and in other threads, these are massively simplified because that is KSP's art style. Simple, clean, hand-drawn. If you want realistic looking engines you should find some mods that fit the bill, like SSTU or BobCat's old Soviet Pack.

What is important here is that the engines look like they could work, they give the suggestion of complex machinery. That not only reduces mesh complexity, decreasing the time it takes to produce one, but also reduces the performance requirements of the machine.

It is. The J-2 is attached to the tankbutt exactly as described in real life. KSP's new art will be a massively simplified version that gives the "suggestion" of a J-2.

Just because it is simplified, doesn't mean it is inaccurate. There is enough space under the tankbutt for the powerhead to exist, that is enough, just the suggestion that it is there. The compact version doesn't give that impression, and that is what makes it inaccurate.

[legoclone09]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

"suggestion" of a J-2.

Which is exactly what I love about these engines! The 303 simply reminds me of Fregat, doesn't scream it in my face, LV-T45 reminds me of the LR105 sustainer, but isn't super realistic. Which I love!

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Just because it is simplified, doesn't mean it is inaccurate. There is enough space under the tankbutt for the powerhead to exist, that is enough, just the suggestion that it is there. The compact version doesn't give that impression, and that is what makes it inaccurate.

I just ... I don't even...

2 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

Which is exactly what I love about these engines! The 303 simply reminds me of Fregat, doesn't scream it in my face, LV-T45 reminds me of the LR105 sustainer, but isn't super realistic. Which I love!

Yeah, I'm all about them. I don't need exact replicas with intricate plumbing, they just need to look like they're working engines.

[Guest]

I love these part designs (glad Rockomax is still the classic orange), and most of the proposed balance changes, though I'm saddened at the continued absence of a 2.5m nuclear engine. There's a more meaningful difference between the LV-T30 and 45, and what looks to be a more linear progression of thrust levels as one progresses from small to large models.

But, compact versions of the 303 and 909 seem like they'd be OP for probes, like the Spark used to be before being repurposed as more of an atmospheric engine. And I can't tell if the Poodle is supposed to have 2 or 4 nozzles (I hope 4 just out of personal taste) but I had been wondering how Porkjet would redo it to look more realistic without changing its dimensions, and it's nice to see.

[IronCretin]

1 hour ago, NoMrBond said:

I like the plan overall, although I would prefer it if the TwinBoar was split up into its component parts instead of being a single-purpose/single-unit aggregate part

Separate them out into a nice mount (2.5m top to 2x 2.5m compact at the bottom, would then take any other Size2 w/ compact base), and the ARM 2.5m tank, the Boar is already there as a distinct part

Make the 2.5m ARM tank an upgrade of the 2.5m Jumbo64 with a better mass fraction

So to make the "TwinBoar" you assemble the upgraded 2.5m tank, the Twin mount (2.5 to 2x2.5c) and two Boar engines (which you've upgraded via the TechTree to access the compact mount).

If you look at both the parts and their real-world inspirations, you'll see that the boar and the twin-boar have somewhat different engines.The Boar is based on the F-1 engine from the Saturn V, and the Twin-Boar is based on the Pyrios boosters from the Space Launch system, which would use 2 F1B engines, which are slightly different from the F-1.

[legoclone09]

20 minutes ago, regex said:

Yeah, I'm all about them. I don't need exact replicas with intricate plumbing, they just need to look like they're working engines.

Yep, simple and sleek does it for me. Now all we need is the RAPIER to actually look good.

@hoojiwana did a great job on it in his Porkalike Rapier and Stock Replacement Assets.

[regex]

.

Edited September 16, 2016 by regex

[Tweeker]

12 minutes ago, regex said:

Oh my god, did NASA cut off those engine pictures at the throat? Where's the combustion chamber? 

Those engine have a lot more above the "throat" than the "compact" versions do.

 

[regex]

Just now, Tweeker said:

Those engine have a lot more above the "throat" than the "compact" versions do.

Yes, because they're actual machinery, not art assets simplified for a cheerful game about little green aliens running a space program in a solar system with a huge (actually really small) realism problem.

[NoMrBond]

18 minutes ago, IronCretin said:

If you look at both the parts and their real-world inspirations, you'll see that the boar and the twin-boar have somewhat different engines.The Boar is based on the F-1 engine from the Saturn V, and the Twin-Boar is based on the Pyrios boosters from the Space Launch system, which would use 2 F1B engines, which are slightly different from the F-1.

I am aware, I was suggesting that the difference could be addressed through the upgrades system so that the improved engine isn't locked to the current twinmounttank

[Tweeker]

4 minutes ago, regex said:

Yes, because they're actual machinery, not art assets simplified for a cheerful game about little green aliens running a space program in a solar system with a huge (actually really small) realism problem.

The thing is that the "compacted" versions, and the vector are part of the realism problem.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tweeker

[regex]

Just now, Tweeker said:

The thing is that the "compacted versions, and the vector are part of the realism problem.

How so?

[Tweeker]

The area above the throat in the "compact" version is much less than the real version. 

The full sized rhino could conceivable fit the power head under the fairing above the throat. There is not enough room of that machinery to exist in the compacted version. The pumps are both wider and tall than in the compacted version. 

[Temeter]

It's about the same basic parts, with the detail stripped away. The Rhino just has much more compact machinery than the J2.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Temeter

[regex]

33 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

The area above the throat in the "compact" version is much less than the real version. 

The full sized rhino could conceivable fit the power head under the fairing above the throat. There is not enough room of that machinery to exist in the compacted version. The pumps are both wider and tall than in the compacted version. 

The area above the thrust structure is not a fairing, it's the bottom of a tank, just like the S-IVb in real life. I mean, if we're using real life J-2 as an example and all:

Spoiler

There's no larger machinery under that cone, it's tankage. The compact and full-size Rhino are exactly the same engine, it's just that one has the bottom of a tank on it.

Edited September 16, 2016 by regex