Is KSP in need of a "balance patch" again?

[Rune]

12 hours ago, blakemw said:

It can be argued that the RAPIER in rocket mode has more thrust than it needs (about twice as much in the way players often use RAPIERs) this means spaceplanes can work well with a 50/50 ratio of RAPIERs to Whiplashes, though that is only a cost-saving measure and it's only because of poor use of RAPIERs, when using them to the limits of their jet mode (i.e. a SPH TWR of 0.3) all the rocket mode thrust is useful.

You, sir, know your stuff about SSTOs, based on that comment alone. +1

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

IAgain, I'm asking someone to explain why it should have the Isp curve of a booster engine. Its got better atmospheric Isp than a LV-T30, but worse vacuum Isp... why?!

What is the gameplay purpose of giving them a good Isp at 1 atm, but a bad Isp in a vacuum? this makes no sense given how they are used, and doesn't match with the real world analogue (well... real-ish world, the complete engine hasn't been built yet, but subsystems of it have been built)

Actually... the 'real-world' analogue uses the same nozzles for its atmospheric and closed cycle settings. Yes, that means it doesn't look like an airbreather, at all. And yes, that also means that the nozzles have to be optimized for something close to sea-level expansion. Meaning, it has a relatively low Isp for a H2/LOX rocket engine, like the SSME.

 

Rune. I'm pretty confident that is not the reason of its curve in KSP, but there you go.

[blakemw]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

I agree with most of this. Rapiers are great engines for SSTOs, their jet properties alone are enough reason to use them. I'm just saying that their closed cycle is a bit rubbish. In particular with the wolfhound. If you're looking at other engines (ie wolfhound, LV-Ns, aerospikes) and using the rapier as a pure jet, then I think that says something about the closed cycle mode (ie, its not very good).

Again, I'm asking someone to explain why it should have the Isp curve of a booster engine. Its got better atmospheric Isp than a LV-T30, but worse vacuum Isp... why?!

What is the gameplay purpose of giving them a good Isp at 1 atm, but a bad Isp in a vacuum? this makes no sense given how they are used, and doesn't match with the real world analogue (well... real-ish world, the complete engine hasn't been built yet, but subsystems of it have been built)

Because it is a primary launch engine, an engine designed to burn from sea level to orbit and its primary role is to lift stuff out of gravity wells, hence a jet mode and a decently thrusty rocket mode. We can compare it to very SSTO capable LF/Ox engines which are also suitable for launch-to-orbit use, the Twin-Boar has a vac ISP of 300 and the Mammoth/Vector has a vac ISP of 315. To me it wouldn't seem fair if the RAPIER had a better vac ISP than other launch-to-orbit engines.

And a vac ISP of 305 isn't even bad in stock KSP, I'm perfectly happy using a Twin-Boar for an ejection burn (i.e. Falcon-Heavy style where the core gets to orbit with 1000m/s leftover). The rocket equation is not brutal at these ranges and factors other than ISP can overcome low ISP (for example, the Twin-Boar despite having below average ISP, produces thrust really cheaply and has really good TWR). There does come a point where ISP becomes of overwhelming importance, like Moho return or something, but for delivering stuff to LKO it's just not important to have a high ISP and that's what the primary launch engines are balanced around. If you want good vac range, slap on a dedicated vac engine.

It is not valid to apply real world engine stats to in-game engines because the universe is different, of course when using an upsized game universe it is fair to increase the stats of engines to closer to real world values, but there is no need to single out the RAPIER in this regard as it is already one of the more highly powered engines for its niche, and if you want to be fair to the real world performance what you'd want to do is use realfuels/realengines style configs to make it actually use hydrogen with all the associated downsides of hydrogen.

Edited May 12, 2018 by blakemw

[KerikBalm]

2 hours ago, Rune said:

You, sir, know your stuff about SSTOs, based on that comment alone. +1

Actually... the 'real-world' analogue uses the same nozzles for its atmospheric and closed cycle settings. Yes, that means it doesn't look like an airbreather, at all. And yes, that also means that the nozzles have to be optimized for something close to sea-level expansion. Meaning, it has a relatively low Isp for a H2/LOX rocket engine, like the SSME.

 

Rune. I'm pretty confident that is not the reason of its curve in KSP, but there you go.

The SSME had a prettz damn good vacuum Isp (452 s), better than the J-2 (421 s)on the Saturn V 2nd and 3rd stages. Its actually quite an advanced design

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Nozzle

Quote

The RS-25 nozzle has an unusually large expansion ratio (about 77.5:1) for the chamber pressure.^[12] At sea level, a nozzle of this ratio would normally undergo flow separation of the jet from the nozzle, which would cause control difficulties and could even mechanically damage the vehicle. However, to aid the engine's operation Rocketdyne engineers varied the angle of the nozzle walls from the theoretical optimum for thrust, reducing it near the exit. This raises the pressure just around the rim to an absolute pressure between 4.6 and 5.7 psi (32 and 39 kPa), and prevents flow separation.

Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_rocket_engine#LOX+LH2_rocket_engines_by_country

Only a few LH/LOx engines beat the SSMEs for their vacuum thrust

As for the Rapier's real world analogue, it is to use a:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_deflection_nozzle

Quote

The expansion-deflection nozzle is an advanced rocket nozzle which achieves altitude compensation through interaction of the exhaust gas with the atmosphere, much like the plug and aerospike nozzles.

As an analogue of the SABRE, its closed cycle mode is terrible.

The Vector, as I mentioned, also has a poor vacuum Isp relative to the other engines to be a proper SSME analogue... but its TWR is one of the best in the game, and as I mentioned even with 8x kickbacks, a vector trio is going to supply over double the % of total thrust at launch as the real SSMEs on the STS... so thats one reason I'm not suggesting they get ~330-340 Isp... that and shuttles are novelties in KSP, you'd never arrive at a shuttle design by trying to optimize for some parameters in game... so I'm perfectly fine with its balance and gameplay purpose as a powerful atmospheric booster engine (its great for Eve ascents because of its awesome thrust:cross section ratio)

2 hours ago, blakemw said:

Because it is a primary launch engine, an engine designed to burn from sea level to orbit and its primary role is to lift stuff out of gravity wells,

Not in closed cycle mode!

Quote

a vac ISP of 305 isn't even bad in stock KSP, I'm perfectly happy using a Twin-Boar for an ejection burn (i.e. Falcon-Heavy style where the core gets to orbit with 1000m/s leftover).

You could use Puffs and Twitches and be happy. You could use Fleas /SRBs and be happy. That doesn't change the fact that their vacuum Isp is objectively worse than the other engines.

Of the inline LFO engines, the Rapier has the 2nd worst vacuum Isp, I don't see how you don't think that isn't a bad Isp

[Rune]

39 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

snip

Yes, the SSME is a pretty good engine in RL. Low-ish TWR (compared to other first stage engines), but awesome Isp (compared to other first stage engines). But compare it to upper-stage optimized engines (the RL-10 gets up to 465s, and it uses a less efficient expander cycle instead of staged combustion), and it suffers like it has to suffer, even if only a bit because the nozzle is slightly overexpanded for SL. That also means that its KSP analogue is horrible as an analogue, BTW, since it needs no boosting from SRBs to make an awesome first stage engine, on account of having the highest TWR in the game. I just posted a Shuttle replica that uses Skiffs as SSMEs, and it's much closer to the real thing in function than if I had used Vectors, even with the crappy gimbal on the Skiff. In any case, my point about it having a flat-ish Isp curve still stands: atmosphere-compensating nozzles always have good performance at sea level.

The KSP RAPIER engine, OTOH, is not the best engine in the game, because if it was the game wouldn't be balanced at all. It is, tough, the best engine for a SSTO, hands down, and it has the vacuum Isp of many other engines, an Isp that a few game versions ago would have been considered pretty decent. The thing is, KSP has suffered a bit from the "Dragonball effect", in that the expansions (ARM and Making History) come with engines that are just hands down better than the ones in the stock game. Just like the Vector and derivatives were OP in their time (still are), the Wolfhound and its ridiculous Isp (compared to all other engines) breaks the game balance. But that doesn't mean that the engines that get left behind are bad. It just means you can only compare them to engines from the same development period and yes, KSP could use a thorough balance pass (I think we all agree on that at this point, even if we disagree on the particulars). And among those 'stock' engines, accounting for the fact that KSP doesn't model different liquid fuel options, its vacuum Isp is not that horrible. If it was, the SSTOs that win the payload fraction challenge wouldn't almost all be pure RAPIER designs, with the occasional auxiliary nuke on truly huge designs.

 

Rune. I confess it's been like a year since I checked the payload fraction challenge. I doubt the situation has changed regarding RAPIERs.

[KerikBalm]

Well I checked the payload fraction challenge yesterday, rapier designs were still at the top, but there was one "Rhinoplane" design that was equal to the rapier designs (both coming in at 57-58%)... obviously using the Rhino for closed cycle mode.

As for the power-creep: I acknowledge that, and that's why I'd like to nerf the Wolfhound down to poodle levels (actually, I'd either merge it as a variant of the poodle, or put it somewhere between the cheetah and the poodle. Its also why I'd want to nerf the Skiff (its got the best TWR in the game, and 330 Isp! between that and the wolfhound, MH does a lot of power creep. I don't even use these parts in 3x, except where it doesn't really make a difference).

I would balance the parts around the 3.75m balance, so lock in the "power levels" at that level. The  early 1.25m and 2.5m parts are a little underpowered... but then I also think they shouldn't be buffed because their performance suits early career/science mode quite well. 

I'd get around this by finally implementing the part upgrade system that they did the framework for. When one unlocks the vector/mammoth (which presumably use advanced nozzle designs like the SSMEs), then maybe the Reliant/Mammoth should get Isp curve boosts so that their Isp curve is also 295-315 like the vector (but they'd still have less/no vectoring, and the same TWR)... and some other buffs to bring the swivel and skipper into balance with the 3.75m parts.

Quote

The KSP RAPIER engine, OTOH, is not the best engine in the game, because if it was the game wouldn't be balanced at all.

I'm not proposing that it should be. It would keep its distinction as having the absolute worst TWR of any LFO engine in the game. It would not have the best vacuum Isp in the game either (at the very least the following LFO engines would be better: terrier, cheetah, poodle, wolfhound. The following engines I would have be equal or better: aerospike, Rhino. I'm thinking 330 Isp like the Skiff, or 320 Isp like the swivel/skipper, unless those get a bit of a buff or a tech based upgrade as I mentioned before the quote). Worst TWR and not the best Isp != best engine in the game. 

Its not just the worst TWR of LFO engines, its the worst static TWR of airbreathing engines. So its completely unsuited for vertical launch designs.

The only role it is suited for is use on an airbreathing spaceplane. I'm perfectly fine with it being best in that role. The LV-N is best at its role, the dawn is best at its role... none of them are "the best engine in the game", because they excell in their role, but suck outside of it.

Trust me, the rapier would still suck outside of its role if its vacuum Isp was bumped up a bit (I'd at least make it equal to the vector... 315?)

Quote

 an Isp that a few game versions ago would have been considered pretty decent.

Ummm, no, 305 Isp has been rubbish Isp since the beginning. Prior to 1.0 the LFO engines were mostly getting 370-390 (IIRC, in one version the spark got 400). Before the twin boar, 305 would be the worst of the inline LFO engines - although I wonder why it is that all the radial engines must have terrible Isp, are they meant to be engines using some hypergolic that gets a lower Isp than Kerlox? are the other LFO engines meant to be LH/LOx (with Isp lowered because of the small system size) and these radials are meant to by hypergolics?

Why must the radial engines be so bad? Although I am glad that the Thud got buffed a few versions ago, it and all the other radial engines still are pretty bad. The flexibility of radial mounting isn't really much of an advantage either, as you can just radially attach a nose cone, and mount your inline engine to that...

So.... I'd say

* Nerf Skiff, Wolfhound

* Implement part upgrades, so end of the tech tree buffs the Reliant/mainsail/swivel/skipper(?)

* buff Isp of radial mount engines to be similar to that of their inline counterparts

* 25% increase in mass and thrust for the aerospike

* give the rapier closed cyle a vacuum Isp of 315-320

* decrease drag on the mk2/mk3 parts

* overhaul costs, particularly control surfaces and little doodads like ladders

Edited May 12, 2018 by KerikBalm

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Well I checked the payload fraction challenge yesterday, rapier designs were still at the top, but there was one "Rhinoplane" design that was equal to the rapier designs (both coming in at 57-58%)... obviously using the Rhino for closed cycle mode.

As for the power-creep: I acknowledge that, and that's why I'd like to nerf the Wolfhound down to poodle levels (actually, I'd either merge it as a variant of the poodle, or put it somewhere between the cheetah and the poodle. Its also why I'd want to nerf the Skiff (its got the best TWR in the game, and 330 Isp! between that and the wolfhound, MH does a lot of power creep. I don't even use these parts in 3x, except where it doesn't really make a difference).

Part of the problem is that an ideal balance for sandbox isn't remotely the same as career.  Game design implies that career mode should unlock superior engines with more capability, but historical evidence says this simply didn't happen (sure, some engines have advantages to RL-10 and F-1 engines, but RL-10 are still used and I'd expect F-1B/mark whatever to be used had we wanted to maintain heavy lift capability (I'm still impressed by NASA's printed F-1 revival).

The LV-N is certainly a major change in career mode, and it certainly helps to unlock some of the larger engines.  But altering the capability of lifters mangles the sandbox and leaving it the same makes career mode boring (or forces you into "unearthly" SSTOs).

I have to admit that Squad's stance on "don't break old rockets" makes more sense than playing sandbox players against career mode players.  They might adjust cost, but that is about the only thing they can touch without a forum war breaking out (mostly against Squad).

[KerikBalm]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

Part of the problem is that an ideal balance for sandbox isn't remotely the same as career.  Game design implies that career mode should unlock superior engines with more capability, but historical evidence says this simply didn't happen

Well, just bigger engines, that perform similarly ton for ton seems fine to me.

Also we do get some more capabilities in a way that doesn't seem to ridiculous. Docking ports are a big step up in capabilities, as are solar panels. It used to be that fuel lines to allow for cross feeding was a big step up (IRL cross fuel crossfeeding asparagus designs are quite complex). Going from turbofan to afterburning turbofan to turboramjet to rapier also makes sense while each engine maintains a niche.

Vectors also increase capabilities (high gimbal), and aerospikes do allow for some new types of designs. More capabilities yes, but IMO they shouldn't render earlier stuff obsolete.

Quote

But altering the capability of lifters mangles the sandbox and leaving it the same makes career mode boring (or forces you into "unearthly" SSTOs).

huh? how would making 1.25m and 2.5m engines have similar TWR and Isp to 3.75m engines mangle the sandbox?

Mostly I'm proposing nerfing only the most recently added engine, and buffing some others so that they aren't rendered obsolete by the mammoth/rhino/LV-N/poodle/vector/spark engines 

At the moment, for rockets, those are pretty much the only engines that one needs (could throw in the terrier and aerospike too, I guess)... and rapiers for SSTOs, but I'm fine with that (and whiplashes for suborbital high speed aircraft, panthers for super maneuverable craft, and wheesleys/goliaths for low and slow aircraft that can reverse on the ground/land in a small area)

[Vanamonde]

This discussion of the game's development has been moved to Development Discussions. 

[TheFlyingKerman]

16 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

* 25% increase in mass and thrust for the aerospike

I am fine with the aerospike as it is. This engine is ideal for a lander because it is light and still offers good thrust and ISP. When going interplanetary every kg counts and moar booster isn't that important. Besides the the increase would make the areospike too similar to the Reliant (same mass and similar ASL thrust) and Poodle.

[KerikBalm]

IMO, the aerospike should not be a lander engine (although, I admit that its low profile and good vacuum Isp does make it unsuaually well suited for that).

The point of the aerospike (IMO) seems to be that its an altitude compensating nozzle design, ie its got good performance in the atmosphere and in a vacuum. If you only use it in vacuum conditions, then it might as well just be a double mass, higher TWR version of the terrier.

Also, I noticed that I can't really rely on this blindly:

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Liquid_Fuel_Engines

as some stats are out of date. In particular given your reliant comment, if the Aerospike had a 25% mass increase, then it would have the same mass as the reliant... and the list shows the reliant as having a lower TWR... but that TWR is out of date. The reliant's max thrust is 240, an aerospike with a 25% thrust increase would have a thrust of 225, so clearly a lower TWR despite what the list says, it seems to be using the old thrust of 215 for the reliant, not 240. Its TWR is 19.57, not 17.53 .... so its actually not as bad as I thought in comparison to the other engines.

Aerospikes should produce similar thrust to other engines, at the expense of a heavier nozzle (ie lower TWR), and that's exactly what we'd get if we increased the aerospike mass and thrust by 25%. The reliant would still have a better pad and vacuum TWR.

The poodle would still offer 10 more Isp, and thrust vectoring.

The cheetah I would leave at 1 ton, and that already performs similarly to the aerospike in a vacuum: its got 345 Isp vs the aerospike's 340, 125 kN of thrust instead of 180. Or (for the moment) there is the skiff, also 1 ton like the aerospike, 330 Isp (do you care about 10 Isp or not, if so, then look at the poodle again), and 300 kN of thrust!

[blakemw]

One of the simplest balance changes to the Wolfhound would be increasing the cost. In career one thing which limits the usefulness of the LV-N is the 10000 funds price-tag, for instance that buys nearly 4 Kickback booster so if you're cost-optimizing you need to consider whether it's better to invest in a LV-N or larger lower stages.

One problem with the Wolfhound is that it doesn't even have a high price tag. It's most readily compared with the Skipper or LV-N, yet it actually has a "thrust-cost-ratio" nearly twice as a high as the Skipper:

Engine	Thrust	Cost	Mass	TWR	TCR	ISP
Skipper	650	5300	3t	22.1	0.123	330
Wolfhound	375	1680	2.5t	15.3	0.223	412
LV-N	80	10000	3t	2.72	0.008	800

 

Since these 3 engines are all comparable in weight, it would be logical to expect the Wolfhound to be somewhere in between the Skipper and LV-N in all columns, if we were to pin the ISP at 412 and extrapolate the other columns, then the cost should be around 5800 funds, and the thrust around 340kN.

[N_Molson]

N°1 : Wolfhound, yes. Clearly overpowered and over-ISP-ed. The Apollo SPS it clearly tries to replicate had something like 100kN of thrust.

Edited May 13, 2018 by N_Molson

[The_Rocketeer]

On 5/11/2018 at 7:19 PM, GoSlash27 said:

Well, that certainly is a... confusing analogy

On 5/11/2018 at 9:15 PM, KerikBalm said:

Well, I'll agree with you here, I don't think its a very good analogy.

It was not intended as an analogy - it was a demonstration of principle. Being able to use (a game component that is unbalanced) in the way that the game intends it be used does not mean that the game is balanced.

I read from @GoSlash27's post (as quoted) that the lack of balance is not something you find problematic. I do find it problematic, because it breaks the intuitive connection to how parts should behave in the game. Spaceplane-intended parts don't need to always be the best parts to make a spaceplane from, but they should always make a good spaceplane, and a better spaceplane than rocket-intended parts. There is a case for ambiguety of intended purpose, but where the intended purpose is unambiguous, the advantage should always be to the purpose-specific part, not to the bag of bits. Making a spaceplane from spaceplane parts should be easy, but improving on it with generic parts should be hard (note not impossible).

Edited May 14, 2018 by The_Rocketeer

[Corona688]

On 5/12/2018 at 1:33 AM, KerikBalm said:

Again, I'm asking someone to explain why it should have the Isp curve of a booster engine. Its got better atmospheric Isp than a LV-T30, but worse vacuum Isp... why?!

Good atmospheric performance comes at the penalty of worse vacuum performance, because the two features are at-odds - what helps one, hurts the other.  You want a good nozzle to contain pressure in vacuum.  In atmosphere, that's dead weight or worse since the atmosphere does that for you.  Earthly attempts for engines good at both have included things like extendible engine nozzles.

[Capt. Hunt]

I think the OP is using the aerospike wrong.  It's not designed for use as an engine on a staged booster, or a lander, or even as an upper stage engine.  It's a lightweight multipurpose engine meant to be used on SSTOs.

And the Vector isn't supposed to be a Vac engine either, that's what OMS engines are for.  The main benefit of the vector is the enhanced gimbal range, which can be handy for balancing asymmetric stacks.  In the case of SSMEs, they were only fired from launch to ET jettison, and they put out most of their thrust after SRB sep.

As someone said early in this thread, the OP doesn't want a balance pass, he just wants what he thinks is better performance.

Each of these engines has a niche, you can't expect them to be good at everything, you just need to find the right niche for them to thrive.

[KerikBalm]

3 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Good atmospheric performance comes at the penalty of worse vacuum performance, because the two features are at-odds - what helps one, hurts the other.  You want a good nozzle to contain pressure in vacuum.  In atmosphere, that's dead weight or worse since the atmosphere does that for you.  Earthly attempts for engines good at both have included things like extendible engine nozzles.

Ok, so your point is a realism issue, not a gameplay issue: As mentioned previously, for the sabre which the rapier is modeled after, this is not the case. The above point has already been brought up and addressed, I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thread.

Besides, the rapier engine has the worst performance from sea level, at a standstill. It has the best performance in jet mode at very high altitude (regardless of speed, at about 10 km and above... so the jet mode does seem to be optimized for low atmospheric pressure, why does the closed cycle suddenly take on the properties of an atmospheric booster with better SL Isp than a Reliant?

From a gameplay issue, underwhat circumstances would one use closed cycle in the thick atmosphere, justifying the good atmospheric performance of closed cycle? Closed cycle is used in low pressure/vacuum conditions, not high pressure conditions, so the strong points of its Isp curve seem completely backwards to me.

2 hours ago, Capt. Hunt said:

I think the OP is using the aerospike wrong.  It's not designed for use as an engine on a staged booster, or a lander, or even as an upper stage engine.  It's a lightweight multipurpose engine meant to be used on SSTOs.

If that were its purpose, it could have really really bad atmospheric Isp like a poodle has (assuming that you mean spaceplanes when you say SSTOs, for rocket SSTOs, you want something with higher TWR and thrust: cross section ratio, like a mammoth). The whole point of an aerospike is that its an altitude compenating nozzle (related to the point above). If you aren't putting it to use in a way that you need something that adapts to varying atmospheric pressure, what is the point of an aerospike? The real life appeal of aerospikes is that you can have one nozzle for an engine that burns from sea level to orbit, and gets good efficiency the whole way (this could be a staged rocket with a core stage that burns the whole way like the SSMEs, or a SSTO rocket)

Quote

And the Vector isn't supposed to be a Vac engine either, that's what OMS engines are for. 

Not really... on the STS the OMS engines supplied only a tiny bit of dV. As noted, the SSMEs had a pretty darn high expansion ratio. They provide all the thrust after SRB separation, at which point they are basically operating in a vacuum but still have a whole heck of a long way to go to orbit. Anyway, I wasn't arguing in favor of buffing the vector Isp, because its got other factors that already make it a very good engine, and not such a SSME analogue.

Quote

The main benefit of the vector is the enhanced gimbal range, which can be handy for balancing asymmetric stacks.  In the case of SSMEs, they were only fired from launch to ET jettison, and they put out most of their thrust after SRB sep.

IMO, its vector range isn't really needed so much in KSP, but its also a very high TWR engine (the SSMEs... not all that great compared to Kerlox engines), and a stat few people talk about in KSP, thrust:cross section area... its off the charts for the vector, which means it can lift very tall and skinny stack for very little drag - or it can be added to spaceplane designs to add a lot of thrust for very little additional drag.

Quote

As someone said early in this thread, the OP doesn't want a balance pass, he just wants what he thinks is better performance.

Each of these engines has a niche, you can't expect them to be good at everything, you just need to find the right niche for them to thrive.

Going Ad hominem now? I don't just want better performance... I want balance and for stats to make some sort of sense in the context of their gameplay purpose/use and/or reality.

If I just wanted better performing parts, why would I say multiple times that the skiff and wolfhound need to be nerfed. 

As it is now, we have some engines which simply simultaneously have a higher TWR and higher Isp than other engines. What niche does that leave for the engines with both a lower Isp and lower TWR?

Some engines suck in their current state, so I'd say they need a buff (such as the radial engines), some are OP'd (wolfhound, skiff) and need a nerf. Some I think need a tweak to fit a niche better (like not improving the aerospike TWR or Isp, but simply scaling its thrust and mass up a bit so its better suited use on a 1.25m core)

Edited May 14, 2018 by KerikBalm

[Tyko]

@KerikBalm This mod addresses some of your engine requests. There's a google sheet detailing the changes here:

 

[cfds]

On 5/11/2018 at 7:59 PM, GoSlash27 said:

If they can still be easily used for their intended purpose, then by definition it's not a game balance issue, even if another part makes it even easier.

[Emphasize mine]

The last part of your quote does actually make this the definition of a balance issue.

[General Apocalypse]

No KSP has no balance because real life rocketry has no balance.

Also the Wolfhound is an EXACT COPY OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE ENGINE - if you want to nerf reality I suggest grabbing a wrench (for credibility) , going to Aerojet Rocketdyne and tell them their engine is too good and that they need to make it crappier .

I'm sure they will understand this.

The game is fine and everyone can customize their experience and add mods if you want extra stuff. The game badly needs a large team of coders to drastically increase performance in the game.

It could also make players less miserable by integrating quintessential mods like Kerbal Engineer , Mech Jeb and Scan Sat so that the modding community dosen't have to use their blood , sweat and tears to fix the game every time there is a patch.

[Pthigrivi]

Im pretty sure the Wolfhound is based on the AJ10-137 for the apollo service module. Its RL Isp is around 315s, just for reference. 

[DeltaDizzy]

7 hours ago, General Apocalypse said:

It could also make players less miserable by integrating quintessential mods like Kerbal Engineer , Mech Jeb and Scan Sat so that the modding community dosen't have to use their blood , sweat and tears to fix the game every time there is a patch.

However, not everyone uses those mods. for KER it is maybe possible, but not nearly enough people use MechJeb or SCANSat for them to be integrated. It needs to be something everyone(or at least the vast majority) would use or it shouldn't be integrated.

[General Apocalypse]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Im pretty sure the Wolfhound is based on the AJ10-137

 

It looks nothing like it , at least from my perspective. The AJ10-137 is a tiny engine of 100kg with a trust of 40 kN.

The Wolfhound is 2.5 ton 375 kN powerhouse. The main grip people have is the ISP. Which is similar to the RS-25.

Now the RS - 25 engine has an IPS of 452 with 3.5 ton mass and is capable of putting out 2.2 MegaNewtons . Now that might be OP.

If anything engines in game need a boost. Especially the nuclear one , that poor thing needs it's later brother added to the stock game.

7 hours ago, DeltaDizzy said:

However, not everyone uses those mods. for KER it is maybe possible, but not nearly enough people use MechJeb or SCANSat for them to be integrated. It needs to be something everyone(or at least the vast majority) would use or it shouldn't be integrated.

Most people don't use mods AFAIK. As for MechJeb - it's basically the integrated computer all space missions had from Sputnik down to last night's Falcon - 9 launch.
Integrating it would be perfectly logical .

However if they just start with KER and it's Apoapsis / Pariapsis / Biome / Distance to surface HUD data that would be just fine.

As for SCANSat - well that was the main goal of a lot of missions. Plus the mod is very very well made - the HUD might need a bit of polish but the entire HUD of KSP is now a blurry outdated mess.

Edited June 5, 2018 by General Apocalypse

[TheRedTom]

10 hours ago, General Apocalypse said:

It looks nothing like it , at least from my perspective. The AJ10-137 is a tiny engine of 100kg with a trust of 40 kN.

The Wolfhound is 2.5 ton 375 kN powerhouse. The main grip people have is the ISP. Which is similar to the RS-25.
 

2

I'm sorry but you're just wrong. The Wolfhound (RE-J10) is a purpose-built replica of the Apollo Service Module Propulsion engine.

The fact it's a massive powerhouse with rediculous ISP is what we're complaining about. The AJ-10 is pressure fed and hypergolic with an ISP of 319!

[General Apocalypse]

Why do people think repeating a post makes a valid argument ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Delta_II_second_stage.jpg

Look at the shape , they are very different beasts .

Oh also one weighs 100kg the other is 25 times heavier .

 

[Shadowmage]

27 minutes ago, General Apocalypse said:

Why do people think repeating a post makes a valid argument ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Delta_II_second_stage.jpg

Look at the shape , they are very different beasts .

Oh also one weighs 100kg the other is 25 times heavier .

 

I believe that you may be misinterpreting some of the information.

There are many different AJ-10 engines.  The one you link to is the AJ10-118K; used on the second stage of the Delta-II.  This one is not present in stock KSP as far as I am aware, at least not in any sort of 'replica' fashion.

 

The one used on the Apollo-SM (and that the stock/MH Wolfhound is based on) is the AJ10-137 --

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20100027319

There is also the AJ10-190 that was used as the Space-Shuttle OMS engines (The stock 'Puff' engine I believe... though I rarely use stock parts, so could have a different name...):