Wolfhound vs Poodle

[TheTripleAce3]

Never thought I'd write a title like that...

Nonetheless, Why use the Poodle when the Wolfhound exists? The Poodle just uses a bit less fuel/second, where the Wolfhound gets thrust, isp, the ability to be 1.875 or 2.5m, etc?

My only other reason for the poodle is a vacuum lander..

Edited November 17, 2018 by TheTripleAce3

[Rocket In My Pocket]

A. Nostalgia. The Poodle was and is a great engine.

B. You don't own the Making History DLC and therefore don't have the Wolfhound.

C. Efficiency, not only does it burn less fuel per second, but it's lighter and cheaper than the Wolfhound too. It also edges it out in atmo isp, impact tolerance, and vectoring range.

D. That said, the WolfHound is a bit OP yes. There was talk at release that it's .cfg file got mixed up with another DLC engine. Not sure how true that it is, as it's never been changed.

[Fraston]

The poodle is a lot smaller, which means it can help with the rocket going spaghetti.

Also landers.

[Tonka Crash]

1 hour ago, TheTripleAce3 said:

My only other reason for the poodle is a vacuum lander..

This is the only reason I use a Poodle. 

[Snark]

Yah, I basically never used a Poodle ever again, after the Wolfhound arrived on the scene. The huge advantage in Isp simply blows the Poodle out of the water, as far as I'm concerned.  There's no contest.

On those rare occasions when I need approximately a Poodle's worth of thrust on a vacuum lander, I'm much more likely just to use a quartet of Terriers. The Isp is very nearly as good, the weight is fairly similar,  and they're an excellent form factor for landers.

So, for me... yeah, the Poodle is basically dead at this point.  Used to use it all the time, but now the Wolfhound pwns it, at least for me.

[IronMaiden]

If you have making history I don't think there is ever a use for the poodle. Unless you're landing on a surface, the nuke is always better. If you are landing on a surface the skiff, being .75t lighter and having 50kN more thrust can lift far more, and if you need the range such that poodle's better Isp makes it better than the skiff, then the wolfhound is better.

[OHara]

Another reason to use the poodle is E: You may well decide that the un-install facility is Making-History's best feature.

There was lots of discussion about how the performance of the M.H. engines doesn't fit with the others in KSP, link1 link2.

Tyko made a re-balance patch for the M.H. engines, in which the Wolfhound gets exactly the stats of the Poodle [thus replacing the Poodle, which is then hidden, much like the new stack separators replaced the old ones].
 https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/174303-15x-engine-tweaks-for-making-history/&

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by OHara

[Bill Phil]

The Wolfhound is so OP that you can use it on a launcher stage. Just gotta get above the thickest part of the atmosphere and the thrust and ISP are great. 

[Snark]

1 minute ago, Bill Phil said:

The Wolfhound is so OP that you can use it on a launcher stage. Just gotta get above the thickest part of the atmosphere and the thrust and ISP are great. 

Sure... though to be fair, that's true of many so-called "vacuum" engines. They work great once you're over 10 km or so.

[FleshJeb]

The only two places a sophisticated gentleman may burn oxidizer are in Vernors and Fuel Cells--All other options are for for commoners.

(OK, OK, I occasionally put some through Rapiers.)

[Bill Phil]

52 minutes ago, Snark said:

Sure... though to be fair, that's true of many so-called "vacuum" engines. They work great once you're over 10 km or so.

Yeah but the thrust and ISP are enormously high. Good luck lifting an orange tank or two with a poodle.

[overkill13]

The only reason I use the Poodle is because I refuse to use the Wolfhound.  As mentioned it is seriously overpowered and most of MH don't fit in with the stock engines.  A significant oversight on the part of Squad/Take 2/whoever is in charge of this stuff. 

I considered Tyko's balance patch, but I can't decide what stats to give the Wolfhound since I don't want it to be exactly the same as the Poodle.

[theJesuit]

I replaced the wolfhound with the poodle's stats (and renamed it to be the poodle  ), but also squished it using an MM patch with the model node rescale and connector nodes adjusted.

I also reworked another MH engine to do the same for the skipper, and the porkjet LV-303 to be the spark - ironically looking very like the KSP 1.6 spark.

I can post the patch here later if anyone requests.

Peace.

Edited November 18, 2018 by theJesuit

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

The Wolfhound is an upgrade in every way over the Poodle. It even edges out the NERVA in many cases. (See the plots further down in that thread)

 

[KerikBalm]

The wolfhound (and to a lesser extent, the Skiff), are simply OP'd

I avoid using them except when it won't make a difference in performance (ie the performance margins for the task at hand are so larger for a poodle anyway, like for an orbital tug), and I want a cooler looking engine.

The cheetah was pretty well balanced, the wolfhound... OP'd

The only reason not to use it is if you want to make a small craft, where the wolfhound is simply to massive

[hms_warrior]

Ok first: Before the wolfhound everyone used the poodle for everthing happening in vacuum. So...poodle OP?

There will allways be a "best" engine for every situation.

Want a super efficent vacuum engine but still have a good TWR? wolfhound.

Want a super efficent vacuum engine and don't care about TWR? NERVA.

Want a efficent vacuum lander engine? poodle.

Want a efficent vacuum lander engine that is small? terrrier.

 

On a side note: i still use the terrier/poodle as my normal vacuum engine...

a) for a good designed Kerbin-system-ship 350 ISP is more than good enough.

b) wolfhound is to so big it screws every design that is supposed to land somewhere.

c) 37 tons thrust is just to much for "normal" spaceships.

And this is a single player game...who cares about balance? You? well good news: you can just not use it. Or edit it. Or delete it.

What's the problem again?

Edited November 19, 2018 by hms_warrior

[Guest]

Wolfhound is absurdly good yes. 

But I like it.

-- I'm in mid-Career now and have not used the Poodle for anything. OTOH I've built two STOL/VTOL planes for Duna, and they're literally built around the Wolfhound. It's that good. OP maybe, but in my case at least it was just the creative stimulus I needed.

The Terrier OTOH continues to be excellent.

[TheFlyingKerman]

For a vacuum lander I prefer the Aerospike to the Poddle. It is much lighter with almost the same thrust. The reduction in dry mass compensates the worst ISP.

[RealKerbal3x]

I don't like how overpowered the Wolfhound is in stock. The Poodle is a much more realistic SPS engine, except for the looks. I would recommend @Tyko's Engine Tweaks for Making History, which, among other things, applies the Poodle's stats to the Wolfhound and makes it a much more realistic engine.

 

[ZL647]

Yeah. I dont bother with poodle anymore. I just use wolfhound or terrier depending on ship size, for landers and Nerva or Wolfhound for orbital stuff depending on how I feel about long burns.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Oh, I forgot the most powerful part of the poodle:

You can mount it inline on 1.25m stacks without any drag penalty, so it is one of the best SSTO engines.

[magnemoe]

On 11/17/2018 at 11:54 PM, OHara said:

Another reason to use the poodle is E: You may well decide that the un-install facility is Making-History's best feature.

There was lots of discussion about how the performance of the M.H. engines doesn't fit with the others in KSP, link1 link2.

Tyko made a re-balance patch for the M.H. engines, in which the Wolfhound gets exactly the stats of the Poodle [thus replacing the Poodle, which is then hidden, much like the new stack separators replaced the old ones].
 https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/174303-15x-engine-tweaks-for-making-history/&

 

That explains why my Tylo SSTO with mining ended up looking like something to use on Mun. 

Top part is an lander who can land on Tylo and take off again with that stack the hitchhiker and the science module. 
Wait its worse, its not the stock ISRU module its the planetary bases version who is lighter but it has an nuclear reactor on the backside so total weight of the power and ISRU module is 6-7 ton. An inline drill between the engines. 

Bottom is an base for use on Vall. 
 

[roboslacker]

It's smaller.

[l0kki]

15 hours ago, hms_warrior said:

Want a efficent vacuum lander engine? poodle.

I do not understand the lander argument for the poodle, the wolfhound has better thrust and ISP than the poodle making it very much superior over the poodle in performance. The only flaw that i can find in using the wolfhound as a lander engine is the nozzle size but is that really a problem? Use some structural parts to bring down the landing legs and its like the thing isnt there and if your lander is so small that you cant do that you probably should just use a terrier

[SlinkyMcman]

1 hour ago, l0kki said:

I do not understand the lander argument for the poodle, the wolfhound has better thrust and ISP than the poodle making it very much superior over the poodle in performance. The only flaw that i can find in using the wolfhound as a lander engine is the nozzle size but is that really a problem? Use some structural parts to bring down the landing legs and its like the thing isnt there and if your lander is so small that you cant do that you probably should just use a terrier

It's also easier to place the wolfhound since it doesn't require a 5m base.