Vector engines?

[M_Rat13]

4 minutes ago, T1mo98 said:

I don't use the Twin-Boar, Rhino and Mammoth at all since a single or cluster of Vectors can do the job. Especially the Rhino since it's so big.

The Mainsail looks so ugly I don't want to use it and the Skipper has just too big a footprint imo.

So you'd use the mainsail if it wasn't ugly. Also, you make it sound like it's the skipper you want changed, not the vector. Oh, and the rhino has higher Isp in space, so it's clear it's for heavy transport between planets, whereas the vector is for the lower stages in atmosphere.

Basically, the only real problem is the twin boar and mammoth bein  obsolete, and could be rectified by forcing the vector to be only attached to connection points, and not free placed, into giant clusters, like I suggested.

[Aegolius13]

2 hours ago, M_Rat13 said:

Basically, the only real problem is the twin boar and mammoth bein  obsolete, and could be rectified by forcing the vector to be only attached to connection points, and not free placed, into giant clusters, like I suggested.

I wouldn't say the Mammoth is obsolete due to the Vector.  If you happen to want 4x Vectors on a 3.75m stack, the Mammoth gives you that, with half the cost (in career anyway), one ton less weight, lower part count and (IMO) better looks.  But yeah, the Vector is a lot more versatile.  No argument that 2x Vectors beat a TwinBoar in performance stats, but if you're playing career and looking to save funds, the TwinBoar is an extremely cost-efficient engine. 

The Making History engine plates make it much easier to cluster other engines, which equalizes the playing field a bit.  You can also basically surface-mount any engine by surfacing mounting a cubic-octagonal strut or similar structural part, and then putting the engine on the node at the end of the strut. Then clip the strut into oblivion.  

[Capt. Hunt]

2 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

I don't use the Twin-Boar, Rhino and Mammoth at all since a single or cluster of Vectors can do the job. Especially the Rhino since it's so big.

The Mainsail looks so ugly I don't want to use it and the Skipper has just too big a footprint imo.

the Mammoth is literally supposed to be a cluster of vectors (modeled after the cluster of 4 SSMEs on SLS).  IIRC, Twin-boar is essentially a pair of vectors and an orange tank.  The main advantage of both is they are slightly lighter then their equivalent parts.  Rhino is an upper stage engine for super heavy rockets (modeled on the J2X)

[Tweeker]

1 hour ago, Capt. Hunt said:

the Mammoth is literally supposed to be a cluster of vectors (modeled after the cluster of 4 SSMEs on SLS).  IIRC, Twin-boar is essentially a pair of vectors and an orange tank.  The main advantage of both is they are slightly lighter then their equivalent parts.  Rhino is an upper stage engine for super heavy rockets (modeled on the J2X)

That is mostly correct, 

The Mammoth, Rhino, Twin Boar and Kickback are all modeled after SLS parts,  But  the specs, and sizes for them are all wrong, 

The Twin Boar is essentially the Pyrios Booster, that was not selected for the SLS, It consisted of 2X F-1B engine, a modernized and uprated version of the F-1 from the Saturn V

It should have about 3,600 SL thrust in KSP.  I think it would be 2X   2.5M Engines on a 3.75M tank. 

Next inline should be the Kickback booster, Which is essentially a space shuttle booster, I think this should be 2.5m with ~2500 SL thrust, tapering off as it burns.  

The next part would be the  4X RS-25 core, or the mammoth,   it should have about 1700 SL thrust rising to 2000 Vac, Each engine should be about 1.875M  on a 5M core, But they are burning LH/O2 not RP-1,  so either the tank needs de-fuel to about 30% to account for the different density of the fuel, or KSP needs a  fluffier fuel.

Then you would have the single Vector engine with 425 SL thrust,  rising to 500 vacuum,  and being 1.875M 

Lastly would be the J-2X   at 300 Thrust, And 1.875M

Of course it is far too late in the game for such radical changes

Edited March 31, 2019 by Tweeker

[Aeroboi]

This example is why the Vector is Abysmal. I actually use this trick because I take usage out of this trick often but wouldn't mind to see it fixed due to being unrealistic.

Below is a picture of a Mammoth engine with 4 vectors at the underside making for a total 8000Kn of thrust. With some moving the parts around I could cramp a total of 6 Vectors for a total 10.000Kn while packed inside the 3.75m rear cross section of the Mammoth engine.

I would put off Gimbal on the engines so they don't gimbal through the Mammoth nozzles (gimbal on mammoth should be enough by the way for a proper functional rocket)

[T1mo98]

9 hours ago, M_Rat13 said:

So you'd use the mainsail if it wasn't ugly. Also, you make it sound like it's the skipper you want changed, not the vector. Oh, and the rhino has higher Isp in space, so it's clear it's for heavy transport between planets, whereas the vector is for the lower stages in atmosphere.

Basically, the only real problem is the twin boar and mammoth bein  obsolete, and could be rectified by forcing the vector to be only attached to connection points, and not free placed, into giant clusters, like I suggested.

I'd use the Mainsail if it weren't so ugly and had a smaller cross-section, same goes for the Skipper. They are just too big to properly use with pretty much anything I make.

I do want the Vector to change, but only if we get an engine that can fill the void it leaves, i.e. a 1.25m engine with a small nozzle but still powerful, somewhere around 450-500kN. If we get that the Vector can be balanced to be a better SSME equivalent.

The reason I barely use the Rhino is how massive it is. I rarely have 3.75m upper stages. I'd just wish for a 2.5m bare variant.

[Laie]

9 minutes ago, T1mo98 said:

I'd use the Mainsail if it weren't so ugly and had a smaller cross-section, same goes for the Skipper. They are just too big to properly use with pretty much anything I make.

In conclusion, the Vector is so OP it has spoiled us.

Through the general realistification may also play a role. Short and stubby things were more bearable when the whole game was more cartoon-like. Also drag, of course, but for me the real driving force is expectations set by real-life precedents.

[T1mo98]

6 hours ago, Tweeker said:

That is mostly correct, 

The Mammoth, Rhino, Twin Boar and Kickback are all modeled after SLS parts,  But  the specs, and sizes for them are all wrong, 

The Twin Boar is essentially the Pyrios Booster, that was not selected for the SLS, It consisted of 2X F-1B engine, a modernized and uprated version of the F-1 from the Saturn V

It should have about 3,600 SL thrust in KSP.  I think it would be 2X   2.5M Engines on a 3.75M tank. 

Next inline should be the Kickback booster, Which is essentially a space shuttle booster, I think this should be 2.5m with ~2500 SL thrust, tapering off as it burns.  

The next part would be the  4X RS-25 core, or the mammoth,   it should have about 1700 SL thrust rising to 2000 Vac, Each engine should be about 1.875M  on a 5M core, But they are burning LH/O2 not RP-1,  so either the tank needs de-fuel to about 30% to account for the different density of the fuel, or KSP needs a  fluffier fuel.

Then you would have the single Vector engine with 425 SL thrust,  rising to 500 vacuum,  and being 1.875M 

Lastly would be the J-2X   at 300 Thrust, And 1.875M

Of course it is far too late in the game for such radical changes

I don't think 2x 2.5m engines would work on a 3.75m tank. They would rather be 1.875m, like the middle variant of the Mastadon, two of those perfectly fit under a 3.75m tank.
A thrust of 3.600 kN SL also seems rather high considering they're basically just 2 F-1 engines, and using the Mastadon as an equivalent, two of them should be around 2.600kN SL.

The Kickback would also need a gimballing nozzle otherwise it would be pretty useless as a Space Shuttle Booster.

I see an issue with making the Mammoth a 5m part, it would be out of scale with a lot of other parts, most notably the Mk1-3 Command Pod.
This is an issue that pops up everywhere, since KSP scale is too inconsistent. This would mean they'd had to add a lot of extra parts so you can properly recreate Orion.

The Vector being 1.875m would also make it too big to properly fit on the Mk3 Engine Mount unless the nozzle stays the same and you clip the baseplate completely into the thing, by which point it doesn't really matter if it's 1.875m or 1.25m. The best thing would just be to remove it being surface-mountable and apply other balance tweaks.

To fill the gap the current Vector leaves I also think we need an engine with a relatively small nozzle that can be clustered well, maybe an 1.25m RD-191 equivalent at 500kN SL.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Laie said:

In conclusion, the Vector is so OP it has spoiled us.

Through the general realistification may also play a role. Short and stubby things were more bearable when the whole game was more cartoon-like. Also drag, of course, but for me the real driving force is expectations set by real-life precedents.

Speaking from someone who only plays KSP Sandbox mode and makes a lot of replicas, the Vector isn't OP, it's just the only engine in the game capable of acting in the place of a lot of real-word equivalents at the current time. 

If we get Mainsail and Skipper revamps with bare variants and a Kickback revamp or new SRB to make it 2.5m with a lot of thrust, the Vector could be balanced to around 425kN as Tweeker said so it could be a mainly Shuttle engine.
 

Edited March 31, 2019 by T1mo98

[Aegolius13]

8 hours ago, Tweeker said:

Lastly would be the J-2X   at 300 Thrust, And 1.875M

We do have a J-2 analog now via Making History, with the Skiff.  Of course, it's presumably modeled after the original J-2 rather than J-2X, but it does provide 300kN in a 1.875m package.

Which makes the Rhino a very strange engine since it has more thrust than any real-world upper stage engine I can think of, other than I guess the Vacuum Raptor if it happens.  And that's before the downscaling to KSP stats.  Or maybe it's equivalent to the Sea Dragon second stage, in which case we need a 12,000kN sea-level engine to match.

On another note, @snark did a  stat revamp of the Vector that might be relevant for folks wanting a more balanced engine.

 

[Aeroboi]

7 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

I don't think 2x 2.5m engines would work on a 3.75m tank. They would rather be 1.875m, like the middle variant of the Mastadon, two of those perfectly fit under a 3.75m tank.
A thrust of 3.600 kN SL also seems rather high considering they're basically just 2 F-1 engines, and using the Mastadon as an equivalent, two of them should be around 2.600kN SL.

Yes!

7 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

The Kickback would also need a gimballing nozzle otherwise it would be pretty useless as a Space Shuttle Booster.

Yes!

7 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

I see an issue with making the Mammoth a 5m part, it would be out of scale with a lot of other parts, most notably the Mk1-3 Command Pod.

Well, they're inline with the Kerbodyne 3.75m tanks based on the SLS so then one would have to swap the entire fuel tank setup so that's quite rare and confusing.
Also, the 5M parts are the Nasa replica parts so the F1 engine mount is the basis for the engine setup. That would then have a 5m wide mammoth stick out with the outer attachment nodes being overlapped so imagine to discuss this point to predict how far off it is to say they would swap these parts to different sizes. In any way, you could always put the mammoth under the F1 adapter with the the S3-S4 5m-3.75m adapter in between and 4 other engines on the outer nodes.

7 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

The Vector being 1.875m would also make it too big to properly fit on the Mk3 Engine Mount unless the nozzle stays the same and you clip the baseplate completely into the thing, by which point it doesn't really matter if it's 1.875m or 1.25m.

I'm always in for tricks and quirks  

7 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

To fill the gap the current Vector leaves I also think we need an engine with a relatively small nozzle that can be clustered well, maybe an 1.25m RD-191 equivalent at 500kN SL

Not a bad idea. So that's a (A) a different Vector and (B) a 500Kn RD-191 replica?
In any case we do need the Space shuttle replica variant engine, called Vector or whatever name the Dev's willing to give.
 

7 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

Speaking from someone who only plays KSP Sandbox mode and makes a lot of replicas, the Vector isn't OP, it's just the only engine in the game capable of acting in the place of a lot of real-word equivalents at the current time.

Maybe. But because a game needs to be a challenge it doens't need to be easy. Also, KSP isn't real life, and in KSP the application proves OP so I find the comparison not in relation since this is a game with a small solar system.

7 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

If we get Mainsail and Skipper revamps with bare variants and a Kickback revamp or new SRB to make it 2.5m with a lot of thrust, the Vector could be balanced to around 425kN as Tweeker said so it could be a mainly Shuttle engine.

I'm not against this. The weight of a scaled space shuttle version dictates the required thrust based on the Mk3 lineup. And admittedly, 425kN isn't bad. Since I already posted the Vector clustering on a mammoth you can greatly increase the thrust per cross section. If they're 425kN each I wouldn't mind.

And in general I don't agree with you is that they should cancel surface mounting. Especially the Vector.

Why?

• Vectors are used as Submarine ballast. Therefore it shouldn't be only stack mounted as that would disallow me proper weight balancing as I would be required to use a non-hydrodynamic and almost always buoyant attachment part.
• Some SSTO's of mine use the Vector in Vacuum as VTOL. Some SSTO's are big and require a lot of thrust. 1 Vector is usually okay. Otherwise I would have to swap a future lower thrust vector for 2 or more and need another attachment part just to stick them on. Beyond editing cfg files these are often KerbalX or Googledrive vessels that are to share so I wouldn't want to edit surface attachability just for my own game play.
• While the Vector is a high gimbal engine (and should remain as such) it's particularly good at creating torque. So if there's any engine type you want to surface mount anywhere where you'll require torque you want that engine to be surface mountable. Think about ring stations (to create spin) VTOL engines for planes and space planes. IIRC the different physic elements the Vector provides is what creates many of the unique designs out there.
• Also, even a 425kN Vector swap would still be the most powerful 1.25m engine (a 1.875m variant should have more thrust) and therefore the easiest engine type to pack or clip in tight spots so it would be the particular engine you'd want to mount anywhere whenever you would require thrust. My picture above clustering them on a Mammoth is ludicrous at 1000kN each, if they were 425kN I'd be okay.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Aeroboi

[Fraston]

Because of it’s excellent TWR, it’s outstanding TFR (Thrust to Footprint Ratio) and unrivaled ability to cluster. I love it just because of its amazing thrust. I don’t care at all about the gimbal at this point.  It is 930-something KW ASL and has so much thrust that I never use mammoth engines.

amazing engine 30/10.

[Xurkitree]

I don't care they're op, the clustering thing is the onlything allowing to me to create ridiculous stuff in orbit.

Drag is no problem,and weird instablities can be just brute forced with the gimbal.

[322997am]

Tbh their only use is in clusters