Kerbal Space Program 1.7.3 is live!

[klgraham1013]

17 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

If you’re just attracted to the cosmetics of a prop plane, sure why not. But I still don’t get this resistance to learning how they actually work. It is pretty simple stuff compared to orbital mechanics or re-entry aerodynamics.

No.  It's that the simple snap-on version consistent with every other engine in the game does not exist.  Relying on mods is not the answer and never has been.  A game should stand on it's own.  Just as I have always asked for aesthetic consistency, gameplay consistency is also important.  Iconography is important.  All these things make a game feel polished.  Squad has struggled with this for KSP's entire 8+ year development.  If we built rocket engines from 3 or so parts, the new props would fit right in.  As it is, they do not.  They are an oddity.  That is my problem with it.  Just as why I dislike the Mk3 wings, which are model kit parts and unlike the lego styling of much of the rest of the game.  The Goliath engine completely ignores the established design philosophy of every other jet engine; combining it with a nacelle, pylon, and intake.  I love Porkjet's work generally, but those design decisions were and are a mistake.  I actually like the new props, but making them the default option for props was not the correct decision from a consistent gameplay design perspective.

Okay.  You made me use the energy to rant.  Congratulations.

[Noir]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

if you’re only looking at them in terms of efficiency or as alternatives to jets

Which is the very reason why they are used in real life...

 

I just wanted the engines to act like real combustion engines, and not reskinned electric engines. And not be affected by the glitchiness of KSP, which they still are at times...

All people wanted, such as Ninja @klgraham1013 here, is for the propellers to act consistently with how rockets and jet currently act in game. KSP doesn't treat either realistically right now.

To quote myself again...

10 hours ago, Noir said:

I love the fact that I can customise the engines, which I feel is appropriate for the nature of prop engines (and RP purposes), especially compared to the "internal-ness" and "unseen" nature of jet engines... ...But they definitely don't feel "Kerbal".

But hey, thankfully the good ol' Jumo 004 engi-.. sorry I mean J-20 Juno engine is super easy to use and doesn't explode when mishandled or anything...

______________________________________

56 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

-Snippy Snip-

Agree 100%.

The worst part about the Space Shuttle wings is that they are slightly too small to be used for a Space Shuttle, and slightly to oddly shaped as well. Plus, the Mk3 fuselage parts are awkward to use with their round tops/bottoms. I hope we get a Mk3 update one day... 

I feel this wouldn’t be an issue if the propellers and new engines were a single part, similar to how the old Firespitter engines were. This would allow them to retain their customisability yet wouldn’t shouldn’t be as glitchy and bloaty as they currently are. Both the engines and props could be customised within the single window. For example, my stock version of Snowpiercer uses 2 parts for the engine, and 8 for the propellers. Compare that to the modded version which only uses 2 parts for the entire engine setup. I know 8 parts isn’t much, but that can be 1 or 2 extra frames, which is a lot when the FPS jumps from high 50s to mid 20s. The props on the stock version also freak out at time, spinning at nearly 500 RPM at times and becoming disconnected from the body. But if the props and engines were a single part, this wouldn't be an issue. If done right, the design and aesthetic style of Snowpiercer could be kept as well. Win-win for everyone. If done right...

It would also be nice if they changed the way they functioned, such as adding them to the staging menu, adding sound, making the torque based on RPM and RPM based on fuel usage...

______________________________________

I recommend people try the new propellers in FAR. While they aren’t playing nice together right now, the propellers behave in a way that you would expect and require much less micromanagement. I tried out Snowpiercer in the stock aero, and while it swam flew horribly, I did notice that the propellers were very sluggish compared to how they are in FAR. Maybe it’s a bug, maybe a feature.

 

 

For some reason when trying to post, it would tell me that "this filled is required". It would then delete almost everything I had written...  This is the third time I've written this... I've spent an hour on this...

Edited July 14, 2019 by Noir
Reee

[Lisias]

35 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

If we built rocket engines from 3 or so parts, the new props would fit right in.  As it is, they do not.  They are an oddity. 

Perhaps this is the problem? Being able to built a rock with 3 or so parts? This is not Simple Rockets.

KSP is a "brick game" blended with a "puzzle game" with some Aerospace background as theme. LEGO Style.

 

43 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Relying on mods is not the answer and never has been.  A game should stand on it's own.  <cut by me>

Just as why I dislike the Mk3 wings, which are model kit parts and unlike the lego styling of much of the rest of the game.  The Goliath engine completely ignores the established design philosophy of every other jet engine; combining it with a nacelle, pylon, and intake.

LEGO is famous for their building bricks. And yet, they also add some function specific "bricks" to the set.

It's not different, on my opinion. They saw a need to extra, fueled wings and a high pass turbo-fan engine. These things could not be implemented using the standard set of "bricks", so they added it to the game so gamers would not need to rely on Add'Ons for that feature.

From a guy that spend some time building some really huge planes, having wings with fuel is a life part save. With this puny machine I still using for some playing, the part count matters - not to mention the piling drag issues.

 

49 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I actually like the new props, but making them the default option for props was not the correct decision from a consistent gameplay design perspective.

I think it is. The only real alternative to a propelled aircraft is Fire Spitter. All the rest are just jet engines in disguise - no more than that. I would be somewhat disappointed if Squad would had wasted valuable development time on vanity parts only.

That said, I'm unsure if "Robotics" is the right place for the Turbo Shaft Engines.  There's already a Category for Engines, they should be there.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Noir said:

Firstly, nobody here is discussing the differences between a piston aircraft and a jet aircraft. They are discussing the engines being used.

But a prop plane is more complex than a jet plane because of the engine - specifically, the extra forces a prop brings with it and the way a prop behaves at different forward airspeeds. The point of having props isn’t just looks, it’s that they behave like props. It would be very strange if a prop made with prop blades behaved completely differently than a prop made from elevons, no? 

As to modern prop planes, if you’ve ever flown one RL or in a reasonably good sim, you ought to know that they still have to deal with the same forces: you get torque yaw when taxiing and torque roll in flight and they have a thrust curve derived from blade pitch. They behave differently from jet planes and have to be designed accordingly.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Guest

[Boris-Barboris]

On 7/12/2019 at 5:53 AM, The Destroyer said:

Is anyone else having issues with the helicopter blades? In order to make them lift I have to use them "inverted", which visually looks wrong, I've tried rotating it many times in VAB but haven't had any success. The "authority limiter" which should be a brilliant way to manage collective, via changing the angle of the blade, *visually* does something but has absolutely zero effect on the actual thrust. I am using mods, but I don't believe any would have this sort of effect.

 

Have also been having some issues with bi or quadcopters, often one side apparently picks up lift before the other, flipping the vessel quickly over, despite being mirror'd.

Try removing AA mod, it modifies control surfaces.

[The Destroyer]

Yep, that was the cause. Didn't realize that.

[KerrMü]

Just a few friendly words to all the voices in this thread who want the new propellers made easyer.

Let´s be honest here. We don´t need all the new stuff, robotics, props, programming, to play in career mode. I´ve played career since it came out and got everything done I needed/wanted to without those new toys.

But that´s the thing, you see? They are NEW TOYS! Yippie!

Pre Breaking ground and 1.7.3 I had run out of ideas what to build next or what mission to fly next. Now we´ve reached a new level of what we can build in this game. New functions, new machines, new ideas. And the old crafts that worked perfectly fine before BG? They still work perfectly fine, but now we can - if we want to - rebuild them to do their jobs more elegantly, more efficiently, sometimes less efficient but funnier or cleverer. That satisfying feeling when the machine that you built meets or exceeds your expectations.

The base game hasn´t changed. But now, on top of it, there is a completely new level of complexity. New stuff to learn. (And I like learning new stuff)

Regarding the implementation: In my book the devs have already found clever workarounds for limitations of the game engine. Are they perfect and foolproof? Of course not. Just like in real life. If you overstress mechanical systems, there is a chance they will break/ go boom. If the programmers find a few tweaks here and there in the future, that would be cool. But for now I´m more than ok with the implementation.

Is building custom propellers/rotors more complicated as it absolutely has to be? Yes. Overly complicated? I don´t think so. Now we have a system in which we can tweak our propulsion system to pretty much exactly what we need in different circumstances... COOL

Now, I´m pretty stupid, but it only took me a few hours to go from my first crude 1.7.3 prop plane (posted on the first page of this thread) to a transport plane that could deliver 10 tons to the poles. I just had to slowly (remember, I´m stupid) understand how the new engines work.

Helicopters on the other hand are something completely different. Man, they are complicated. I tried to build one with tailrotor yesterday and failed spectacularly. After pulling my hair in frustration (long hair, will take for ever to grow back) I closed the game and opened up a few webpages and books and realized how little I knew about helicopters. I´ve made some real progress today.

So where are we... Hmmm, a game that confronts me with some really complicated problems, but only if I choose to be confronted, and that encourages me to learn how a helicopter works, or how bipedal robots walk, or just how to build a crane that doesn´t fall over...

I don´t know about you all, but I am as happy as a pig in the mud.

 

There is ONE little thing that I HATE about this update. I don´t have nearly enough time to play with my new toys these days.

Edited July 14, 2019 by KerrMü
typo. probably nowthe only one

[Starwaster]

27 minutes ago, KerrMü said:

There is ONE little thing that I HATE about this update. I don´t have nearly enough time to play with my new toys these days.

Sounds like a bug to me!

[fourfa]

^^^^ I wish I could like KerrMü’s post more than once. I agree completely; after years and 3000+ hours playing this game I’ve done everything I can think of many times over. I’ve hung out in the challenges forum just to get ideas that others have thought of. Completed more careers in more modded solar systems than I can easily count.  All of it suddenly feels small and highly limited compared to the glorious new complexity in front of me since Breaking Ground. 

Personally I love having a ton of active controls for flight. It should be hard, even for experienced players. If it’s too complex for new players - guess what, here’s a wonderful opportunity to write simple, easy to follow guides for them. How about go write those guides instead of complaining about the lack of them?  Write a mod to auto-manage prop pitch. Share and discuss craft with example control schemes. Heck, create and share a whole line of plug-and-play engine nacelles with detailed instructions. If you see problems, there are lots of ways to make a positive impact. 

[AHHans]

46 minutes ago, KerrMü said:

I don´t know about you all, but I am as happy as a pig in the mud.

I don't know about pigs in mud, but I do enjoy playing with the new toys.

I just made a solar-powered, folded-wing plane, that can get to Eve, fly over Eve on solar power, and boost its cockpit back into Eve's orbit. The biggest problem there wasn't getting the propellers to works, but to survive the aerobraking without burning up or getting ripped apart and tweaking the ascent trajectory to make it into orbit without running out of fuel. To me it feels like I finally mastered the last bossfight of KSP.

IMHO there are issues with the new parts, e.g. the non-functional cyclic control of the helicopter blades, the fact that they are extremely wobbly when attached to a heavy load, that they rather suddenly loose lift at a certain altitude, etc. But the fact that to use them one has to learn a bit how propellers work is not one of their problems.

[Gavin786]

Amazing Update, and so many features, long, long overdue.

We had to use mods Precise Editor and Editor Extensions Deluxe to do these things which aught to have been in stock for a very long time(break symmetry + enter numeric values).

Thank you, SQUAD, great update!

[Noir]

7 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

if you’ve ever flown one RL or in a reasonably good sim, you ought to know that they still have to deal with the same forces:

I've done both. I'm also aware of some of the late war/post war Navy Cats that would tear themselves apart due to sudden torque changes. But what from I've experienced in KSP, "engine torque" acts more like a phantom force, due to the odd behaviour of the engines being just reskinned electric rotors (as I've already said). What isn't modeled, and will never be, is prop wash.

Jet engines have their own advantages and disadvantages, many more than props. You can't max out the throttle and hope for the best. And for your average airplane you'd want to use a propeller due to the MANY advantages, at least in real life. But I honestly don't understand what you are trying to argue, and I don't have the interest in discussing it further.

5 hours ago, KerrMü said:

-Snip-

I don't disagree with you. But when you have been playing this game for 7+ years, and have been waiting for these features for that majority of time, it can be a bit of a disappointment when they are finally added in confusing and strange manner. I personalty am fairly happy with the new content, ignoring the paid DLC for long requested features aspect and lack of prior information from the Devs. There is nothing wrong with having to learn how something works, but we never had to learn how rocket or jet engines work, only how to use them. And neither require extra attached parts to function, which for me, is the big one. As I said before, the jet engines we have currently don't just randomly explode when misused, but the new rotors/props will happily fling off just because.

More parts = less FPS + more Kraken. 

But the content could have been added in a way that made more sense, and without the unwanted part bloat. Or at the very least with a tutorial or some kind of explanation on how the new parts work. Instead, all we got were some "pretty" pictures and told "good luck". The Devs of Cities Skylines have wonderful community involvement, with community driven tutorials on their Youtube channel. I have my own personal issue with the new content, but I'm just trying to highlight how I and others feel about this. Also, being a Fallout/Elder Scrolls fan, this frustration is doubled. It's all good to sit there going "I'm happy with this content!", but that's how you end up with 2 pointless Workshop DLCs, paid mods 2.0, Fallout 76, and other content that nobody asked for. And you're sat there wondering where your beloved game series is gone. People may not like criticism or negativity, but that's how you avoid these questionable content updates.

I just want the game to be the best it could be. Let people be critical. It's for the best.

[Homeworkhate]

Time to wait 3 years to get this on console, with 50% of the content gone.

[KerrMü]

1 hour ago, Noir said:

-snip-snip-

@Noir

Hey, thx for the polite answer. It is very much appreciated. Of course your criticism is welcome. You´re constructive and you´ve got valid points. Part count for example. And I didn´t want to attack anyone in no shape or form. I just wanted to give my opinion why I think the advantages of a flexible system outweigh the disantvantages. I´m sorry that we disagree on this, but I´m really having fun building with it right now.

On the technical side I can´t argue with you. Torque effects, prop wash aso. My flying experience is limited to building a few balsawood gliders as a kid, crashing far too often in IL-2 Sturmovic back then, and now KSP. Tbh I thought the motors are ok with fuel and air going in and something round comes out of the box and spins -> rest of the aircraft counter rotating (thanks to Newton, always making things difficult). Genuine question: How should torque affect the characteristics of ,let´s say, a single engine aircraft? I mean, what feels so wrong about it now?

Anyways, have fun playing.

And is it really seven years already? Holy ....  we´ve come a long way. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by KerrMü

[Klapaucius]

12 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

 This isn't an argument I have the energy for.

57 minutes ago, Noir said:

 But I honestly don't understand what you are trying to argue, and I don't have the interest in discussing it further.

Hey folks, come on.  No one is dissing you or trying to make your life difficult. We are just disagreeing with you. If you do not want to discuss further, that is fine. Just don't post any more on the subject.  But writing a long rebuttal and then stating you do not have the energy is a bit petulant. 

I was actually thinking you both made some good points, and was ready to concede some.  In thinking about it, a simpler engine could play a role like the fly-by-wire--something I never use.  However, I try really hard to be kind on these forums and do not appreciate dismissiveness like that, whether directed at me or another poster.  I'm not that wedded to my opinion and am certainly willing to change it. I expect others to enter into these discussions with the same mindset.

And @Brikoleur, whether you agree with his points or not, is a fine forum member.  And considering he just got thread of the month for his rotorcraft tutorial, is coming from a lot of recent experience with this type of building.  Check out his KerbalX page.

 

Anyway, knowing myself, I will probably try to build some weird plane using the prop blades as wings or see if they work on hydrofoils 

 

 

 

 

[Noir]

1 hour ago, KerrMü said:

Genuine question: How should torque affect the characteristics of ,let´s say, a single engine aircraft? I mean, what feels so wrong about it now?

Honestly, it works fine, my issue was more directed towards how the new engines work, opposed to the physics around them. Their fuel usage is directly tied to their torque output, and the torque output effects how fast the RPM increases. Not only that, but RPM drops rapidly if torque is lowered. This makes sense for electric driven robotics (at least in a game for robotic arms), but doesn't really make sense for fuel powered engines, at least to my understanding of how combustion engines work. I doubt turboshaft engines differ greatly to traditional piston combustion engines, as turboshaft engines are used for land vehicles like tanks.

But normally, torque is tied to RPM, not the other way around. As you increase the throttle you increase the amount of fuel entering the combustion chamber. This in turn increases the RPM. As the RPM increases, so does the horsepower and torque. Here's the wiki of power bands. To grossly simplify what each means: horsepower makes you go fast, torque makes you reach that 'fast' faster. Here's a better explanation. Yet in game, RPM has no effect on fuel usage. This would make some sense if a gearbox was being used, but these's not. I don't understand why torque effects fuel usage, since as already stated, torque is based on RPM and RPM is the thing that affects fuel usage. Sorry if you already knew that all that, but that's mainly what I mean. Maybe I am wrong in my understanding of how engines work, but from what I understand, the in game engine don't make sense. Which is also why I've said that the engines are just reskinned robotic rotors.

From the way it works now, you can set your torque so low that you use less than 0.01 units/s, but you can still have max RPM. That's great for "cheating" the system, but doesn't seem that realistic. On the other hand, you can max out the torque and use 0.70+ units/s, with not extra speed gain.

Of course, that is one type of torque. The other type of torque is directly caused by something spinning, like a reaction wheel. Yes, an aircraft should roll due to the spinning prop. And it does, which is great. However, due to the way KSP behaves at time, it feels more like a phantom force applying torque instead of actual engine/prop torque being applied. Phantom force is when craft just randomly move for no reason, K-drives are an example of this. This is something that would effect players on a "per-user level". You may not feel it, but I kinda do at times. I'm not saying that it is 100% a fake torque being applied. I think it mostly has to do with the unbalanced weight and power of certain parts within the game. Many parts are either being to light or to heavy, or having to much power. Or it might have something to do with the low RPM compared to real world counterparts. I don't think it is helped by how the new props use dark magic to create lift. Basically, it just feels wrong at times, but I don't know how to explain it.

But if the engines functioned like they should*, than the spinning prop torque would be undeniably prop torque, and not a phantom force**.

*From my understanding of them.

**When the Kraken allows it.

At the end of the day, the biggest issue with the game is the very fact that it is a game. Airplanes like the C.202 had asymmetric wings to help offset prop torque and (I think) prop wash. However, that is nearly impossible to realistically do in game. Same goes for helicopters with tail rotors and quad copters. We just don't have parts small enough or with enough function to make it happen. Even most of the Space Shuttles people have made aren't 100% accurate. But there's nothing we can do. And in many ways, that's a good thing.

1 hour ago, Klapaucius said:

Anyway, knowing myself, I will probably try to build some weird plane using the prop blades as wings or see if they work on hydrofoils 

I think the heliblades might work well as down force for rovers.

Edit: After a quick test, it's possible to recreate the Brabham BT46 in FAR. This may solve the flipping rover issue in the most over complex way possible.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Noir

[KerrMü]

@Noir

Thanks for the clarification. You´ve put a lot of effort in it and I think I now understand much better what is bothering you. And I agree with you on many points. I´m pretty sure and hopeful there are some improvements on the way. And like you said, in a game the devs have to make do with some compromises, like somewhat simplified equasions on the side of physics for examle. Maybe some values could be tweaked to improve the behavior of the turboshafts. And yes, the fuel consumption feels a little bit awkward at the moment. Kind of unintuitive.

So, for me it´s time to go to bed now. Can´t think straight anymore and it took far too long to find the word "unintuitive" in my brain.

Whatever you do, have a nice time.

[Pthigrivi]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread like I normally do (apologies) but as a data point I do appreciate having to do a bit of noodling over these props and the understanding of their flight physics/characteristics. It's been a little while since I really learned something new from this game.

[klgraham1013]

11 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

Hey folks, come on.  No one is dissing you or trying to make your life difficult. We are just disagreeing with you. If you do not want to discuss further, that is fine. Just don't post any more on the subject.  But writing a long rebuttal and then stating you do not have the energy is a bit petulant.

It is.  It's just I've been here before.  I figure I'll just put my thoughts down in (hopefully) a single post, and let everyone else discuss if they want to.  It's more a feeling of futility than petulance, but it will obviously come off as you say.  Better to be honest even at the expense of offense.

Edited July 15, 2019 by klgraham1013

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Noir said:

I just want the game to be the best it could be. Let people be critical. It's for the best.

Same, @Noir. As far as I’m concerned, we’re having a difference of opinion about what that means here, and discussing it in a polite and respectful manner. I certainly appreciate and respect yours, even if I don’t share all of it.

[XLjedi]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 2:21 PM, Dragon01 said:

@Maxsimal From my tests with prop planes, they work, but Squad's axis groups could really use a range limiter. For instance, prop pitch (as controlled by authority limiter) should go from about -20% to 100%. Right now, if set up to respond to throttle, it goes from -150% to 150%, which results in only a quarter of throttle axis range being usable. Beyond 100% authority, they seem to lose thrust, and you only need a little negative range for thrust reversal. A way to clamp it would be supremely useful. Of course, you can make a fixed pitch prop, and bind throttle to torque, but that's less efficient.

I also had no luck making helos. It seems that the control surface based cyclic doesn't work right. 

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 9:03 PM, Bartybum said:

I agree, there should be a double sided limiting slider like for actuators, hinges and servos - binding blade pitch authority to throttle should traverse along that limited region. That being said, I wouldn’t bind pitch to the throttle, but translation F/B, and let the throttle control the RPM.

In addition, pitch beyond 100 isn’t useless at all. I’ve found that blade type B is most effective for takeoff when deployed at 115, then you reduce the deployment (i.e. increase blade pitch) as you roll down the runway to pick up more speed. Blade pitch is pretty much an air-based gearbox.

@Dragon01@Bartybum

Both of you...  If you haven't already, just pause for a moment and take a look at the KAL-1000 Controller. 

It's designed for this purpose (among others) and works quite nicely as a range limiter.  Although, you can do a lot more than just clamping values!  You can ramp them based on your own power curves.  The trick is, once you are done setting up your KAL-1000...  Name it something clever like Engine Control Module and assign the Play Position to your Main Throttle.

I'm using it right now to control counter-rotating blades on a helo, in which case one pitch curve is set to 0 to 20, and the other is -20 to 0 through the first 80% of throttle range.  I'm playing with maps that feather the rotors while torque is also being increased.  So I control both blade pitch and torque with my throttle using the KAL-1000.  With whatever power/pitch curves I want.

What's not entirely intuitive is that the Play Position of the KAL-1000 Controller can be assigned to your Main Throttle.  So rather than just play a loop for walking a bot or moving a robot arm around.  You can use it to map complex power curves for engines/props/rotors to your Main Throttle.  It's pretty awesome!  In my KAL setup, notice how I even have some jet engines spooling up on the last 20% (time 8) of my throttle.  This mapping lets me control the ascend/descend with just my throttle controlling both torque and blade pitch, then I can punch it past the 80% mark to get the jet engines to spool up quickly and feather back the rotor pitch to about +/-15  Notice, I set the time Length to 10 just as an easy base reference for my throttle range of motion.

Edited July 15, 2019 by XLjedi

[Bartybum]

32 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

@Dragon01@Bartybum

Both of you...  If you haven't already, just pause for a moment and take a look at the KAL-1000 Controller.

Oh damn, that's crafty. Any idea if you can simulate a swashplate mechanism with the blades using KAL?

[XLjedi]

11 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Oh damn, that's crafty. Any idea if you can simulate a swashplate mechanism with the blades using KAL?

I notice there's an assignment for pitch/roll on the rotor blades, but I have only begun to dabble...  for the time being, I'm just fudging it with a few control wheels.  I may tinker with the swashplate idea a bit tomorrow.

[Boris-Barboris]

IMO part per blade was a mistake. Both the PhysX engine and old part module code are not up for the task. Lifting surface module was written on the different assumptions. Part joint system is unfit for blade placement (look at the effect of time warp on this 10-second segment: https://youtu.be/2EiyoE2Z1qA?t=668) , integration time step is too large to precisely perform cyclic control on high rpm...

It should have just been a new module with the ability to shape blades and change their count. Most bits of detail and simulation can be done better in the module, with the exception of per-blade damage I guess.

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Boris-Barboris

[Noir]

14 minutes ago, Boris-Barboris said:

with the exception of per-blade damage I guess.

Rover wheels already have a destroyed/damaged state, so when the blades get damaged a similar effect could take place.