Kerbal Space Program 1.7.3 is live!

[Jognt]

On 7/11/2019 at 10:42 PM, Foxster said:

Umm. Gotta say I'm a little  underwhelmed. This would have been a great opportunity to introduce some easy to use prop engines but we got something that seems way over-engineered. 

I threw this together...

It didn't seem unreasonable to expect the engine to work like the other KSP engines i.e. set the throttle, hit the spacebar and off we go.

Alas, no. I had to go and map the throttle to the engine in action groups. No idea about staging yet because it was just at full throttle on launch and spun around and RUDed.

Even  when launching with no throttle and babying the throttle so as to avoid RUD from torque it doesn't have enough power to move the craft. I guess I need to map the blade pitch to some other keys?

That's all very painful. What would a KSP nub do with these "engines"?

Update:

A little further along.

I mapped the pitch of the blades to some keys. Still no thrust no matter what pitch.

Spotted that by default "Deploy" for the blades is set to Retracted, so they were never going to generate thrust. Toggled that and now the craft clumsily can get off the ground. 

Torque is messing with the craft making it almost unflyable. Guess there's something else needed to sort that. Maybe a free-spinning rotor between engine and fuselage?

Update 2: 

Got it to fly by putting another engine + props on the back end and inverting the props. Still hard to fly because you need to constantly adjust the prop pitch and throttle. 

I can see zero advantage to this compared to a jet engine and loads of downsides. 

  

Agreed, in the sense that the pro of being very customizable and lego-like is overshadowed by the con of having to customize it to be able to do anything with it. I'm glad the other engines don't require such work and I'll probably just stick with Airplane Plus which adds ready-to-go prop engines.

Maybe they'll add one or two basic prop engines down the line for those that like to .. just play KSP.

Edit: I don't mind having the choice of how many prop blades I want (and more blades being more thrust) but having to deal with groups to deploy them instead of just having one control (throttle) feels annoying.

1 hour ago, XLjedi said:

LOL... well, that's a rather minimal nuance related to the default mirrored variant of the part.  I'm guessing they set it up consistent with the way the other parts are mirrored in their overall part management scheme.  I don't see any problems with it.  ...may even relate to an overall part orientation setup whereby the addition of propellers/rotors were never originally contemplated.

Doesn't make his point less valid though.. It's the little things that count for a lot

Edited July 17, 2019 by Jognt

[XLjedi]

9 minutes ago, Jognt said:

Doesn't make his point less valid though.. It's the little things that count for a lot

Meh... I dunno...  not sure how much time I wish to invest in rethinking the optimal default position/mirror of a part that appears in the craft editor that I have full control over moving around or rotating to whatever position I want.

I shouldn't speak for @Bartybum but I sorta took his original comments as the +/- values for the authority limters seemed to have values opposite to his expectation.  Good news is, we are free to install them at whatever rotation we like.  ...and I do like and prefer aligning them with leading edge facing directly into the motor rotation direction.  Exactly as he suggests.

[betaking]

wish we had an IL-2 style multi-lever throttle quad/thingy. (so there would be an easier time seeing things like throttle position, prop-pitch position, mixture-control, and all that fun stuff..)

Edited July 17, 2019 by betaking
added an end to a parenthesis.

[XLjedi]

@Bartybum  ya know what someone just pointed out to me in the comments on my flight video?

...you're gonna laugh at me and yourself!

The engine and blade CW/CCW rotation is from the European perspective!  ...apparently (and I did not know this).  Europeans refer to a CW turning motor/rotor when viewed from the front.  Americans refer to the rotation as if viewed from the pilot's seat!

This means I've actually been thinking exactly backwards regarding the P-factor and it probably explains why I see roll in the opposite direction of what I was expecting when I have the engine/rotor set to CW rotation.  My new default will now be to always set the engine to CCW for a single prop plane as that is actually CW for us backwards Americans.

LOL!!!   ...and guess what, your default thrust vector values are now positive for your standard American CW-spinning-when-viewed-from-pilot-seat engine rotor setup.

[bcqJC]

1 hour ago, betaking said:

wish we had an IL-2 style multi-lever throttle quad/thingy. (so there would be an easier time seeing things like throttle position, prop-pitch position, mixture-control, and all that fun stuff..)

If you just want a general idea of the values, something like the Cherry Light in the kOS mod, might fit the bill.

Taking a page out of XLjdedi's playbook, you can map out the RGB values for the light in a KAL1000, with the positions you're interested in, e.g. throttle, prop-pitch, etc. Then, you'll have a visual indication using colour.

[Bartybum]

9 hours ago, XLjedi said:

I shouldn't speak for @Bartybum but I sorta took his original comments as the +/- values for the authority limters seemed to have values opposite to his expectation.  Good news is, we are free to install them at whatever rotation we like.  ...and I do like and prefer aligning them with leading edge facing directly into the motor rotation direction.  Exactly as he suggests.

Yeah no you’re right, that’s pretty much what my argument stems from. It’s more about the principle of it, and teaching KSP players the right thing. Because at the moment what it teaches imo makes it more difficult than it should be.

Regarding the European CW/CCW stuff, that doesn’t really apply to me because I already knew that the direction was defined being viewed from the front. But yeah, changing your engine to CCW fixes the invert issue.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Bartybum

[XLjedi]

47 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Regarding the European CW/CCW stuff, that doesn’t really apply to me because I already knew that the direction was defined being viewed from the front. But yeah, changing your engine to CCW fixes the invert issue.

Well it applies to me, I shoulda known better... and since the vast VAST majority of aircraft, particularly single engine props, have rotors that actually turn CCW when looked at from the front, it is a bit curious (particularly with those inverse values) that CW is the default for a rotor and engine!  If anything we should be scolding @SQUAD for a default that doesn't mesh up with reality.  They claim they've modelled P-factor and folks are looking for a roll to the left and countering with right rudder, and we get the opposite by default.  Although... I have to say, that does seem to be a pretty kerbal-ish design issue!

I will just ALWAYS be changing my motor and prop rotation to CCW as a default for all of my single engine craft.  Good thing to get that sorted now before I build a bunch of stuffs.

Edited July 18, 2019 by XLjedi

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, XLjedi said:

Well it applies to me, I shoulda known better... and since the vast VAST majority of aircraft, particularly single engine props, have rotors that actually turn CCW when looked at from the front, it is a bit curious (particularly with those inverse values) that CW is the default for a rotor and engine!  If anything we should be scolding @SQUAD for a default that doesn't mesh up with reality.  They claim they've modelled P-factor and folks are looking for a roll to the left and countering with right rudder, and we get the opposite by default.  Although... I have to say, that does seem to be a pretty kerbal-ish design issue!

I will just ALWAYS be changing my motor and prop rotation to CCW as a default for all of my single engine craft.  Good thing to get that sorted now before I build a bunch of stuffs.

I mean, it's not really fair to blame them, because it's in the name - COUNTER-clockwise, "counter" meaning "opposite to the default", the default being clockwise.

I don't really think one should be worried about default settings not lining up with arbitrary standard practices, especially since Kerbals are their own nationality. To me, the issues relating to physics are much more important than those relating to national convention.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Bartybum

[XLjedi]

@Boris-Barboris

20 hours ago, Boris-Barboris said:

Yes, no problem with that, I just don't like that such development approach suits the tinker player, not the flyer/pilot. I am afraid it is the reason behind about a third of user screenshots and videos, that involve new rotors, demonstrating significant part of player's screen blocked by ugly tweekable panels and aero debug overlays. Enjoyable flight needs no UI. Not to mention the flight itself, wich I have found in no way enjoyable.

Here ya go flyer/pilot...  It's the video you wanted without pesky UI or screens blocked by ugly tweekable panels and aero debug overlays...  You're right, enjoyable flight needs no UI.  Maybe give this helo a shot?  You might even find this one in some minute way enjoyable.

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by XLjedi

[g00bd0g]

Just wanted to say THANKS to the Devs!!! Ya done good.

[Boris-Barboris]

4 hours ago, XLjedi said:

Maybe give this helo a shot?  You might even find this one in some minute way enjoyable.

Didn't enjoy it. Unflyable without reaction wheels, no roll control, barely any yaw and pitch even with reaction wheel. Thrust too inert. Squad's Linux joystick support still absent. Doesn't sound like a helicopter.

[XLjedi]

3 hours ago, Boris-Barboris said:

Didn't enjoy it. Unflyable without reaction wheels, no roll control, barely any yaw and pitch even with reaction wheel. Thrust too inert. Squad's Linux joystick support still absent. Doesn't sound like a helicopter.

  it's a kerbo-kopter…   little fellas prefer reaction wheels to swashplates...  what can I say?

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by XLjedi

[Boris-Barboris]

7 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

You definitely know better than getting sad over bittervet wine on mexican fartpillow launching forum. Enjoy what you enjoy and keep your head up.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Boris-Barboris

[Dafni]

20 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

  it's a kerbo-kopter…   little fellas prefer reaction wheels to swashplates...  what can I say?

 

It's a nice craft still. I like it. Nice aesthetics. If you adjust your expectations to the possibilities that KSP offers its is as helicopter-ish as it gets, with reasonable part count and all that. Of course there are still the amazing creations around of people like Azimech from the Pre-DLC days with stock turbo-shafts and all that, but this is a different story.

[Azimech]

If anything, I think the new engines, props & rotors are too easy to use. Before 1.7.3 we had to deal with designing a solid bearing, cope with low & high frequency vibrations, expanding parts limiting rpm, spontaneous explosions mid flight, much heavier torque than now, heat damage & control, trying to improve power and efficiency etc. A total of hundreds of hours per person, trying to find a fault in the design, trying to find the right materials, trying to invent a proper cooling method, trying to improve aerodynamics etc.

And now people are complaining they can't figure it out after maybe a few hours of trial and error? Props and rotors are not jets. If you want something with the ease of flicking on a ceiling fan, please just use the jets.

I was able to design a plane with a top speed of Mach 0.84 within a few hours. Ridiculous compared how much time I spent in the past to become the speed record holder for two years.

Squad, please add realism. Heat production, mixture control, flameouts, compressor stall, progressive damage, proper starting sequence for turboshafts. And sound for all turboshaft/motors/props/rotors.

[Foxster]

7 minutes ago, Azimech said:

And now people are complaining they can't figure it out after maybe a few hours of trial and error? Props and rotors are not jets. If you want something with the ease of flicking on a ceiling fan, please just use the jets.

It took me less than that to figure them out and get a working craft. It took around the same amount of time for me  to decide I didn't like doing it. 

Some of us happen to like the simple bolt-on nature of KSP's jet engines, rockets and wheels. We don't want all the extraneous stuff of reality. 

So by all means maintain all the fiddly bits...but make them optional.  

Edited July 18, 2019 by Foxster

[Azimech]

1 minute ago, Foxster said:

It took me less than that to figure them out and get a working craft. It took around the same amount of time for me  to decide I didn't like doing it. 

Some of us happen to like the simple bolt-on nature of KSP's jet engines, rockets and wheels. We don't want all the extraneous stuff of reality. 

So by all means maintain all the fiddly bits...but make them optional.  

 I agree with making them optional.

 

[Bill Phil]

4 minutes ago, Foxster said:

It took me less than that to figure them out and get a working craft. It took around the same amount of time for me  to decide I didn't like doing it. 

Some of us happen to like the simple bolt-on nature of KSP's jet engines, rockets and wheels. We don't want all the extraneous stuff of reality. 

So by all means maintain all the fiddly bits...but make them optional.  

Isn’t this only possible with the DLC, making it inherently optional?

(Or do the engines come with the stock game but the electric motors don’t?)

[RealKerbal3x]

25 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Isn’t this only possible with the DLC, making it inherently optional?

(Or do the engines come with the stock game but the electric motors don’t?)

IIRC the turboshafts, blades, and electric motors all come with the DLC.

[XLjedi]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Isn’t this only possible with the DLC, making it inherently optional?

(Or do the engines come with the stock game but the electric motors don’t?)

I believe the intent was "optional" in the sense that they would like to have the option of a snap-on, fully configured, auto-pitch propeller.   ...in addition to the blades and engines that we can assemble now.

As opposed to "optional" in the sense that they have the option to not buy the DLC or ignore the propellers/rotors.

Edited July 18, 2019 by XLjedi

[Bartybum]

9 hours ago, Azimech said:

Squad, please add realism. Heat production, mixture control, flameouts, compressor stall, progressive damage, proper starting sequence for turboshafts. And sound for all turboshaft/motors/props/rotors.

I understand that some players will relish in the opportunities that more realism offers, but KSP is a game at heart - I can guarantee that 90% of the community isn't gonna care for compressor stall, mixture control, proper starting sequences etc. They just wanna fly in space and visit planets.

I'd MUCH rather the devs focus their efforts on content that majority of the playerbase will want to utilise - more/better parts (we REALLY need more adapters, long/short landing wheel varieties, more 0.625m fuel tanks, etc.), basic life support, more planets, clouds, art improvements, etc.

[LekkoBot]

33 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

basic life support,

I agreed with you up to here

[Bartybum]

Just now, LekkoBot said:

I agreed with you up to here

Well you'll need more than that for a discussion lol. I'm talking nothing more complicated than one or two resources, ala the Snacks! mod. It's really nothing complicated.

[Azimech]

12 hours ago, Bartybum said:

I understand that some players will relish in the opportunities that more realism offers, but KSP is a game at heart - I can guarantee that 90% of the community isn't gonna care for compressor stall, mixture control, proper starting sequences etc. They just wanna fly in space and visit planets.

I'd MUCH rather the devs focus their efforts on content that majority of the playerbase will want to utilise - more/better parts (we REALLY need more adapters, long/short landing wheel varieties, more 0.625m fuel tanks, etc.), basic life support, more planets, clouds, art improvements, etc.

You can guarantee?

Very interesting.

Where are your survey results?

What do you think of the complexities with this DLC, where the props, motors, hinges and cylinders are part of, with the programming of the controller? Tried it yet? It's new territory for me and I don't know nothing about it, but it's exciting.

For example, I never asked for these things, didn't know they were coming. But now I'm glad they're there. How can you say then, you know the playerbase? Even if you are in this community since 2012 like me, you are unable to know what the playerbase wants. Only a vague idea, based on personal bias and the amount of information you were able to gather (which is always insufficient).

What about the fact Squad shared my creations thirty times on their official FB and twitter. Do you think most of them were simple designs?

[T1mo98]

6 minutes ago, Azimech said:

You can guarantee?

Very interesting.

Where are your survey results?

What do you think of the complexities with this DLC, where the props, motors, hinges and cylinders are part of, with the programming of the controller? Tried it yet? It's new territory for me and I don't know nothing about it, but it's exciting.

For example, I never asked for these things, didn't know they were coming. But now I'm glad they're there. How can you say then, you know the playerbase? Even if you are in this community since 2012 like me, you are unable to know what the playerbase wants. Only a vague idea, based on personal bias and the amount of information you were able to gather (which is always insufficient).

What about the fact Squad shared my creations thirty times on their official FB and twitter. Do you think most of them were simple designs?

It's a game, not a hyper-realistic rocket aerospace simulator. Adding in some more detailed things is fine, but there's a line to be drawn.

Adding in the minutia of how a rocket engine works is not going to enhance the experience for a massive amount of players and is fine to just keep as a mod, I'd much rather the devs spent their time and resources on other stuff than trying to please some hardcore realism-fanatics. The only thing they could do with engines to make it more complex without too much difficulty for players is different fueltypes, nozzles and fuel cycles with a switch to go back to simple mechanics. I'd argue about throttle limits, start-sequences and restart-limits.

Just because Squad shared your crafts doesn't mean they want to add unnecessary detail and complexity to every game mechanic.