Arugela Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 (edited) How about instead of modding the engines like in KSP1 to make them work on the shrunken planet. Have realistic engines that are earth stats and then simply smaller ones with the same equivilent. Assuming the shrinking wouldn't change the ratio of stats. Treat it like real engineering and simply use the same concept and then smaller ones as if they were made for that planet. You can always have seperate earth sized engines. Or other scaling options to change the ISP or something and have the rest of the part fit the correct numbers. Would be cool if it was ultrarealistic with changing bells and whatnot and fit real world engineering realities and changes. Materials everything. You could use the same concept as the visual changes in KSP1 but with more individual selectable components. Edited August 29, 2019 by Arugela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 It wouldn't be much fun. Some engines would just be objectively better than others for all or most applications, which means nobody would bother using the others. The more game-y approach of tuning them so that each of them has a niche -- even a tiny one -- where it's the best choice works better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 @BrikoleurSince we don't use just 1 type of engine in real life, I don't see why you think that would be the result. I do like the idea of part variants, where we could change nozzles for high atmospheric pressure, low atmospheric, and vacuum. Combine that with having the same engine in different sizes: We could have just 1 Kerosene-Lox engine, 1 hydrolox engine.... etc. They will certainly have different fuel types for the advanced engines (metallic hydrogen... ugh, probably helium.3 / some fusion mix, etc), so I don't see why they can't make the chemical engines a little more diverse in fuel types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 58 minutes ago, KerikBalm said: @BrikoleurSince we don't use just 1 type of engine in real life, I don't see why you think that would be the result. Cost and reliability don't matter in KSP whereas they do IRL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 Well, then why do we have SRBs in KSP 1? Also, the demo gameplay shows some sort of ignition system on the launchpad, I'm not sure if that was purely cosmetic though. If true, they might have a reason to distinguish between hypergolics and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenred65 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 See Scott manlys twitch stream. Apparently were getting an engine* that is literally insanity itself compared to the extremely rational multi gigaton bomb propelled by an Orion drive. Seriously theoretically your talking about a drive so freaking powerfull you could use it as a weapon of mass destruction with no effort, because it uses high enegy neutrons not as reaction mass using a neutron particularly stream as trust...?which is already freaking insanity by Orion drive standards ..... but to ignight the actual reaction mass. Seriously the only way to get more power out of this is to add antimatter, and then snnialatr it in a way that provides even more trust seriously it’s Orion < fusion < magnetic containment fusion particularly beam < salted MCFP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 link to the stream with timestamp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenred65 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 it’s in this thread. You literally can’t miss it. Early on he casually mentions that it was actualy a salted metallic Hydrogen magnetic fusion nozzle. literaly it’s putting an afterburner on an afterburner on a torch ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenred65 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 (edited) Ok fair warning they may have been talking about 2 diferent propulsion systems, or i may have confused what scott was talking about. One was a metalic hydrogen fusion reactor that usses "salted" or unpurifed hydrogen or deliberatly salted fuel. You do get more thust per unit of Hydrogen from the salted elementd absorming high energy nutrons, but this only offsets the inhersmt extra mass from this. The upside being you dont need the extra mass and maintenance of a purifyinf refinery. Edited August 29, 2019 by [email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vossiewulf Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 21 hours ago, [email protected] said: only way to get more power out of this is to add antimatter, and then snnialatr it I hate it when that happens. Antimatter is way too unstable for warp cores after snnialatration. //typo defies transliteration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arugela Posted August 30, 2019 Author Share Posted August 30, 2019 On 8/29/2019 at 3:01 AM, Brikoleur said: It wouldn't be much fun. Some engines would just be objectively better than others for all or most applications, which means nobody would bother using the others. The more game-y approach of tuning them so that each of them has a niche -- even a tiny one -- where it's the best choice works better. Could you put a more complicated time/money scenario for tech development to make them useful at the start. Or a price advantage for older tech?! Make it more like real rockets possibly. Or at least from the business end of it maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakenred65 Posted August 30, 2019 Share Posted August 30, 2019 53 minutes ago, Arugela said: Could you put a more complicated time/money scenario for tech development to make them useful at the start. Or a price advantage for older tech?! Make it more like real rockets possibly. Or at least from the business end of it maybe. Your talking about game development. The real answer boils down to this... You have this mutch total development time. You have to design code, test, and do at least one QA pass on each feature. Pick one. Aslo a lot of rocket engines im the real world have an issue. They are only optimal in one exact operating enviromet ofspeed, altitude/airpreasur and even velocity in flight. And just by working as intended they tend to become sub optimal very quickly while in flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 (edited) On 8/29/2019 at 11:10 AM, [email protected] said: it’s in this thread. You literally can’t miss it. Early on he casually mentions that it was actualy a salted metallic Hydrogen magnetic fusion nozzle. literaly it’s putting an afterburner on an afterburner on a torch ship. I remember him talking about a magnetic nozzle for a cesium doped metallic hydrogen engine, as the high tech variant of the metallic hydrogen engine... But not fusion Edited August 31, 2019 by KerikBalm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweeker Posted September 3, 2019 Share Posted September 3, 2019 On 8/29/2019 at 3:01 AM, Brikoleur said: It wouldn't be much fun. Some engines would just be objectively better than others for all or most applications, which means nobody would bother using the others. The more game-y approach of tuning them so that each of them has a niche -- even a tiny one -- where it's the best choice works better. Yeah, that's not a problem now at all, *cough* vector *cough* wolfhound *cough* Seriously, alot of people throw out "gamey" engine tuning as desireable but over look the fact that the "gamey" engine tuning we have now nerfs several engines, and gives their real-world niches to other engines that are buffed. A good scale for KSP engines. would be 18-20% of real -world thrust, The mainsail/mammoth is dead on this scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts