Ksp 2 Exhaust and jet engine. I hope!

[Drakenred65]

The only issue I have is that on the one hand you had the progression of going from Gasoline-Alcohol-Kerosine-Hydrogen-Liquid Methane which does not make any sense unless someone take the time to learn why they were used (Never mind why is this tank so heavy when empty, why does this fuel need such large tanks vs this other fuel, why can't I use this engine with this fuel mix) never mind the Issues with the other fuels.

 

 

 

[Ethan Ng]

20 hours ago, Mikenike said:

No, that is an F-15 engine on a mount............. *Inner Aircraft Enthusiast Is Dying Inside*

I can't find the nuclear jet exhaust but I think this is very close to the video exhaust : 

 

[Ethan Ng]

On 5/5/2020 at 3:50 AM, SpaceFace545 said:

you missed the all cancerous hydrazine

Sorry, I don't know hydrazine Isp.

[KerikBalm]

3 hours ago, Ethan Ng said:

I can't find the nuclear jet exhaust but I think this is very close to the video exhaust

And why do you think that?

[Ethan Ng]

Hopefully ksp2 will have more propulsion system like

Engine type	Isp
Dual-stage 4-grid electrostatic ion thruster	19300
Ideal photonic rocket	30,570,000

 

[Mikenike]

5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

As an aircraft enthusiast, wouldn't you want to call it a Pratt and Whitney F-100?

Yes, but that would make me sound like a nerd, and besides, regular people won't know what that is.

[SpaceFace545]

5 hours ago, [email protected] said:

The only issue I have is that on the one hand you had the progression of going from Gasoline-Alcohol-Kerosine-Hydrogen-Liquid Methane which does not make any sense unless someone take the time to learn why they were used (Never mind why is this tank so heavy when empty, why does this fuel need such large tanks vs this other fuel, why can't I use this engine with this fuel mix) never mind the Issues with the other fuels.

 

 

 

People who play KSP aren’t idiots and I really don’t think people who don’t know stuff about rockets will even want to play ksp2. KSP2 won’t get that many new players as this is a pretty niche game.

[mcwaffles2003]

23 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

The ability to build a liquid hydrogen upperstage and kersone lowerstage like a large number of rockets are built. A few things from nasa- "the taming of liquid hydrogen proved to be one of NASA's most significant technical achievements". "liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant." 

Wow! It sounds like fuel types are a VERY important matter in rocketry.

I suppose what i find funny is i've rarely heard people complain over CUSTOMIZATION options they arent forced to use.

And this argument "it will be too hard". Do you guys realize how that makes you sound. Too hard???? You want a cookie?

Yeah, and it's almost like that isn't modeled already with the difference between the terrier and the swivel engines great difference in ISPs. Wow a way to make a realistic balance within the game without largely adding complexity to it! But nooooooooo the tank says liquid fuel and that means I have to "imagine" what fuel is in there as opposed to unnecessarily adding complexity by creating a larger plethora of different fuel types!

5 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

People who play KSP aren’t idiots and I really don’t think people who don’t know stuff about rockets will even want to play ksp2. KSP2 won’t get that many new players as this is a pretty niche game.

And your response is to make it more niche? O_o

 

 

Let me make my point of view clear. The object of the base game is to be as simple as possible while carrying as many game mechanics as possible. Then us, the users, can add modifications to this to make it more difficult, nuanced, and/or realistic to our liking. If the base game starts convoluted and complex that limits the manner of ways in which mods can take it. How do we add life support so that mods can effectively create their own life support systems that can stay largely  compatible with other mods while not making the base game complex to the point it dissuades potential new players? Make it a single resource. Now modders can add new resources based on this integrated system and other mods dependencies will stay compatible as there's no mod based metric that other mods have to now adopt. You know how lots of mods are dependent on USI or TAC or kerbalism and sometimes aren't compatible with all 3 meaning we have issues like not being able to use kerbalism AND kolonization? I'd like to avoid that.

So, how do we make it easiest for modders to create a bunch of realistic fuels with realistic engines while not making the base game complex to the point it dissuades potential new players? Limits the variations of resources. Now modders can add new resources based on this integrated system and other mods dependencies will stay compatible as there's no mod based metric that other mods have to now adopt.

Keep the base game simple, the scope broad, and make it easy to modify. Let modders take care of the rest, and let us all make the game we want... And leave it simple for the new guys so they can learn to enjoy space travel with the rest of us

Edited May 6, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[harrisjosh2711]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Yeah, and it's almost like that isn't modeled already with the difference between the terrier and the swivel engines great difference in ISPs. Wow a way to make a realistic balance within the game without largely adding complexity to it! But nooooooooo the tank says liquid fuel and that means I have to "imagine" what fuel is in there as opposed to unnecessarily adding complexity by creating a larger plethora of different fuel types!

 

Lets do some basic math comparing the mass of 500,000 gallons RP-1 and LH2.

RP-1 (Kerosine) (.81-1.02 kg/l)

500,000 gallons fuel * 0.81 * 3.785 = 1,532,925 kg = 3,393,940 lb

LH2 (.0785 kg/l)

500,000 gallons fuel * .0785 * 3.785 = 148,561 kg = 327,950 lb

This is why rockets generally use LH2 for the upperstage. Not only is there a difference in ISP, there is an even larger difference in mass. RP-1 has its benefits as well. It is much more dense than LH2, isnt cryo, etc. 

 

Plus, we are talking two or three fuels. Not real fuels where you can use almost any fuel in the book.

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[Drakenred65]

9 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

People who play KSP aren’t idiots and I really don’t think people who don’t know stuff about rockets will even want to play ksp2. KSP2 won’t get that many new players as this is a pretty niche game.

To be honest I originally did not know the Saturn v used Kerosine, and I have relatives I take to Space City every summer.

[shdwlrd]

9 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

People who play KSP aren’t idiots and I really don’t think people who don’t know stuff about rockets will even want to play ksp2. KSP2 won’t get that many new players as this is a pretty niche game.

The only reason I played and got hooked on KSP is I like building my own planes and rockets and flying them. I can't tell you what the motors included in KSP are modeled after. I have no idea what specific rocket motors use for fuel. I learned about the different fuel types after I got hooked on KSP. I still can't tell you which fuel type is better. Even to this day, I will put a MP based motor on a stack of LFO and question why there is no DV.

I learned a lot about space after I started playing KSP. I learn about orbital mechanics, the rocket theory, and all related info after I started playing KSP. All I knew in the beginning was keep the pointy end forward.

If KSP2 does add complex fuel and motor combinations, I will either not by it, or more than likely, I will mod it to strip out the extra fuel types and use the generic term LFO for the chemical reaction rockets. I don't what to have to deal with the extra complexity of using only certain motors with certain fuel types. I'm only willing to deal with the extra fuel types for the Orion and fusion based drives. 

Not all players are die hard rocket and space nerds or professionals in some field related to space/aeronautics. Some of us are regular people who like flight/space sims, building our own planes and rockets and flying them. (Because we can't do it in real life.)

54 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

To be honest I originally did not know the Saturn v used Kerosine, and I have relatives I take to Space City every summer.

I learned something today.  

 

[SpaceFace545]

Just now, shdwlrd said:

The only reason I played and got hooked on KSP is I like building my own planes and rockets and flying them. I can't tell you what the motors included in KSP are modeled after. I have no idea what specific rocket motors use for fuel. I learned about the different fuel types after I got hooked on KSP. I still can't tell you which fuel type is better. Even to this day, I will put a MP based motor on a stack of LFO and question why there is no DV.

I learned a lot about space after I started playing KSP. I learn about orbital mechanics, the rocket theory, and all related info after I started playing KSP. All I knew in the beginning was keep the pointy end forward.

If KSP2 does add complex fuel and motor combinations, I will either not by it, or more than likely, I will mod it to strip out the extra fuel types and use the generic term LFO for the chemical reaction rockets. I don't what to have to deal with the extra complexity of using only certain motors with certain fuel types. I'm only willing to deal with the extra fuel types for the Orion and fusion based drives. 

Not all players are die hard rocket and space nerds or professionals in some field related to space/aeronautics. Some of us are regular people who like flight/space sims, building our own planes and rockets and flying them. (Because we can't do it in real life.)

I learned something today.  

 

You know what, the people who play this will actually learn something and there is nothing wrong with that.

[shdwlrd]

7 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

You know what, the people who play this will actually learn something and there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes, people will accidently learn things playing KSP. But the point is, if you make it too complex, no one who is new to KSP will continue playing do to frustration. If I had to match certain fuels to certain motors in the beginning, I would have quit after a few tries of building a rocket and having them not working. It's one thing to start up the rocket and fail to make orbit, but it's another thing to get it on the launch pad and hit start and nothing happens. Failure like that to a beginner is enough to think the game is broken and they will refund it. That's what I would do with a broken game.

My MP example is something that almost made me rage quit in the beginning. What saved me was I tried another motor and it worked. I didn't know that there was MP in the beginning, I didn't figure that out until a few months later. All I knew was that those motors were broken and the game was early release, so stuff may not work. If it was a full release, I would of kicked myself for buying it.

[harrisjosh2711]

2 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

If KSP2 does add complex fuel and motor combinations, I will either not by it, or more than likely, I will mod it to strip out the extra fuel types and use the generic term LFO for the chemical reaction rockets. I don't what to have to deal with the extra complexity of using only certain motors with certain fuel types. I'm only willing to deal with the extra fuel types for the Orion and fusion based drives. 

I am not looking for "complex fuel and motor combinations" neither. I'm not going to say that would stop me from purchasing..... because I'd be lying. By designing the game with multiple fuel types in mind, it simplifies adding fuel by mods and confusing configurations. Simply adding a subcategory to the engines according to fuel type would fix your issue. For some reason people don't like reading the descriptions or searching parts by resource,so I agree the UI could certainly simplify things. And It will be simplified. There is already multiple fuels added to the game and once players install mods "complex fuel and motor combinations" are going to arise quick. I believe the developers spoke of being aware of this issue.

does it confuse you guys that there's a mono engine or xenon engine? Or perhaps that some need air intakes? Likely not, because it is stock and designed in a decent fashion to be relatively simple.

Edited May 7, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Lets do some basic math comparing the mass of 500,000 gallons RP-1 and LH2.

RP-1 (Kerosine) (.81-1.02 kg/l)

500,000 gallons fuel * 0.81 * 3.785 = 1,532,925 kg = 3,393,940 lb

LH2 (.0785 kg/l)

500,000 gallons fuel * .0785 * 3.785 = 148,561 kg = 327,950 lb

This is why rockets generally use LH2 for the upperstage. Not only is there a difference in ISP, there is an even larger difference in mass. RP-1 has its benefits as well. It is much more dense than LH2, isnt cryo, etc. 

 

Plus, we are talking two or three fuels. Not real fuels where you can use almost any fuel in the book.

 

You're comparing equal volumes... Thats not how real life works anyway. Have you looked at rocket stages that utilize hydrogen? They're huge. ISP has to do with ejection velocity of the matter expelled but momentum is still a thing. Even if hydrogen is efficient it gives very low thrust (because less mass burned per unit time) so to get the same delta V from hydrogen, you may not need as much mass but you certainly need much more volume than with kerosene.

 

Spoiler

Delta 4 (runs on Hydrogen):

Spoiler

Capacity
Payload to LEO	28,790 kg (63,470 lb)
Payload to GTO	14,220 kg

Falcon Heavy (runs on RP-1):

Spoiler

Capacity
Payload to LEO (28.5°)	63,800 kg (140,700 lb)[3]
Payload to GTO (27°)	26,700 kg (58,900 lb)[3]

Notice how the much larger rocket carries only about half the payload to GTO.

But seriously... at the end of the day the base game doesn't need this much nuance. It's more complexity for very little additional gameplay. Lets focus on just getting new players to stick with the game and make it out of the kerbin system instead of overloading them with a million more rocket parts and even more stats to learn and worry about.

[harrisjosh2711]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You're comparing equal volumes... Thats not how real life works anyway. Have you looked at rocket stages that utilize hydrogen? They're huge. ISP has to do with ejection velocity of the matter expelled but momentum is still a thing. Even if hydrogen is efficient it gives very low thrust (because less mass burned per unit time) so to get the same delta V from hydrogen, you may not need as much mass but you certainly need much more volume than with kerosene.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Delta 4 (runs on Hydrogen):

  Reveal hidden contents

Capacity
Payload to LEO	28,790 kg (63,470 lb)
Payload to GTO	14,220 kg

Falcon Heavy (runs on RP-1):

  Reveal hidden contents

Capacity
Payload to LEO (28.5°)	63,800 kg (140,700 lb)[3]
Payload to GTO (27°)	26,700 kg (58,900 lb)[3]

Notice how the much larger rocket carries only about half the payload to GTO.

But seriously... at the end of the day the base game doesn't need this much nuance. It's more complexity for very little additional gameplay. Lets focus on just getting new players to stick with the game and make it out of the kerbin system instead of overloading them with a million more rocket parts and even more stats to learn and worry about.

I noted that rp-1 was more dense. SpaceX chose rp-1 in both stages because COST. Using another fuel would mean designing an entire new upperstage and engine. Waste of time when you have starship in development, which will use cryogenic fuels. The falcon9 would get a rather large performance boost going LH2 in the upperstage. The fact is, they dont need to. The falcon9 works perfectly fine as is.

All they need do is add subcategories to engines. You would never even have to look at metalic hydrogen engines since that added resource is apprently a deal breaker. You are welcome to explain also how we can make metallic hydrogen without hydrogen, the most abundant resource in the universe.

Whats your argument for mono. Why isnt it LF? Kinda strange you need to use a different tank that makes your vehicle look... not very aerodynamic, or mismatched. Bunch of parts that arent neccesary. What about Xenon? Ive only used that recource like once or twice. Only works for one engine right? 

Edited May 7, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

I noted that rp-1 was more dense.

And then you did a volumetric comparison as if rockets with different density fuels are the same size. Its not like 500 gallons of LH2 will get you anywhere near as far as 500 gallons of RP-1

1 hour ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Whats your argument for mono. Why isnt it LF? What about Xenon? Ive only used that recource like once or twice. Only works for one engine right? So do you like fuel that is relatively pointless? Heard of hydrogen rockets.... never heard of a mono or xenon rocket.

Honestly I wouldn't mind if those we simplified more but at the least I would hope we dont keep making it more complex. The game is already gunna add Met H, nuclear bombs, and Deuterium capsules now for Torch ships, Orion drive, and Daedalus respectively. Splitting liquid fuel into H2, CH4, and RP-1 just seems unnecessary, esspecially when an engine that runs on H2 cant work with RP-1. Having the tank be "liquid fuel" can simply mean that it is filled with a constant volume of whatever fuel should go in it. ie the terrier we can imagine runs on H2 so the terrier's liquid fuel tank is automatically filled with H2 while the swivel running on RP-1 has a liquid fuel tank filled with RP-1 automatically. Why do we NEED to split this liquid fuel tank up into its separate possibilities instead of keeping them condensed in the title of "liquid fuel"? Mechanically it is the engine that has the performance anyways not the fuel. I just dont see what its adding to the game  besides more failure points, more complexity, and "realism" via a name. Not many pros for the included cons

Also, think about the perspective of someone new to kerbal with little to no knowledge of rocket science. Imagine the frustration when they go to build a rocket and dont know to match the fuel type with the engine and they freak out about how the rocket doesn't launch. Sure, we can have the attitude of something like "go learn rocket science 1st" or "git gud" but that isn't an attitude that attracts new players and I want to see this title succeed so the community grows and becomes more vibrant with more modders and maybe 10-15 years from now we can look forward to a KSP 3. This game has a ridiculous player base loss already before people even get to the moon. Maybe adding in tutorials could help people along on this but personally, I just want a nice and streamlined base game thats somewhat simple and on-boards new people well.

Edited May 7, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[harrisjosh2711]

16 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

And then you did a volumetric comparison as if rockets with different density fuels are the same size. Its not like 500 gallons of LH2 will get you anywhere near as far as 500 gallons of RP-1

I compared their mass not volume. Volume has no effect in space. But, what is more important than mass? That's a philosophical question.

 

24 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Honestly I wouldn't mind if those we simplified more but at the least I would hope we dont keep making it more complex. The game is already gunna add Met H, nuclear bombs, and Deuterium capsules now for Torch ships, Orion drive, and Daedalus respectively. Splitting liquid fuel into H2, CH4, and RP-1 just seems unnecessary.

I can agree with this argument. Considering the theoretical fuels, It is certainly arguable that adding multiple "low tech" fuels is redundant. How much of the game is really designed to be played at "low tech"? It seems KSP 2 aim is more towards "future tech". But, if you want to give the "plane designers" & realism guys something new to play with- a few stock fuels would be cool. OP is obviously a plane guy so he wants some fuels and engines. 

Just to be clear, I feel this argument is likely the dev's logic. Hence, it's very unlikely that any further fuels will be added to the stock game. 

 

37 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Also, think about the perspective of someone new to kerbal with little to no knowledge of rocket science. Imagine the frustration when they go to build a rocket and dont know to match the fuel type with the engine and they freak out about how the rocket doesn't launch. Sure, we can have the attitude of something like "go learn rocket science 1st" or "git gud" but that isn't an attitude that attracts new players and I want to see this title succeed so the community grows and becomes more vibrant with more modders and maybe 10-15 years from now we can look forward to a KSP 3. This game has a ridiculous player base loss already before people even get to the moon. Maybe adding in tutorials could help people along on this but personally, I just want a nice and streamlined base game thats somewhat simple and on-boards new people well.

When I think hard, in terms of beginner in KSP. I think about docking the first time. Man, it took me like 8 hours of failure to learn to dock. The way something moves through space defies all logic we've learned on earth. It is truly something that you just have to experience. How many newbies you think took off towards the mun or duna by flying straight towards it?. Most people don't understand orbital mechanics. Most people do have a basic understanding of fuels. So, if it can be done in an organized manner (which it can be), I don't see any reason why fuels should be too complicating. I personally would suggest that all combustion engines use any "low tech" liquid fuel, thereby eliminating an over abundance of parts. But that doesn't mean modders will follow so subcategories by resource would be best.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

I compared their mass not volume. Volume has no effect in space. But, what is more important than mass? That's a philosophical question.

Not to beat a dead horse on a tangent.... but...

9 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Lets do some basic math comparing the mass of 500,000 gallons RP-1 and LH2.

Gallons are units of volume and equal volumes of different density propellants yadda yadda yadda you know what im going to say here

1 hour ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

I can agree with this argument. Considering the theoretical fuels, It is certainly arguable that adding multiple "low tech" fuels is redundant. How much of the game is really designed to be played at "low tech"? It seems KSP 2 aim is more towards "future tech". But, if you want to give the "plane designers" & realism guys something new to play with- a few stock fuels would be cool. OP is obviously a plane guy so he wants some fuels and engines. 

Just to be clear, I feel this argument is likely the dev's logic. Hence, it's very unlikely that any further fuels will be added to the stock game. 

Praying thats the case. Don't get me wrong though, I plat with real fuels mod and everything and I enjoy that extra complication. But I also like that the base game is simple because if it wasn't I would have been dissuaded a bit. I just remember the 1st time I played and went straight to sandbox and WHOOOAAAAAA nelly thats a lot of parts of which I need to know the nuance and use of... a bit overwhelming... and I started playing this when I was still a physics/astrophysics major in college. So I can only imagine what a 7th grader might feel approaching that.

1 hour ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

When I think hard, in terms of beginner in KSP. I think about docking the first time. Man, it took me like 8 hours of failure to learn to dock. The way something moves through space defies all logic we've learned on earth. It is truly something that you just have to experience. How many newbies you think took off towards the mun or duna by flying straight towards it?. Most people don't understand orbital mechanics. Most people do have a basic understanding of fuels. So, if it can be done in an organized manner (which it can be), I don't see any reason why fuels should be too complicating. I personally would suggest that all combustion engines use any "low tech" liquid fuel, thereby eliminating an over abundance of parts. But that doesn't mean modders will follow so subcategories by resource would be best.

Once again, my approach is just the reduce part numbers bit. I like personalizing my game and I'm sure within a month or 2 of launch there will be a real fuels mod up for me to DL. If anything in base game, have the same "liquid fuel" tank but when you hover over it after attaching an engine to it maybe the tool tip can say what fuel its "filled" with. No new parts, you get your lore, and you cant put in the wrong fuel. At the end of the day though the "fuel" itself carries no performance figures to the game. All the performance configs come from the engine itself (ISP, Thrust, etc) so changing these fuels really adds nothing. Now if the fuel/oxidizer combos themselves carried some form of performance mechanic independent of the engine I would be in full agreement with more variation but as it stands now I will continue seeing this change as an unnecessary complication.

6 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

You know what, the people who play this will actually learn something and there is nothing wrong with that.

Not if they rage quit and don't play the game again. Sure we can have a "screw them, their loss" attitude... but thats not a good business/game model.

Edited May 7, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Gydra54]

Wouldn't the whole "confusing new players" thing be solved by things like, a Tutorial, notifications about fuel/engine incompatibility, easily accessible in-game info, good UI design to make sorting and picking out different fuel types much much easier, progressively unlocking different fuel types in a "career" mode... etc.

Like, initially I was also opposed to the idea, but it honestly doesn't seem that complicated to implement without being confusing. So long as it's much more clear than in KSP1, I don't see the issue. There's so many ways to do that. In fact, I just came up with another one: detect when the player mismatched fuel types and highlight the offending parts in red, with a nice little text box on the screen with a warning symbol exclaiming "Incorrect Fuel Type Tank/Engine!". Make the notification toggleable in the options for players who know what they're doing. Colour code Engines and Fuel Tanks based on resource in the part picker. Or give them a little icon. IDK, there's so many things you could do, I can't see this as necessarily turning off new players tbh. And this is coming from someone who always installs "LFO only" patches to mods using LH2!

[KerikBalm]

Seriously, I'm 100% certain that they will add fuel types, no way is an Orion drive going to use the same fuel as an ICF drive, and neither will use the same fuel as a LV-N type engine, nor metallic hydrogen engines. Even the vacuum vs atmosphere metallic hydrogen engines won't use the same fuel.

They are certainly going to make it more complicated with fuels and engines. I just think they are going to ignore chemical rockets and focus on future/magic tech.

I don't expect anything except relabelling the LFO engines to methalox, and adding lH2 for LV-Ns and maybe some other nuclear thermal rockets....

Maybe... just maybe, they split chemical rockets into hydrocarbon+Ox vs lH2 + Ox

[SpaceFace545]

11 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Yes, people will accidently learn things playing KSP. But the point is, if you make it too complex, no one who is new to KSP will continue playing do to frustration. If I had to match certain fuels to certain motors in the beginning, I would have quit after a few tries of building a rocket and having them not working. It's one thing to start up the rocket and fail to make orbit, but it's another thing to get it on the launch pad and hit start and nothing happens. Failure like that to a beginner is enough to think the game is broken and they will refund it. That's what I would do with a broken game.

My MP example is something that almost made me rage quit in the beginning. What saved me was I tried another motor and it worked. I didn't know that there was MP in the beginning, I didn't figure that out until a few months later. All I knew was that those motors were broken and the game was early release, so stuff may not work. If it was a full release, I would of kicked myself for buying it.

One, two, three, my 16 month old cousin could remember each one. Not complex if you’re having problems with your engine not working, maybe it’s cause you put methane in a jet engine. I just don’t know how you guys think three New fuels is complex. With the new future engines we will need, nuclear pulse devices, liquid hydrogen, helium 3, deuterium, metallic hydrogen, and fusion and fission pellets. So at that state with 6 new resources Adding 3 to it isn’t that much.

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You're comparing equal volumes... Thats not how real life works anyway. Have you looked at rocket stages that utilize hydrogen? They're huge. ISP has to do with ejection velocity of the matter expelled but momentum is still a thing. Even if hydrogen is efficient it gives very low thrust (because less mass burned per unit time) so to get the same delta V from hydrogen, you may not need as much mass but you certainly need much more volume than with kerosene.

 

  Hide contents

Delta 4 (runs on Hydrogen):

  Hide contents

Capacity
Payload to LEO	28,790 kg (63,470 lb)
Payload to GTO	14,220 kg

Falcon Heavy (runs on RP-1):

  Hide contents

Capacity
Payload to LEO (28.5°)	63,800 kg (140,700 lb)[3]
Payload to GTO (27°)	26,700 kg (58,900 lb)[3]

Notice how the much larger rocket carries only about half the payload to GTO.

But seriously... at the end of the day the base game doesn't need this much nuance. It's more complexity for very little additional gameplay. Lets focus on just getting new players to stick with the game and make it out of the kerbin system instead of overloading them with a million more rocket parts and even more stats to learn and worry about.

It’s not complex at all, adding hydrogen and methane would actually challenge people in a good way because it would give them a recourse to build around of for example, why is the space shuttle's tank so big? Or why do jet engines not use hydrogen or methane?, etc. also why do we need to focus on noobies and their feelings?

Edited May 7, 2020 by SpaceFace545

[Ethan Ng]

Hope ksp2 have a fuel toggle switch

[DStaal]

 

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

One, two, three, my 16 month old cousin could remember each one. Not complex if you’re having problems with your engine not working, maybe it’s cause you put methane in a jet engine. I just don’t know how you guys think three New fuels is complex. With the new future engines we will need, nuclear pulse devices, liquid hydrogen, helium 3, deuterium, metallic hydrogen, and fusion and fission pellets. So at that state with 6 new resources Adding 3 to it isn’t that much.

It's not about numbers of fuels.  It's never been about numbers of fuels.  It's about gameplay.

Let's take a look at the current state:

•  LF+O - High thrust, medium ISP.  (General purpose fuel.)
•  LF (atomic) - medium thrust, high ISP, heavy engines. (Large ship transit fuel.)
• LF+Atm (Jets) - High thrust, high ISP, limited to in-atmosphere. (Planes.)
• Monoprop - High thrust, medium ISP.  (One engine.) (Specialty fuel for RCS.)
• Xenon - low thrust, extreme ISP. (Small probe transit fuel.)
• Solid Fuel - Very high thrust, low-medium ISP, engines limited in throttle and gimbals. (Launch fuel, specialty role of sepertron.)

Looking at this, you'll notice that each type of engine has a different role.  There is some overlap (notably Monoprop - which is mitigated by there only being one monoprop engine in the game, which is a small radial engine), but generally there's very clear roles for each engine.  Even where there are multiple choices for a role, there's very distinct trade-offs: You could launch with either LF+O or Solid Fuel.  Solid Fuel is cheaper and has higher thrust, but is significantly less controllable.  Etc.

Honestly, three uses of LF could all have separate fuels, but it would complicate tankage slightly.  (And there's a fair number of people who've used LFO tanks never realizing that they didn't use the Oxidizer at all...)

For the fuels we expect to see so far in KSP2:

• Orion Drive - High thrust, good ISP, medium/large and heavy engine.  Good for Interplanetary transits.
• Daedalus Drive - Decent thrust, great ISP, very large engine.  Good for interstellar transits of large ships.
• Metallic Hydrogen - Medium/high thrust, very good ISP, only usable in vacuum.  Likely replaces LF (atomic) in role, late in the tech tree.
• MH+Cecsium - High thrust, decent ISP.  Likely replaces LF+O in role, late in the tech tree.

Again, each fuel has a specific and non-overlapping role, though I'm only guessing at the specifics.  So, ok, you want to add more variation to the fuels - what's the role?  How do you make it clear that this fuel is better for this use over any other, and there's specific trade-offs involved in using it?  From a gameplay perspective, a 10% difference in ISP is basically unnoticeable, and even a few percent thrust difference is unnoticeable.  So if you have hydrolox, kerolox, metholox, etc. engines, they are basically identical as far as the newbie player in concerned, as they aren't actually all that different.  So for the newbie player you effectively have a bunch of identical engines that can't be swapped between, and which use different tanks.  Why?  What's the point?  Other than making their life harder?

Yes, you could invent UI or tutorials (or both) to make it clear which was which - but you're solving the wrong problem then.  The problem is that you have duplicate incompatible parts.  Don't do that.  Have each part have a clear role in the first place.

(And yes, KSP2 should also have an easy-to-expand resource system where then modders can add the extra fuels and engines for those who know enough to understand the differences and care enough to want them.)

[Bingleberry]

For those saying it’ll be “too complex” ignore that there are solutions for this... first, they can set the option in an “advanced tweakables” section, and let those that care about it to activate it. Second, you can make it a basic choice, for example I choose engine x, the game asks “where do you plan on using it?” The player sets it to Kerbin-ASL, or vacuum, or duna-upper atmosphere, and the game “chooses” the fuel with the best isp for the given scenario. You can add various fuels, without burdening the player about its particular energy density at a given atmosphere (or lack thereof).

 

Also, somebody said “leave it to the modders,” that seems unreasonable to those of us that play console and can’t get any mods... I would love to see advanced life support.