Am I remembering this correctly? Were Thud's hated / criticized way back when?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I'm pleading the 5th on whether they're my go-to easy-to-use put-them-on-every-lander engine... because they work - so I'm not admitting anything, okay?

But 

For some reason I have this feeling like I'm supposed to feel guilty for using Thuds.  Like there was a cult of Thud haters out there who made you feel bad for using Thuds and not some ultra efficient high ISP low TWR engine that to land on the Mun you had to start the burn before you left the VAB, but all the cool kids agreed was the way to go.

 

Has that changed?

Edited May 29, 2020 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[RoninFrog]

There really isn't anything wrong with Thuds.  They just aren't as efficient as other engines.  I think you may be confusing it with the Puff.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

You may be correct.  It's hard to remember the quibbles and quarrels of when I played back when.

 

[Kerbart]

I think they increased the I_sp over time. It also used to be tank-bottom ugly, and always looked like it was something that was just slapped on. In the current design it integrates much better, although I’m aware opinions vary.

It also has a wide gimbal range givens lots of maneuverability. There certainly are applications for this engine.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Kerbart

[KerikBalm]

Poor twr and poor isp.

They have been somewhat improved, but I don't use them much... Only for applications that don't require a lot of dv or twrr, which can still leave options open around low graviity bodies

[Streetwind]

Back in the olden days, its main feature was "look it has a large gimbaling range!". Because at the time, very few engines did thrust vectoring at all. And those that did, usually had miniscule ranges.

So in order to justify its unique capability so early in the tech tree, all its other stats were just subpar in every possible method of comparison. The part description even outright said so.

And then, you have to realize that this was the age of the souposphere. In other words, aerodynamics wasn't properly simulated, and you could build rockets shaped like pancakes that flew perfectly fine. So... the use case for thrust vectoring on an atmospheric engine was... what exactly? Oh right: none. It had no real use case. So the one thing it was good at didn't really come up in gameplay. For creative builds, too, it had very limited usefulness, because it was just... ugly.

Thus you were left with an engine which was bad at everything except something which game mechanics rendered redundant. That's where the reputation comes from.

Nowadays it's a far more viable option, with more sensible stats, better visuals, and a wider range of scenarios in which it can be useful.

 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Streetwind

[TheFlyingKerman]

I think the Thud is so obsolete that it is forgotten. I used them for my first ssto, but I found each of these  have the drag of a Reliant, half the thrust and worse everything else. And in space shape doesn’t matter.

[RealKerbal3x]

It's still sort of useful as a vernier engine on first stages, but I don't use it much beyond that.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I've clearly been using them wrong - because they are an ezmode landing rocket in my KSP - one that helps me keep weight low and attach landing legs to my fuel tank (and not some built up landing leg support structure.  Of course I have never tried to land anywhere but the moons. 

 

Ok, color me intrigued: what are some better options for landing mining stuff and other heavy payloads? 

[Vanamonde]

Everything's been hated and criticized at one time or another. 

[Zhetaan]

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Ok, color me intrigued: what are some better options for landing mining stuff and other heavy payloads? 

I've used Mk. 3 Cargo Bays for that; while I have used radial engines on them to land them in skycrane-like fashion, I also like to put extra-large landing gear on them and land them like planes on a flat bit of ground.  I've also put regular engines on outriggers (or the drills on outriggers) and done things that way.  For the moons, I don't usually land anything that requires Thud-level power, but I've used Twitches and, on Minmus, Spiders.

I did use Thuds once for landing Ore tanks (Ore is very dense), but that was before I realised that it made more sense to convert the fuel on-site rather than transport the Ore.

[Cavscout74]

I use them some frequently for Atlas-like early career rockets, for making the half stage booster engines.  I also use them for some of my heavier landers when I need the higher thrust, but usually use the MH Cubs on anything lighter.

My Atlas-alike:   The core fires through the decoupler, which has cross-feed enabled and a pair of thuds mounted on the decoupler.

Once enough fuel is burned off, the extra thrust can be staged away, leaving just the core engine to continue the trip

[Death Engineering]

31 minutes ago, Cavscout74 said:

My Atlas-alike <...>

Great design! And a good way to gain some staged-away TWR with a single decoupler.  

Or, when you have to land a base and rover on Duna:

 

But, yeah @JoeSchmuckatelli, the Thud was a real dog when it was new. A quick read of the wiki shows that it's been made lighter, increased power, decreased mass, increased gimbal and prettified.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Death Engineering

[Cavscout74]

13 minutes ago, Death Engineering said:

Or, when you have to land a base and rover on Duna

Yep, that's about what I had in mind when I said "heavier landers" that can't use the Cub

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Death Engineering said:

Great design! And a good way to gain some staged-away TWR with a single decoupler.  

Or, when you have to land a base and rover on Duna:

 

But, yeah @JoeSchmuckatelli, the Thud was a real dog when it was new. A quick read of the wiki shows that it's been made lighter, increased power, decreased mass, increased gimbal and prettified.

How did you launch that monster?  My wide stuff doesn't like to leave the atmosphere!

Edited May 29, 2020 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Death Engineering]

39 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

My wide stuff doesn't like to leave the atmosphere!

On something like this:

 

With the propulsion modules docked (separate launches):

(This was going to JNSQ Duna, explaining the twin nuclear tugs..)

[Fraston]

I use them for an extra “kick” in early career/science mode (which tends to be where I stop with these saves, so I use it a lot) but I mostly forget them otherwise.

[Xavven]

They used to have worse stats and stick out a lot more. Now they're a little more flat and have slightly better stats.

I admit I hardly use them unless I need just a little more TWR on a lower stage, but conceivably for medium-sized landers, you can either go with a big engine and then have to build longer landing legs (easier now that we have robotic parts) or you can use Thuds and have smaller landing legs.

[N_Danger]

4 hours ago, Xavven said:

They used to have worse stats and stick out a lot more. Now they're a little more flat and have slightly better stats.

I admit I hardly use them unless I need just a little more TWR on a lower stage, but conceivably for medium-sized landers, you can either go with a big engine and then have to build longer landing legs (easier now that we have robotic parts) or you can use Thuds and have smaller landing legs.

Or keep the long legs and stick a rover underneath your lander.