Would you want procedural engine nozzles in ksp 2?

[mcwaffles2003]

27 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Yep, but someone always have to run over the line and take things to the farthest depths the topic can go.

Aww c'mon, I apologized :3

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Above all else, it means no waiting for the devs to fix possible holes in the part lineup.

Somethin tells me that will be less of a problem this time.

[Xelo]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

As to the conversation over whether it's appropriate to include the feature in stock due to the difficulty ramp. It would be difficult to introduce this kind of mechanic midway through the game after players understand orbital mechanics and if anything it would have to be at the start. Honestly if the basics of a rocket engines mechanics were implemented before anything else I think that would actually be a nice fit. It would give players an idea of where thrust, Isp, fuel flow, etc come from and why they exist. This would make for great early game exploration just seeing what the right mix is to get a rocket as high as you can. For instance a player might assume a large throat with a low expansion ratio nozzle might get them far but thrust and Isp would fall due to a lack of pressure in the combustion chamber and a lack of pressure leads to a lack in temperature leads to a decrease in exit velocity yada yada yada.

 

Anyway, people could play around with this kind of thing to find out how to make a rocket go far before they attempt to get to orbit. Then they could deal with learning orbital mechanics. Then learn about transfers, then colonization...

 

I cant wait to play this game guys...

I share your sentiment, but the optimal ksp beginner experience doesn't seem like tweaking a bunch of sliders for 3 hours just so your rocket can even exit the atmosphere, this mechanic also requires there to be an understanding of gas physics in the first place. I for one would probably have exited the game for good and given a bad review if I was just stuck on kerbin trying to figure out what in hell a ' large throat with a low expansion ratio nozzle' even means as I was figuring out the controls of the game and when i just wanted to explore the kerbol system. At the very least, this mechanic should definitely not be the bottleneck to the rest of the content in the game.

7 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Personally, in any game largely about engineering/creating, more parts and nuance the better.

Fair but problem is that 'more parts and nuance' can very quickly turn into 'more complexity and decision paralysis' for everyone else. There is a compromise we have to make as a game designer and even more so, now that KSP2 is focusing on onboarding new players whose only knowledge can basically summed as up as 'rockets go up and enter orbits, and space is a cool place' or the often quoted "I have not landed on the mun yet" group,  Adding rocket engine design at the very beginning of the game seems a little bit too much me thinks.

If I had to add this feature in stock it'll only be at the very end to deal with niche end-game situations that would benefit from it, like optimizing engines to perform well in the high atmosphere pressures of ovin or gas giants etc.
I trust in the great minds of kerbal aerospace engineers to have at least optimized an engine for their own home planet and the space that surrounds it 

[shdwlrd]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's not a major fail point, you just need to adapt the atmospheric stage engines for atmospheres, choose the best parameters for the job, and choose otherwise for transatmo and vac.

Easier said than done. Too many times I've forgotten to pack the necessary science equipment for my science missions, enough Mine Shafts for my Pathfinder bases, antennas for my crafts. I've had to patch in a MP tag to the titles for the MP engines to remember which engines are MP and which engines are LFO. (I don't get along with the right click info menu.) When planning missions and designing crafts, I quickly reach my mental saturation point and start forgetting things. So the shorter the list of stuff I have to remember, the better. 

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Aww c'mon, I apologized :3

Lol, there's a few people that share the blame, me included. 

(There really needs a guilty smile emoij.)

Edited June 3, 2022 by shdwlrd

[Bej Kerman]

10 hours ago, Xelo said:

I share your sentiment, but the optimal ksp beginner experience doesn't seem like tweaking a bunch of sliders for 3 hours just so your rocket can even exit the atmosphere

The optimal KSP beginner would not realise they can customise the existing engines until they're familiar enough with the UI to start learning how they can optimise their engines. Engine customisation is a feature in SimpleRockets 2 A.K.A. Baby's First KSP and stays out of the way for beginners, so I see absolutely no reason to not implement engine customisation in a similar manner for KSP 2 when we're also getting several other advanced features like torch drives and interstellar travel.

[Ryaja]

On 6/2/2022 at 7:23 PM, Xelo said:

it'll only be at the very end

This is what I was saying, maybe once you get a colony a specific planet you get the ability to unlock a new tech node for engines optimized for that atmosphere, for example you would unlock and eve setting on all atmospheric engines, and have all vacuum engines not have settings. Since a lot of players don't escape Kerbin's SOI it would only affect more hardcore players.

 

What I am thinking is an extra research and development building on different planets, you run barometric and thermal experiments and unlock a new tech node for research which would take time and science points to unlock optimized nozzles.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Ryaja
MOAR

[Xelo]

19 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

The optimal KSP beginner would not realise they can customise the existing engines until they're familiar enough with the UI to start learning how they can optimise their engines. Engine customisation is a feature in SimpleRockets 2 A.K.A. Baby's First KSP and stays out of the way for beginners, so I see absolutely no reason to not implement engine customisation in a similar manner for KSP 2 when we're also getting several other advanced features like torch drives and interstellar travel.

I dont think this unholy statistics spreadsheet of an UI is anywhere resembling a place to begin learning to be honest. And to be clear, this isnt some kind of expanded statistics view, you either view nothing at all   or   all of these numbers at once.
For veterans it may look ok, crowded but manageable, for beginners, where do you even start, Exit pressure? 

It might be """"Baby's First KSP"""" to you due to its low part count and unpolished nature, but frankily, I'd consider ksp1 and sr1 to be a better "Baby's First KSP" then simple rockets 2 just from this part editor alone.

I also do not consider gate-keeping beginners with bad UI a good direction for design. The 'optimal beginner' is a idealized thin slice of a much larger bell curve, and you'd be remiss to think people wont stumble into places they 'aren't supposed to go yet' and get confused as a result. 

As for the example of the torch drive and interstellar travel, they are very much tied (or even an absolute requirement) into the later-game progression of KSP2 and build upon concepts previously learnt.
It is a fallacy to equate them to a system that would be loosely available to absolute beginners that offer marginal optimizations for little benefit and much greater complexity. 

Again, if it had to be added, I would integrate them into the progression itself* in situations where its meaningful and has a solid use case (such as the ovin example). I have to clarify I do not have anything against this system itself, but just the fact people are suggesting it be introduced or available in the very beginning where it very much does not need to and serves only as distracting noise and UI clutter for those who aren't veterans. 

*possibly with the help of a gateway engine like the NERV-US with its ability to toggle during flights itself allowing you to see the performance difference very easily

14 hours ago, Ryaja said:

you run barometric and thermal experiments and unlock a new tech node for research which would take time and science points to unlock optimized nozzles

I enjoy the idea of having to use the actual values derived from science to make better engines. Like as a tentative example, after measuring the pressure on a planet (other then kerbin) with atmosphere, lets say uh 2.5 bar on eve. You'd unlock the ability to see what maximum pressure engines are rated for and would then be able to set the nozzles on a few select engines to '2.5 bar' to get better engine performance on eve's surface. Though it may be more intuitive for some to have labels like 'high pressure' rated engines and 'high pressure' planets instead of just XYZ bar.
 

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, Xelo said:

I dont think this unholy statistics spreadsheet of an UI is anywhere resembling a place to begin learning to be honest.

You're missing the point. SR2 lets you use engine presets (as with KSP) until you're confident you know what the sliders do. And if not, you just slide things until the ISP looks good in atmo/vac.

2 hours ago, Xelo said:

but just the fact people are suggesting it be introduced or available in the very beginning

What's the problem if 1. all the advanced engine adjustables are out of the way and 2. the tutorials are better?

[Ryaja]

8 hours ago, Xelo said:

Though it may be more intuitive for some to have labels like 'high pressure' rated engines and 'high pressure' planets instead of just XYZ bar.

I was thinking just saying (planet name) rated nozzle. And then have it in subcategories under the connection size.

[Bej Kerman]

17 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

I was thinking just saying (planet name) rated nozzle. And then have it in subcategories under the connection size.

What sense does that make? Ovin and Kerbin have high pressure surfaces, so what sense would there be in calling an engine "Ovin rated" if all the properties that let it work on Ovin also allow it to work on Kerbin, or any other atmospheric planet for that matter?

It only needs to be classed as "vacuum rated" or "atmosphere rated", and maybe rated for different G levels depending on gravity; there's literally no reason to attribute its rating to a planet rather than a broad term that encompasses an environment you might find on that planet - especially when planets with no atmosphere will have 0 effect on vac engines.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[Ryaja]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

What sense does that make? Ovin and Kerbin have high pressure surfaces, so what sense would there be in calling an engine "Ovin rated" if all the properties that let it work on Ovin also allow it to work on Kerbin, or any other atmospheric planet for that matter?

Good point, I see what you are saying. Another idea is yes have a slider but having presets you can click for different planets even if some are close together.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Ryaja said:

Good point, I see what you are saying. Another idea is yes have a slider but having presets you can click for different planets even if some are close together.

Again, there are only reasons not to do this. Engines are adapted for atmospheres and vacuums - these aren't environments exclusive to certain planets at all. There are  only reasons not to label engines based on planets.

[Ryaja]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, there are only reasons not to do this. Engines are adapted for atmospheres and vacuums - these aren't environments exclusive to certain planets at all. There are  only reasons not to label engines based on planets.

Unless they make over expansion a thing. both sides of this argument have insubstantial evidence. But yours has evidence from KSP 1. but that might change.

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, there are only reasons not to do this. Engines are adapted for atmospheres and vacuums - these aren't environments exclusive to certain planets at all. There are  only reasons not to label engines based on planets.

Unless they make over expansion a thing. both sides of this argument have insubstantial evidence. But yours has evidence from KSP 1. but that might change.

Maybe you misunderstood again. Literally every planet falls into the category of "has atmo" or "no atmosphere, just vac". Engines fall into either the "optimised for atmo" category, or the "optimised for vac" category. There's nothing special about any planet that necessitates extra categories. Overexpansion is completely irrelevant - only ISP between atmo and vac.

"both sides have insubstantial evidence", I don't need to explain why a planet's atmosphere is not magically different from any other. Only one thing matters for chemical engines - presence of atmosphere. Only one thing matters for jets - presence of oxygen in required atmosphere. Categorising engines between specific planets is completely and utterly useless when planets fall into one of three categories: vacuum, atmospheric, oxygenated.

[Ryaja]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Literally every planet falls into the category of "has atmo" or "no atmosphere, just vac".

Yes in ksp 1. For example Eve's atmosphere is thicker and more dense than kerbin's. So a shorter nozzle with less expansion ratio would result in more fuel efficiency throughout the atmosphere.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

why a planet's atmosphere is not magically different from any other.

A planet's atmosphere is not "magically different" it has to do with how it was formed it has more gas hence a higher pressure therefore an engine nozzle with a smaller expansion ration would work better in said atmosphere but at higher or lower altitudes the atmospheric pressure equalizes. For example Eve has more atmospheric pressure at its sea level than Kerbin.

Spoiler

(I realize I basically said the same thing twice)

 

[Bej Kerman]

46 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Literally every planet falls into the category of "has atmo" or "no atmosphere, just vac".

Yes in ksp 1. For example Eve's atmosphere is thicker and more dense than kerbin's. So a shorter nozzle with less expansion ratio would result in more fuel efficiency throughout the atmosphere.

Yes? So cut "This engine works on EVE, KERBIN, OVIN, LAYTHE, JOOL, [etc.]" and just say "This engine works in ATMO". There's nothing else to it. I can only say "your idea has no real point or use" in so many ways.

46 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

A planet's atmosphere is not "magically different" it has to do with how it was formed it has more gas hence a higher pressure therefore an engine nozzle with a smaller expansion ration would work better in said atmosphere but at higher or lower altitudes the atmospheric pressure equalizes. For example Eve has more atmospheric pressure at its sea level than Kerbin.

So for Eve and Kerbin you need an engine built for atmospheres. For the Mun and Moho you need a vac engine. You still haven't explained why engines need to be labelled by planet when the planet itself is an unnecessary detail to add to an otherwise simple system; "air adapted engines in air category and vac engines in vac category".

Spoiler

I said the same thing twice too.

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[Ryaja]

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Yes? So cut "This engine works on EVE, KERBIN, OVIN, LAYTHE, JOOL, [etc.]" and just say "This engine works in ATMO". There's nothing else to it. I can only say "your idea has no real point or use" in so many ways.

Not all atmospheres are created equal, adding this would increase realism.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Ryaja said:

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Yes? So cut "This engine works on EVE, KERBIN, OVIN, LAYTHE, JOOL, [etc.]" and just say "This engine works in ATMO". There's nothing else to it. I can only say "your idea has no real point or use" in so many ways.

Not all atmospheres are created equal, adding this would increase realism.

And? If an engine is created for atmospheres, it will work better in atmospheres than an engine that was created for a vacuum. The idea is still completely useless.

[t_v]

41 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

So for Eve and Kerbin you need an engine built for atmospheres. For the Mun and Moho you need a vac engine. You still haven't explained why engines need to be labelled by planet when the planet itself is an unnecessary detail to add to an otherwise simple system; "air adapted engines in air category and vac engines in vac category".

But it isn’t a simple “atmosphere or vacuum” system. What the OP is trying to say is that there are engines optimized for different pressures, not just “for atmosphere,” and if you use an engine that works well (is optimized) for Kerbin atmospheres, it literally will not work on Jool at “sea level”. If you want a more extreme comparison, try lighting an upper stage rocket engine underwater. It doesn’t work well. So, you need a gradient because the difference is pressures between different planets is large enough to make it necessary. Not an on/off switch between Atmo and Vacuum, which would be roughly as helpful as just using a NERV as a booster from Kerbin launchpads

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, t_v said:

and if you use an engine that works well (is optimized) for Kerbin atmospheres, it literally will not work on Jool at “sea level”

Literally nothing works at Jool sea level. At any reasonable pressure you can expect outside a gas giant or the core of a star, it really is as simple as "use atmo engine for atmo".

[Ryaja]

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

it really is as simple as "use atmo engine for atmo".

It really is not that simple. In thicker atmospheres you need a smaller expansion ratio, because of the pressure of the exiting gas a better optimized engine or an engine where the gas exiting is closer to the atmospheric pressure is more fuel efficient and makes more thrust because it is all going down not out or in.

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

It really is not that simple. In thicker atmospheres you need a smaller expansion ratio, because of the pressure of the exiting gas a better optimized engine or an engine where the gas exiting is closer to the atmospheric pressure is more fuel efficient and makes more thrust because it is all going down not out or in.

And as you transition to vacuum, vacuum engines become better, no?

[Ryaja]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And as you transition to vacuum, vacuum engines become better, no?

That is correct, and in the opposite direction  they get worse and smaller expansion ratio engines get better and the higher the pressure the smaller the optimized expansion ratio is.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, Ryaja said:

9 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And as you transition to vacuum, vacuum engines become better, no?

That is correct, and in the opposite direction  they get worse and smaller expansion ratio engines get better and the higher the pressure the smaller the optimized expansion ratio is.

So what's the problem of categorising them by whether they're adapted for atmo or not?

[Ryaja]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

So what's the problem of categorising them by whether they're adapted for atmo or not

Well what I am thinking is since they are having drop down menus in the vab the atmospheric nozzle one would have a sub category for each planet or moon with an atmosphere.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Ryaja said:

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

So what's the problem of categorising them by whether they're adapted for atmo or not

Well what I am thinking is since they are having drop down menus in the vab the atmospheric nozzle one would have a sub category for each planet or moon with an atmosphere.

And as I've said before, that idea is completely and utterly useless in a world where the way an atmosphere works for an engine really is as simple as "use atmo engine if you plan on going inside the atmosphere".