Engines not better identified in the last feature video

[Strawberry]

I think we will see multiple fuels, but you can swap out what fuel a fuel tank stores (if it would fit in that type of fuel tank) and engines only use one type of fuel. I dont think we're going to get special fuel tanks for metallic hydrogen and they'll just use the generic ones, but we will see special fuel tanks for nuclear bombs. 

[SciMan]

Maybe they'll all use the same "generic fuel tank part", just VASTLY change what it looks like (without changing the dimensions) with differing fuel types.

Say you could put hydrolox in a regular looking fuel tank, or you could go to the next option and suddenly it's a fuel tank that's covered in MLI and uses "pill" tanks with truss structures to make up the cylindrical profile instead of standard fuel tanks that have flat ends naturally.

Switch to just LH2 and the fuel tank changes again, to become one single pill-shaped tank that takes up the whole length, rather than one for fuel and one for oxidizer.

Xenon tanks would look like a bundle of smaller pressurized gas cylinders, or for the smaller diameters just one pressurized gas cylinder.

Metallic hydrogen, well I have no idea what the thing would look like. Probably should look like it can contain an immense amount of pressure.

Fusion fuels isotopes (Deuterium and Helium-3 probably, or Deuterium and Tritium, or even all 3 options available singly or in pairs useful for fusion applications) you could probably store in generic cryogenic tanks, but the Kerbals would probably put some sort of symbol or color-coding band on them to indicate the contents.

And if they have Antimatter, well that should look like its a bunch of magnets, since the currently best way to store antimatter is in Penning traps.

[EnderKid2]

Didn't we see examples of refineries for all sorts of different fuels?

[K^2]

6 minutes ago, EnderKid2 said:

Didn't we see examples of refineries for all sorts of different fuels?

That honestly only confirms that this was a serious plan at a specific point in time, but not necessarily guarantees that all variations survived the development iteration process.

[Strawberry]

I think its safe to say that the fuels we have seen will be in game as we know we will have engines that require those fuels, I wont be surprised if we see He3 fuel be made into He3+De fuel though. With the official announcement of the delivery route system, Id be shocked if the fuels dont need base materials to generate (with probably the exception of xenon generators as those work irl by just filtering from the atmosphere). There's definitely going to be unique fuel tanks designed for specific fuels, such as the spherical tanks for fusion engines and the yellow naked tanks for hydrogen. It is unknown if you'll only be able to put one type of fuel in these/all tanks or if youll be able to toggle what fuels are in them. 

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, EnderKid2 said:

Didn't we see examples of refineries for all sorts of different fuels?

You can see them here.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

That honestly only confirms that this was a serious plan at a specific point in time, but not necessarily guarantees that all variations survived the development iteration process.

I understand that plans can and do change, but I don't think Intercept would explain and show off assets without using them either in part or as is.

[K^2]

3 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

I understand that plans can and do change, but I don't think Intercept would explain and show off assets without using them either in part or as is.

Happens all the time, actually. Intercept is showing us a lot more than most other studios do during development, so I can see why it doesn't look this way from the outside on most games, but so much content gets cut already at alpha-quality. Some times these things make into future patches or DLC. But a lot just gets discarded. If some play test this year revealed that players are finding many different fuel types awkward and confusing, the standard response would be, "Lets try consolidating some of these into something more generic, and test it again," and if that tests better with the focus group, that's what the studio will usually run with.

And to be clear, there is no reason that I'm aware of to think that this actually happened. I just want to highlight the fact that the assets for something existing a year ago is absolutely not a proof that the feature is still in the game.

[GoldForest]

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

Happens all the time, actually. Intercept is showing us a lot more than most other studios do during development, so I can see why it doesn't look this way from the outside on most games, but so much content gets cut already at alpha-quality. Some times these things make into future patches or DLC. But a lot just gets discarded. If some play test this year revealed that players are finding many different fuel types awkward and confusing, the standard response would be, "Lets try consolidating some of these into something more generic, and test it again," and if that tests better with the focus group, that's what the studio will usually run with.

And to be clear, there is no reason that I'm aware of to think that this actually happened. I just want to highlight the fact that the assets for something existing a year ago is absolutely not a proof that the feature is still in the game.

Inb4 people complain about fuel refineries not being in game at EA launch.

On a serious note, we will probably see a lot of assets that won't be in game until down the line like you mentioned. Like fuel refineries. They're for colonies, but they may not be in game until the Exploration update since resource gathering won't be until said update, and refineries need resources. Now, they might give us an all-powerful convertor until then, like turning hydrogen into methane or methane into mono, etc. Unlikely, I know, but it would be a bridge to the gap between Colonies update and Exploration update.

To keep it somewhat on topic, I don't imagine a lot of engines being held back. I see all engines shown to be in game when the Interstellar update drops since there will be no need to hold back any engines by then. Though, the engines will be less useful until the resource update with Exploration hits. (Just realized we'll be ditching reusable engines like the Metallic Hydrogen engines possibly. Imagine ditching a billion-dollar REUSABLE engine on some rock lightyears from home so you can make it back to said home... ouch)

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, K^2 said:

Happens all the time, actually. Intercept is showing us a lot more than most other studios do during development, so I can see why it doesn't look this way from the outside on most games, but so much content gets cut already at alpha-quality. Some times these things make into future patches or DLC. But a lot just gets discarded. If some play test this year revealed that players are finding many different fuel types awkward and confusing, the standard response would be, "Lets try consolidating some of these into something more generic, and test it again," and if that tests better with the focus group, that's what the studio will usually run with.

And to be clear, there is no reason that I'm aware of to think that this actually happened. I just want to highlight the fact that the assets for something existing a year ago is absolutely not a proof that the feature is still in the game.

I could see monopropelant getting included in the basic fuel production facility. Might even xenon. But the higher order fuels, no. Reason is balance. The methane plant looks like something you could put on an large lander / mobile base like we do in KSP 1. This keep chemical engines, nuclear thermal and ion engines relevant late in the game as the better performing fuel is hard to get.  
You bring metallic hydrogen for your shuttles crossing interstellar distances but once it runs out you have to build an city before getting more. 

[Strawberry]

Xenon will likely be filtered from atmosphere, so assuming you have some sort of air intake Im guessing youll be able to run it through a filter. Hydrogen Peroxide (A monoprop) is just made by combining hydrogen and oxygen so Im guessing youll be able to form it that way. Im guessing that youll be able to convert food into liquid fuel, so if ships have life support I think itll be more bulky then what we are used to, and youll need to collect co2 and h2o for it, but itll be possible. 

Deterium becomes more prevalent the closer you get to a star, so Im guessing you can make He3 + De fuel on ships, its just difficult because you need to atmos scoop gas giants and then go to an inner planet and mine the few amounts of ice from them, a thing for proper motherships. Metallic hydrogen will probably just require lots of fuel, probably use a chemical laser so itll need hard to get materials, and maybe not even have a part for it for ships. I think itd be basically impossible to generate metallic hydrogen on spaceships.

[shdwlrd]

14 hours ago, K^2 said:

Happens all the time, actually. Intercept is showing us a lot more than most other studios do during development, so I can see why it doesn't look this way from the outside on most games, but so much content gets cut already at alpha-quality. Some times these things make into future patches or DLC. But a lot just gets discarded. If some play test this year revealed that players are finding many different fuel types awkward and confusing, the standard response would be, "Lets try consolidating some of these into something more generic, and test it again," and if that tests better with the focus group, that's what the studio will usually run with.

And to be clear, there is no reason that I'm aware of to think that this actually happened. I just want to highlight the fact that the assets for something existing a year ago is absolutely not a proof that the feature is still in the game.

I'm completely aware the assets that was shown may not end up in the final release of the game. (Too much geeking out reading production diaries and creator's/artist's memoirs has taught me that.)

I'm more referring to how Intercept has made it a point to try not to invalidate any previous statements on how and what will be in the game. I know they have been very careful about what info is released to the community. So the actual assets in the show & tell may not end up in the game. The fuels they specified, should be. As GoldForest said, they probably won't be in the EA, but would be present in the final release.

The real point of contention I keep seeing is people keep comparing the equipment and fuels in the game to their real world counterparts, eventhough there may not be any direct correlation to them. Yes, they used real life engines as inspiration for their assets, but they are not copies or replicas of the real thing. That means that Intercept can do whatever they want with them. The same goes with comparing KSP2 to KSP1. Eventhough everything may seem the same, there can be major differences between the two.

 

[SciMan]

Ok maybe Intercept can have SOME leeway with the specific statistics of the engines, but I hope we don't see things like a vacuum Hydrolox engine having worse specific impulse than a vacuum Methalox engine.

Hopefully we also don't see a nuclear thermal engine that needs radiators while it's producing thrust, when if anything it should need the radiators when it's NOT producing thrust (the opposite of the current KSP 1 LV-N Nerv), and even then only if it produces electricity when it's not producing thrust (a bimodal NTR).
Because while the KSP 1 LV-N is "an attempt" at an LV-N, it's so unrealistic in every aspect other than the vacuum specific impulse, maybe the thrust, and maybe the weight (but even then it's too heavy) to me that I just can't suspend my disbelief.

Point is, if they put something in the game, it should at least nod its head to reality, instead of flaunting it for the sake of "but this doesn't make the game fun in my opinion" like the LV-N does. The LV-N SHOULD be the engine of choice in space, bar none, except for tiny craft where the ion engine is a better choice.
If you have the tech for it, there's literally no reason aside from a phobia of all things nuclear (don't tell them about background radiation) to not use a nuclear thermal rocket IRL.

[DrCHIVES]

On 10/24/2022 at 6:47 AM, intelliCom said:

Wait, I didn't notice this before; "Methalox engines like this". Does this confirm Methane as a fuel source, or is it simply a replacement for "Liquid Fuel"?

Pretty sure they are moving away from the generic "liquid fuel".  Can't remember which feature video discussed this, but they were talking about the NERV engine.  Mr. FRIDAY!!! himself talked about the ksp1 engines as being methanol engines and that ksp 2 will bring new and more complex and exotic fuel types.  So I'd go with replacing if I had to guess.

[intelliCom]

22 minutes ago, DrCHIVES said:

Pretty sure they are moving away from the generic "liquid fuel".  Can't remember which feature video discussed this, but they were talking about the NERV engine.  Mr. FRIDAY!!! himself talked about the ksp1 engines as being methanol engines and that ksp 2 will bring new and more complex and exotic fuel types.  So I'd go with replacing if I had to guess.

In a recent interview, Nate Simpson talked about the NERV-US engine running on liquid hydrogen, and the old NERV is going to be altered to run on it too. I don't see why they would completely abandon liquid fuel as being kerosene though. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure "methalox" was just a mistake of words.

[GoldForest]

2 hours ago, intelliCom said:

In a recent interview, Nate Simpson talked about the NERV-US engine running on liquid hydrogen, and the old NERV is going to be altered to run on it too. I don't see why they would completely abandon liquid fuel as being kerosene though. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure "methalox" was just a mistake of words.

I don't think it was, because we've seen in the Refinery show case that there is a Methalox refinery. 

[DrCHIVES]

7 hours ago, intelliCom said:

In a recent interview, Nate Simpson talked about the NERV-US engine running on liquid hydrogen, and the old NERV is going to be altered to run on it too. I don't see why they would completely abandon liquid fuel as being kerosene though. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure "methalox" was just a mistake of words.

You could be totally right.  I just figured with them making this huge shift in ksp2 to grounding everything at least in part with real science, as well as adding real fuel types for engines in game, it would seem a little odd to have a fuel type called "liquid fuel" next to tanks that hold metallic hydrogen doped with Cesium and helium3 with deuterium.  

[K^2]

6 hours ago, DrCHIVES said:

it would seem a little odd to have a fuel type called "liquid fuel" next to tanks that hold metallic hydrogen doped with Cesium and helium3 with deuterium.  

A little odd, yes, but then the Germans did call their V2 fuel B-stoff and the oxidizer the A-stoff. So there's a bit of a real world precedent for Kerbals just calling a specific combination "liquid fuel," and only getting more specific about the other stoff stuff.

My personal preference would be for Intercept to "pick a lane," and either go very minimalist on fuel types, justifying "liquid fuel" as an umbrella, or go broader and have specialized fuels with distinctive and meaningful names, replacing "liquid fuel" with kerlox or methalox perhaps. But I won't get upset if they stick to "liquid fuel" and add more fuel types to support the higher end of the tech tree in KSP's vein. Seems a little odd, like you said, but not really a huge deal for how the game plays.

[DrCHIVES]

So it looks like my speculations are correct as of thursday.  @Nertea has stated in the most recent developer insight that the generic "liquid fuel" type just was not doing it for the devs and they have decided that it will be Methane.  All KSP1 engines that ran liquid fuel/oxidizer combos are now methalox engines.