Why aren't the Vectors HydroLox fueled?

[Tweeker]

Watching Everyday astronaut's video I noted that the Vectors are now  Methalox powered, which doesn't make much sense it they are modeled on the RS-25 

 

If they going to add Hydrogen and Methane to the game why aren't the Vectors LH engines?  For that matter why are all the base engines all  Methalox? There performance in KSP 1 was more inline with Kerosene or UDMH. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Tweeker

[GoldForest]

24 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Watching Everyday astronaut's video I noted that the Vectors are now  Methalox powered, which doesn't make much sense it they are modeled on the RS-25 

If they going to add Hydrogen and Methane to the game why aren't the Vectors LH engines?  For that matter why are all the base engines all  Methalox? There performance in KSP 1 was more inline with Kerosene or UDMH. 

I agree it doesn't make sense to make the KS-25 Methalox, but tbf, it was lfo fueled, and all LFO got converted to Methalox. 

Maybe with feedback, they'll change it to Hydrolox. 

[Tweeker]

15 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I agree it doesn't make sense to make the KS-25 Methalox, but tbf, it was lfo fueled, and all LFO got converted to Methalox. 

Maybe with feedback, they'll change it to Hydrolox. 

Unlikely,  I think it'll be the same story as with KSP 1, once a feature or part has been added it rarely gets adjusted. If they don't get it right when they roll it out it stays wrong. 

 

[Superfluous J]

2 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Unlikely,  I think it'll be the same story as with KSP 1, once a feature or part has been added it rarely gets adjusted. If they don't get it right when they roll it out it stays wrong.

Speaking as a (very amateur) part modder, I can guarantee you stock parts got changed ALL THE TIME which caused my part mod to need fixing ALL THE TIME.

I then put a ton of work into making it so my part got its information from the game, so I'd never have to fix it again.

Until they changed the game in a way I didn't expect which broke my part AGAIN.

And before you think "sure that was a decade ago" no the most recent change was in - like - 1.10

 

[GoldForest]

17 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Unlikely,  I think it'll be the same story as with KSP 1, once a feature or part has been added it rarely gets adjusted. If they don't get it right when they roll it out it stays wrong. 

 

Very likely actually. 

See, Squad wasn't willing to change it, but Intercept has said multiple times, even emphasizing it. "We want your feedback! We want YOU to make this game better." So yeah, if enough of the community goes, "Make KS25 Hydrolox." I'm sure they would listen. 

[Tweeker]

4 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Speaking as a (very amateur) part modder, I can guarantee you stock parts got changed ALL THE TIME which caused my part mod to need fixing ALL THE TIME.

I then put a ton of work into making it so my part got its information from the game, so I'd never have to fix it again.

Until they changed the game in a way I didn't expect which broke my part AGAIN.

And before you think "sure that was a decade ago" no the most recent change was in - like - 1.10

 

Parts spec stay pretty lock in,  The Aerospike's thrust was 175 in .18 and now it's 180.  The Vector's stats haven't changed much since it's introduction in 1.0.5, the Kickback Still make ~600kN of thrust, the poodle is still 250 Kn, the LV-909 change from 50 to 60 kN. The biggest changes happened with the new atmosphere in 1.0  --- 8 years ago.  

If they don't change it now it's going to stay how it is. 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tweeker said:

Unlikely,  I think it'll be the same story as with KSP 1, once a feature or part has been added it rarely gets adjusted. If they don't get it right when they roll it out it stays wrong. 

I'm not saying that it's going to change, or that they're going to fix stuff, but you're surely wrong in extrapolating the behaviour of a new studio with a new game from how a different studio behaved with a different game.

[Vl3d]

Vectors are methalox now. Let's move on!

[Tweeker]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Very likely actually. 

See, Squad wasn't willing to change it, but Intercept has said multiple times, even emphasizing it. "We want your feedback! We want YOU to make this game better." So yeah, if enough of the community goes, "Make KS25 Hydrolox." I'm sure they would listen. 

I haven't seen that so far, many parts are direct translation of KSP 1.  Many of the part are completely wrong, so either they'll dedicate a whole update to   not just rebalancing but  completely overhauling many of the engines. Or they roll out other features such as science, career mode, etc . And the part will take on a sort  of inertia, and it will become very difficult to change them, either in specs or with what fuel they burn or role the play. 

Before the game was release would have been the best easiest time to get the basic stuff right, make a 3 categories of liquid fuels.  Something like KerLox, MethaLox and HydroLox. That certainly wouldn't be an exhaustive list of all possible fuels, but it gives a good set general categories for the fuel divided into:

1) Low density, high performance fuel {HydroLox}  

2) High density, low performance fuel {KerLox}

and 3)  Mid density mid performance fuel {MethaLox}

Then make sure the appropriate engine burn the appropriate fuels, and have an ISP that matches,   Kerlox for the Mainsail, Cheetah, Bobcat, Kodiak, Wolfhound with an ISP around 300-330. HydoLox for the Aerospike, Poodle, Terrier,  Vector, And  Skiff with an ISP in the 400-450 range and MethaLox  for the next gen rocket engines with and ISP in the 325-375 range.

Make sure the engine have the correct proportional performance, once you set a good proportion you, or any modder can add any real world engine simply by benchmarking it to real world equivalents,   for example the Skiff {J-2} should have about 230 kN, the Poodle should have about 30kN {assuming it represents 2 rl-10s},  the Mastodon and Mainsail should  merge and have 1500 kN.  Then based of that you can say that the  Rs-68 would have ~650 kN, the Vector should have ~450 kN, a Raptor engine  ~425kN, a Merlin ~200kN, a RD-170 ~1,700 kN {better to split it into 4 RD-191s}  Even obscure thing like the Electron Labs Rutherford are easy to characterize. ---  5.8 kN  310 ISP SL and 335-340  ISP vaccuum 

Fuel density and proportion are equally easy, set them roughly equivalent to  what they'd really be.  Set a weight for each fuel and oxidizer and a ratio of oxidizer to fuel that is real world approximate. IRL LOX has a density of ~1.14,  RP-1  ~0.9,  Methane  ~.42, and LH2 .071. Assuming the base KSP 1 fuel was Kerosene/RP1 make Methane weigh 2.14 times less than Kerosene, LH2 12.6 x  less and LOX 1.25 times more. 

Kerlox burns at a 2.5:1 ratio, Methalox 3.5:1 and HydroLox 6:1  Knowing that, and the weight and the fuel mixture that KSP engines burn you can change the burn ratios but keep the overall weight of the base, KerLox burning engine the same.   KSP 1 engine burn an 9:11 mixture something closer to 5.75 to 14.25 would be about right for a KerLox engine, assuming the weights are at a ~1:1.26 ratio. {I don't recall off the top of my head what the weights for "Fuel" and "Oxidizer" are}  If they are not at this ratio  you'd need to either adjust the weights in the resource config file or adjust the ratio so that the bulk density of each fuel combination is correct. .  Do the same for all the other fuels, and that's it. It's all text editing in the .cfg not something that requires a ton of development.

But, I've been down this road before. I'm not going to say it won't happen, but I'd be shocked if it did. 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Tweeker

[GoldForest]

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Vectors are methalox now. Let's move on!

Could you stop posting that in every thread? We're not going to 'move on.' We're going to discuss the topic of the thread. 

3 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

I haven't seen that so far, many parts are direct translation of KSP 1.  Many of the part are completely wrong, so either they'll dedicate a whole update to   not just rebalancing but  completely overhauling many of the engines. Or they roll out other features such as science, career mode, etc . And the part will take on a sort  of inertia, and it will become very difficult to change them, either in specs or with what fuel they burn or role the play. 

Before the game was release would have been the best easiest time to get the basic stuff right, make a 3 categories of liquid fuels.  Something like KerLox, MethaLox and HydroLox. That certainly wouldn't be an exhaustive list of all possible fuels, but it gives a good set general categories for the fuel divided into:

1) Low density, high performance fuel {HydroLox}  

2) High density, low performance fuel {KerLox}

and 3)  Mid density mid performance fuel {MethaLox}

[snip]

But, I've been down this road before. I'm not going to say it won't happen, but I'd be shock if it did. 

Intercept can't listen because the game isn't out yet and they aren't taking feedback. When the game comes out, they will be taking feedback. When that happens, send in feedback, and get the community behind you. They will listen if enough people say they want something. Just like weather. They said they want to add it, but they're worried the community might not, and thus, they're waiting for us to tell them that we do. 

I agree that there should be more than just Methalox and Hydrolox, but that will only happen if we tell them. "Hey, we think it should be like this."

[Tweeker]

 

13 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I'm not saying that it's going to change, or that they're going to fix stuff, but you're surely wrong in extrapolating the behaviour of a new studio with a new game from how a different studio behaved with a different game.

 

Once KSP 2 is out the door any changes become that much harder to make, case in point :

7 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Vectors are methalox now. Let's move on!

 It's not like this is the first suggestions about KSP 2 have been made. This studio chose to ignore suggestion about taking the chance to change engine balance between KSP 1 and KSP2. So I am judging them on their actions. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

 

Before the game was release would have been the best easiest time to get the basic stuff right, make a 3 categories of liquid fuels.  Something like KerLox, MethaLox and HydroLox. That certainly wouldn't be an exhaustive list of all possible fuels, but it gives a good set general categories for the fuel divided into:

1) Low density, high performance fuel {HydroLox}  

2) High density, low performance fuel {KerLox}

and 3)  Mid density mid performance fuel {MethaLox}

Then make sure the appropriate engine burn the appropriate fuels, and have an ISP that matches,

You're taking a personal stance, whether or not the game should have multiple fuels instead of the old "liquid fuel" and pretending it's the only right way of making the game.

The community discussed this several times over the years, and back then your stance was "it would be nice to have" not "they have implemented things wrong":

On 6/1/2020 at 3:13 AM, Tweeker said:

       I don't think it is strictly necessary to change to real life fuels, but it would be nice to have a few more realistic options. 

[...]

Generally speaking I am a proponent of keeping things simple,   But I think there is value in adding an analogue for cryonic fuels,  and a "fluffier" fuel as a LH analog. 

[...]

--Just my 2 cents.

 

 

Just now, Tweeker said:

It's not like this is the first suggestions about KSP 2 have been made. This studio chose to ignore suggestion about taking the chance to change engine balance between KSP 1 and KSP2. So I am judging them on their actions. 

So that's the reason? If they somehow don't do exactly everything that everyone suggests they become the evil guys that don't fix things to spite the community? Your suggestion was a single post under a single thread over 2 sub-forum with a collective 80 pages of threads, maybe they just missed your specificpost or, maybe, they heard both sides of the argument and choose to side with the ones calling for more simplicity, because that's the crux of this particular matter, not everyone was on the same page on it.

The argument we all had back then still stands, is this going to be just realism for the sake of realism or there's going to be some more gameplay around it?

Because different engines with different stats already are in the game, it's not exactly worth it  having 3 different fuels and sets of tanks just for that (IMHO).

And even now, even just the nuclear engines using hydrogen is not going to be a feature loved by all, the first thing I heard about it is "that is going to kill a ton of SSTOs".

 

What you see here was not the result of a mistake, but a calculated choice, with resources coming online down the line generic names like "ore"  or "liquid fuel"  that could be confusing had to go, at the same time the liquid fuel rocket engine had to stay on the same fuel, so they're all methalox now, but they still wanted to give us a little taste of new fuels, and choose some advanced one, the nuclear, that required a different set of fuel tanks anyway, for that.

[Tweeker]

4 minutes ago, Master39 said:

You're taking a personal stance, whether or not the game should have multiple fuels instead of the old "liquid fuel" and pretending it's the only right way of making the game.

The community discussed this several times over the years, and back then your stance was "it would be nice to have" not "they have implemented things wrong":

 

 

So that's the reason? If they somehow don't do exactly everything that everyone suggests they become the evil guys that don't fix things to spite the community? Your suggestion was a single post under a single thread over 2 sub-forum with a collective 80 pages of threads, maybe they just missed your specificpost or, maybe, they heard both sides of the argument and choose to side with the ones calling for more simplicity, because that's the crux of this particular matter, not everyone was on the same page on it.

The argument we all had back then still stands, is this going to be just realism for the sake of realism or there's going to be some more gameplay around it?

Because different engines with different stats already are in the game, it's not exactly worth it  having 3 different fuels and sets of tanks just for that (IMHO).

And even now, even just the nuclear engines using hydrogen is not going to be a feature loved by all, the first thing I heard about it is "that is going to kill a ton of SSTOs".

 

What you see here was not the result of a mistake, but a calculated choice, with resources coming online down the line generic names like "ore"  or "liquid fuel"  that could be confusing had to go, at the same time the liquid fuel rocket engine had to stay on the same fuel, so they're all methalox now, but they still wanted to give us a little taste of new fuels, and choose some advanced one, the nuclear, that required a different set of fuel tanks anyway, for that.

Back then I was talking about making changes in KSP1, and I understood the rationale that making changes to engines would break people's carefully constructed ships. Now I'm pointing out that they failed to take advantage of the opportunity to make such changes without negatively effecting people's in progress games.  So that's an apples to oranges comparison.  But I'll also note that they failed to incorporate  suggestions specifically made for KSP 2 before it came out. 

They could still straighten things out, but it will only get harder and less likely as time goes on. 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Tweeker

[GoldForest]

22 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Once KSP 2 is out the door any changes become that much harder to make, case in point :

You are wrong though. Early access is all about them making changes! They said it themselves! It's not "Harder." Squad was just lazy about changing things. Intercept won't be. 

Just now, Tweeker said:

And that they failed to take suggestion that were made for KSP 2 before it came out. 

Most of the things were set in stone due to the deadline to get KSP 2 out by February 24th, but after KSP 2 goes into EA, they can start taking our suggestions seriously. So make the suggestion to make Hydrolox a primary fuel source for a few of the engines on or after the 24th. 

[Tweeker]

Just now, GoldForest said:

You are wrong though. Early access is all about them making changes! They said it themselves! It's not "Harder." Squad was just lazy about changing things. Intercept won't be. 

They could have proven it by incorporating changes that KSP 1 did not, however it seems most of the parts are rote copies of KSP 1. I don't see any reason to believe they'll act any differently going forward.  They're free to prove me wrong. 

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, Tweeker said:

Back then I was talking about making changes in KSP1, and I understood the rationale that making changes to engines would break people's carefully constructed ships.

No, it was a discussion about KSP2 here on the KSP2 forum.

 

Just now, Tweeker said:

Now I'm pointing out that they failed to take advantage of the opportunity to make such changes without negatively effecting people's in progress games. And that they failed to take suggestion that were made for KSP 2 before it came out. 

The argument was debated every time it came up, the community is split on IRL multiple fuels, not everyone agrees on it. Not everyone even agrees that engines have to be balanced.

 

Have they failed to follow your request (which specifically begins with the words "I don't think it's strictly necessary to change...") or have they succeeded in listening to the multiple people stating the opposite?

 

Just now, Tweeker said:

They're free to prove me wrong. 

"I challenge you to prove me wrong by following my orders to the letter."
I think the game already has a Creative Director.

[Tweeker]

Apologies,  I didn't realize what thread you were quoting from. 

27 minutes ago, Master39 said:

No, it was a discussion about KSP2 here on the KSP2 forum.

From 2020,

Quote

 

So maybe 8 fuels,

Monoprop,

Solid Fuel,

LF 1 ---- A Ker/lox or hypergolic analog, 300-330 ISP

LF 2 ---- A LH/LOX Analog, 3X  less dense 375-430 ISP 

LF 3 ----  A Meth/LOX analog, Maybe 1.2X less dense than LF 1 {a  guess}  and 320 to 370 ISP. 

LFO --- NERVA and NTR rockets, 7X less dense than it currently is. 

Xenon. 

Future fuels such as Metallic hydrogen. 

 

From earlier in the this thread, 

Quote

 Kerlox ...... with an ISP around 300-330.

HydoLox ...... ISP in the 400-450 range 

MethaLox .... ISP in the 325-375 range.

Assuming the base KSP 1 fuel was Kerosene/RP1 make Methane weigh 2.14 times less than Kerosene, LH2 12.6 x  less and LOX 1.25 times more. 

 

While I stated the densities of the fuels separately  those numbers would give a bulk density of 1X for KerLox, 1.28X MethaLox and 2.8X for HydroLOX.  Right in line with what I suggested 

As far as the question "Have they failed to follow your request (which specifically begins with the words "I don't think it's strictly necessary to change...") plus the portion you omited  which states  "but it would be nice to have a few more realistic options."  IE striking a balance between Realism overhaul and the single fuel simplicity of KSP1 .

Yes, they have failed I don't see and KerLox or HydroLox engines.  It looks like they've gone from Fuel/Oxidizer to CH4/LOX. .

Edited February 22, 2023 by Tweeker

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Tweeker said:

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

 

From 2020,

Quote

 

So maybe 8 fuels,

Monoprop,

Solid Fuel,

LF 1 ---- A Ker/lox or hypergolic analog, 300-330 ISP

LF 2 ---- A LH/LOX Analog, 3X  less dense 375-430 ISP 

LF 3 ----  A Meth/LOX analog, Maybe 1.2X less dense than LF 1 {a  guess}  and 320 to 370 ISP. 

LFO --- NERVA and NTR rockets, 7X less dense than it currently is. 

Xenon. 

Future fuels such as Metallic hydrogen. 

 

From earlier in the this thread, 

Quote

 Kerlox ...... with an ISP around 300-330.

HydoLox ...... ISP in the 400-450 range 

MethaLox .... ISP in the 325-375 range.

Assuming the base KSP 1 fuel was Kerosene/RP1 make Methane weigh 2.14 times less than Kerosene, LH2 12.6 x  less and LOX 1.25 times more. 

 

Expand  

While I stated the densities of the fuels separately  those numbers would give a bulk density of 1X for KerLox, 1.28X MethaLox and 2.8X for HydroLOX.  Right in line with what I suggested 

You said you were talking about KSP1

I replied showing you it was an argument about KSP2

Now you quote me a part of your post in which you just list your wishes for KSP2, which I've obviously already read, both now and back then.

The point being? We were talking about KSP2.

3 hours ago, Tweeker said:

 plus the omited portion which states  "but it would benice to have a few more realistic options."

I've not omitted it, it's the first quote I began with 2 messages ago, please read what I'm saying before quoting random bits and writing replies to what you think I'm saying.

 

3 hours ago, Tweeker said:

Yes, they have failed I don't see and KerLox or HydroLox engines.  

I'll just cite back to you the important bit (I've snipped out the distracting portion), it doesn't look like you've actually read it:

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

The argument was debated every time it came up, the community is split on IRL multiple fuels, not everyone agrees on it. Not everyone even agrees that engines have to be balanced.

Have they failed to follow your request [snip] or have they succeeded in listening to the multiple people stating the opposite?

 

Please refrain from quoting me if you're not willing to read what you're replying to.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Master39
I'm dumb.

[Vl3d]

Guys, don't turn on each other. The most you can hope for is that your opinion is heard and taken into consideration by the devs. What actually gets implemented is 100% up to them. Learn to trust the devs choices, they have the game on hand and know what works well and what doesn't work with the other systems.

Having the same person post 100 times because he wants it his way is just a waste of energy on the readers part.

Also for interested parties on the subject of engines, answers can be found here:

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Vl3d

[Tweeker]

33 minutes ago, Master39 said:

You said you were talking about KSP1

I replied showing you it was an argument about KSP2

Now you quote me a part of your post in which you just list your wishes for KSP2, which I've obviously already read, both now and back then.

The point being? We were talking about KSP2.

 

And I said "Apologies,  I didn't realize what thread you were quoting from. "

You could taken my apology, instead you're being pedantic. 

Please refrain from quoting me if you're not willing to read what you're replying to.

 

 

[magnemoe]

Vectors are booster engines for first stage, the hydrogen tanks are for deep space us with nuclear engines. Most real world rocket engines uses RP1 or hydrogen, in KSP 2 they use methane to simplify stuff. 
Now hydrolox makes sense in deep space and should be easier to create as you only need water, not water and co2. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

And I said "Apologies,  I didn't realize what thread you were quoting from. "

Strange, I missed it the first time around (and the second, and the third), and the quote button missed it too, apparently.

If it was there when I posted my reply then my sincere apologies.

 

Main point still stands, there's no proof of the devs not listening to anyone as the matter of having multiple fuels for chemical rockets is debated among the community, it could very much be the devs not siding with your

As @Vl3d pointed out, there's a whole Developer insight article on engine design with the guidelines that brought to their choices.

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Master39

[Tweeker]

Apology accepted,  Even IF  you made a point of questing whether I actually made one originally. 

But my point stands, there is no proof they are listing to feedback.  And they missed a golden opportunity to  make these changes. 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Tweeker

[GoldForest]

11 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

Apology accepted, 

But my point stands, there is no proof they are listing to feedback.  And they missed a golden opportunity to  make these changes. 

 

 

There's no proof they're not listen to feedback. 

[Tweeker]

2 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

There's no proof they're not listen to feedback. 

There's not?