[20/11/2014][0.25] FTmN Atomic Rockets

[passinglurker]

Yes but that's also an overpowered combination. Stock LVN or anything based on it is way unbalanced.

This isn't a multiplayer no one can force their demands of real world physics on me.

Look I get that real world nuclear thermal propulsion uses hydrogen and other low density fuels for good reason, but the whole system still weighs them same so I don't care if my rocket is unrealistically compact, and honestly I wouldn't call compact overpowered.(also its late tech tree it better be good)

So again keep it optional so both the realistic players and the stock-a-like players can be happy

[Shad0wCatcher]

Full agreement with passinglurker here. Much prefer not having 3.75 meter stacks of "Hydrogen" for a 1.25 meter rocket (or 5 meter tank stack for 2.5; not even getting into tank length; I'd still like to launch the damn vehicle; not run a 150 meter telephone pole payload to obtain 4km of DV). I can only turn a blind eye so far at the aesthetic clash for so long before my suspension of disbelief runs out. Also Starwaster Water did not make the cut as a propellant; not in the stockalike config anyway; though it still remains valid for KSP:I thermal nozzles and thermal turbojets. With regards to your comment regarding compactness passinglurker; Ammonia (or its analogue) and Methane/Methalox (or its analogue) both function well as high density fuels and could (hint) be used instead of hydrogen and maintain the status quo with regards to stock tanks.

[passinglurker]

Full agreement with passinglurker here. Much prefer not having 3.75 meter stacks of "Hydrogen" for a 1.25 meter rocket (or 5 meter tank stack for 2.5; not even getting into tank length; I'd still like to launch the damn vehicle; not run a 150 meter telephone pole payload to obtain 4km of DV). I can only turn a blind eye so far at the aesthetic clash for so long before my suspension of disbelief runs out. Also Starwaster Water did not make the cut as a propellant; not in the stockalike config anyway; though it still remains valid for KSP:I thermal nozzles and thermal turbojets. With regards to your comment regarding compactness passinglurker; Ammonia (or its analogue) and Methane/Methalox (or its analogue) both function well as high density fuels and could (hint) be used instead of hydrogen and maintain the status quo with regards to stock tanks.

Or just call it liquid fuel. I like to keep my resources abstract and name them after their roles rather than what they are made out of (except for xenon cause it sounds way cooler than "reaction mass"). Single resource nuclear engines sound reasonable though assuming the fuel doesn't clutter my ships resource list, or bloat my part catalog with fueltanks(basically just leaving LF, Ox, Mono, intake air, and Xenon as options) but lets not use this as an excuse to try to kerbalize the periodic table that's a waste of time you should either go all real fuels or you should abandon them completely, and just assign arbitrary numbers that are not an absolute pain to work with and abstract names that intuitively inform what the fuels purpose is.

[Kommitz]

What about LF only tanks? my only concern with this is that there aren't many of them, unlike LF/OX tanks.

a combination of MM and firespitters fuel switch config nodes would let you have all the stock tanks swap between LFO and pure LF without adding to the part count

I was thinking of adding the firespitter plugin as a requirement for the new parts so I could offer a few options in the meshes, so adding a modulemanager config to add fuel options to the stock tanks is a possibility. Plus it's a fairly common plugin and is used by plenty of other mods for various things.

Alternatively ModularFueltanks would work well. And you can just tweak the tanks otherwise.

Full agreement with passinglurker here. Much prefer not having 3.75 meter stacks of "Hydrogen" for a 1.25 meter rocket (or 5 meter tank stack for 2.5; not even getting into tank length; I'd still like to launch the damn vehicle; not run a 150 meter telephone pole payload to obtain 4km of DV). I can only turn a blind eye so far at the aesthetic clash for so long before my suspension of disbelief runs out. Also Starwaster Water did not make the cut as a propellant; not in the stockalike config anyway; though it still remains valid for KSP:I thermal nozzles and thermal turbojets. With regards to your comment regarding compactness passinglurker; Ammonia (or its analogue) and Methane/Methalox (or its analogue) both function well as high density fuels and could (hint) be used instead of hydrogen and maintain the status quo with regards to stock tanks.

The only problem with hydrogen tanks is size, which is why I'm leaving the configuration as optional as people tend to get thrown by that alone. Past that they're not so difficult to launch because they're so light.

That aside I'm nerfing the Isp of all the engines down to 650-680 or so and buffing the thrust correspondingly. 800 Isp and dense fuel in the stock game is basically a free ticket to everywhere for no effort past burning for ages. Better TWR should be more fun for the scope of KSP I think.

[m4v]

800 Isp and dense fuel in the stock game is basically a free ticket to everywhere for no effort past burning for ages. Better TWR should be more fun for the scope of KSP I think.

I do agree with that.

[passinglurker]

800 Isp and dense fuel in the stock game is basically a free ticket to everywhere for no effort past burning for ages. Better TWR should be more fun for the scope of KSP I think.

fine by me it'll make the probe sized engine a great choice for lander engines when ion isn't going to cut it

[Shad0wCatcher]

Sounds good to me. They'll fill a nice niche then Kommitz (in stock).

[wasmic]

I was thinking of adding the firespitter plugin as a requirement for the new parts so I could offer a few options in the meshes, so adding a modulemanager config to add fuel options to the stock tanks is a possibility. Plus it's a fairly common plugin and is used by plenty of other mods for various things.

Alternatively ModularFueltanks would work well. And you can just tweak the tanks otherwise.

The only problem with hydrogen tanks is size, which is why I'm leaving the configuration as optional as people tend to get thrown by that alone. Past that they're not so difficult to launch because they're so light.

That aside I'm nerfing the Isp of all the engines down to 650-680 or so and buffing the thrust correspondingly. 800 Isp and dense fuel in the stock game is basically a free ticket to everywhere for no effort past burning for ages. Better TWR should be more fun for the scope of KSP I think.

The problem is that they'll be harder to use for things like Eeloo and Moho trips, then. For Duna trips, the superior TWR would offset the fuel requirement, but when the Delta-V requirements get too high, standard LV-N's will have higher TWR.

[Streetwind]

The problem is that they'll be harder to use for things like Eeloo and Moho trips, then. For Duna trips, the superior TWR would offset the fuel requirement, but when the Delta-V requirements get too high, standard LV-N's will have higher TWR.

That's not a problem at all. It's in fact the opposite. By intentionally not having his engines fill the same role as the LV-N, Kommitz keeps the LV-N relevant and gives the player a meaningful choice to make about which engine is best for a specific application.

Of course, don't expect a big difference. For a 650 Isp engine, the TWR would have to be no more than 4 in order to be suitably balanced (says my gut feeling).

[Temeter]

That's not a problem at all. It's in fact the opposite. By intentionally not having his engines fill the same role as the LV-N, Kommitz keeps the LV-N relevant and gives the player a meaningful choice to make about which engine is best for a specific application.

Of course, don't expect a big difference. For a 650 Isp engine, the TWR would have to be no more than 4 in order to be suitably balanced (says my gut feeling).

Well, the big gameplay-benefit of the old FTmN's was allowing you to avoid LVN-monsterstack's (besides looking awesome). So their role will shift a bit away from pure long-range engines.

I don't really see much of an issue either way. It will probably only make a notable difference for really heavy long-range ships. A lander can even profit from the change.

That said, it would be cool to still have a 2.5m engine which is basically 4 or 5 LVN's.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Temeter

[Umlüx]

the real question is: what do we really want? or what does kommitz want as this is his mod?

do we want to stay close to reality despite playing a GAME?

or do we want some nice, maybe a little OP late game engines at the end of the tech tree to make things easier?

i'll stay with the second. i want some late game engines to replace those LV-N stacks. to haul big loads to jool even without perfect transit burn timings. to get sh*t done.

of course, there is always the option to mod the cfg yourself

[wallace989]

Dose this mod work with KSP 24.2559?

[wasmic]

the real question is: what do we really want? or what does kommitz want as this is his mod?

do we want to stay close to reality despite playing a GAME?

or do we want some nice, maybe a little OP late game engines at the end of the tech tree to make things easier?

i'll stay with the second. i want some late game engines to replace those LV-N stacks. to haul big loads to jool even without perfect transit burn timings. to get sh*t done.

of course, there is always the option to mod the cfg yourself

Not that argument again... even though it's a game, it's a game that is very realistic (except for the aerodynamics). The best thing would be some nice, non-op engines that can be used to haul balanced loads to Jool with reasonably timed transfers (and just for the record, perfect transfer timing really only matters for Moho, and Eve to an extent), replacing old LV-N clusters. I'd definitely not want these engines to become overpowered. And why not? Because it's a GAME (as you said yourself) and a game that's not balanced will have parts of it marginalized (in your suggestion, these engines would completely marginalize the LV-N, while if it was balanced, they'd complement it).

[sojourner]

What's wrong with marginalizing the LV-N's (to a point)? higher tech is higher tech after all.

[Donziboy2]

Anyone else having issues with Mechjeb not displaying the correct Max acceleration and current acceleration in flight for these engines?

[wasmic]

What's wrong with marginalizing the LV-N's (to a point)? higher tech is higher tech after all.

Because it'll change the balance of the stock game, and also nuclear engines from mods that balance with relation to stock. While that is okay to some people, I am very much against it, which is why I'm trying to press my opinion through here.

[LameLefty]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the current FTmN-280 is the best interplanetary engine (stock or any mod) I've ever run across in KSP - IMHO, it's about the perfect combination of mass, ISP and thrust. Good thrust but not super-high, great ISP, but heavy enough that you really need to think about whether you need it. In fact, these are basically my thoughts regarding the entire family.

Of course, if the specs change in future versions, ModuleManager or a direct tweak to a .cfg file can "fix" whatever someone doesn't like about new versions.

[Eleven]

Can't wait to see what's in the next release!

[Deadpan110]

Dose this mod work with KSP 24.2559?

Yes!! ...Yes it does

The pack is parts only so no need to worry about .dll's and the like not working.

*I think the OP title should be changed to [0.24] so this mod is easier to find (took me a little searching - and I knew what I was looking for).

[Kerbin- We have a problem]

Is this even still active?

[Kommitz]

Yes it is, I'm just slow at working on little projects like this and there''s been some issues that came up IRL recently sapping my motivation

There's still a download for working parts in the first post.

...And as for new parts, I'm just finishing re-modeling the largest engine and learning Blender with the smallest one, here's the rest I've unwrapped & rendered AO for:

I really wanted to re-model most of them so that they would be easy to work with for a little idea I have planned (which I may reveal once I actually get close to implementing it).

Edited October 6, 2014 by Kommitz

[hoojiwana]

Is this secret project something you tried to do in the past but couldn't get working?

And how is Blender treating you?

[Woopert]

Nice parts. I've liked and been following your mod for a while now.

[willow]

@Kommitz, ooh I like the hexagonal, octagonal (can't really see) look you're going for on the most right engine.

[Kommitz]

Is this secret project something you tried to do in the past but couldn't get working?

And how is Blender treating you?

I actually like Blender, the way it forces you to learn shortcuts to do everything is good for workflow really, although the lack of smoothing groups is really weird/annoying coming from 3DSMax.

As for the 'secret project', it's really just dependent on me getting back into learning some C#. There are other mods that do similar things (mesh switching & things-being-attched-to-nodes requirements(???)), but I'd like to go through the learning process & have the two specific things in one plugin for convenience. If I ever get round to it.

@Kommitz, ooh I like the hexagonal, octagonal (can't really see) look you're going for on the most right engine.

It's an alternate nozzle extension for the engine next to it! I've decided just to have firespitter as a dependency so I can offer that & a couple of other mesh switching options (mostly baseplates on the larger engines so they can fit more nicely on multiple fueltank sizes).