What is your definition of air hogging

[gchristopher]

However, given the sandbox nature of the game and that there really isn't any "cheating", you could just do this:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceIntake]]
{
	@area *= 10
}

..and have a prettier looking plane that saves on part count, with all the same fake of airhogging.

Not quite? If you just want to cut part count and improve aesthetics, I think it'd be:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceIntake]]
{
  @mass *= 10
  @MODULE[ModuleResourceIntake] 
  {
    @area *= 10
  }
}

Fixed the area increase. Wouldn't increasing the mass give you the same performance as if you'd stacked 10 intakes at that spot?

[Renegrade]

Not quite? If you just want to cut part count and improve aesthetics, I think it'd be:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceIntake]]
{
  @mass *= 10
  @MODULE[ModuleResourceIntake] 
  {
    @area *= 10
  }
}

Fixed the area increase. Wouldn't increasing the mass give you the same performance as if you'd stacked 10 intakes at that spot?

Yes, that would exactly be the same as using those tiny cubic struts (or something else massless) to stack up 10 intakes. I'd actually seriously recommend your version for anybody who is okay with airhogging but wants to save on parts/not look silly. That would be a stock-appropriate parts saving.

However, a lot of that original post was sarcastic -- making a satire of the airhoggyness of #lolintakes, so the original has no need to increase mass for #extrafake.

I actually drafted a working version and played around with it for a while after posting that faulty one (I forgot that 'area' was part of ModuleResourceIntake, doh), that looks like this:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceIntake]]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleResourceIntake]
	{
		@area *= 15
		@checkForOxygen = false
	}
}

I call it "lolintake.cfg" and it lets you fly on Eve and Duna*, heh. Note that whilst I was drafting it, I increased it to an airhoggyness factor of 15 for extra #lolintake. I didn't bother fixing the original though.

* - I only tested flying it on Eve, didn't check Duna. It should work though.

[Arugela]

I air hog with a minimum of 66 intake air(the max stat you see on runway x/66) per engine I expect to perform in the upper atmosphere. And I expect my planes to fly at above 33km and as close to 70km on jets as possible. I've found leaving 200 intake air per engine at above 52km is good. Usually turbojets. This allows you to cruise up to 70km easily. Just base it on how many engines you expect to still be on then. 400 for 2 engines 800 max intake air for 4 engines. Turbojets work best.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Arugela

[Tweety]

Recently I haven't had to use more than 2 intakes per turbojet. That said i have 'air hogged' in the past with up to 10 intakes per engine. I'm now either better at designing craft or the shock intakes are actually better and have therefore been able to reduce 'air hogginess'.

If in doubt add more engines with 2 intakes per engine and just action group some engines off when a flameout is about to hit: e.g if you have 4 engines and 8 intakes, shut down the outer 2 engines before flameout then you have 2 engines on 8 intakes without it looking like you have an intake with wings. The general rule is upto 15ton per turbojet, reduce that number to 12-13ton per engine and you will get far better performance (d'uh).

Tweety

[tater]

I've only built a few aircraft, ever, in KSP, but I would consider putting more than one intake per jet engine pretty comical, frankly. If stacking them actually helps, someone should tell Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney, they're missing out.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've only built a few aircraft, ever, in KSP, but I would consider putting more than one intake per jet engine pretty comical, frankly. If stacking them actually helps, someone should tell Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney, they're missing out.

More than one intake per engine is not exactly unheard of in real life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23

Just for a couple of examples, I'm sure there are more.

[Frozen_Heart]

2 intakes per engine is pretty much my limit.

[tater]

More than one intake per engine is not exactly unheard of in real life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23

Just for a couple of examples, I'm sure there are more.

I would not count those. The intake parts in KSP have cross-sectional areas about the same size as the engine cross section. Those 2 examples have cross sections less than the area of the actual engine (or very close to it). Define "air intake = 1" as an area equal to the input of the engine itself. I'd bet that anything approaching 2 is not a real thing, but some fraction larger than 1 is likely found in RL.

EDIT: I looked at the wiki, and for some reason parts with areas clearly identical to the engine itself have vastly smaller areas listed. My observations would be entirely based upon only playing the game (if you need to look it up in a forum or wiki, the game is not giving you enough information). It's like not using nosecones, and clipping. Nothing I ever considered doing. I always added nosecones, have never clipped anything, etc., I'd not know that you should not use aero parts on rockets if I did not see it here.

Edited March 2, 2015 by tater

[Red Iron Crown]

I would not count those. The intake parts in KSP have cross-sectional areas about the same size as the engine cross section. Those 2 examples have cross sections less than the area of the actual engine (or very close to it). Define "air intake = 1" as an area equal to the input of the engine itself. I'd bet that anything approaching 2 is not a real thing, but some fraction larger than 1 is likely found in RL.

The U-2 maybe? Probably the most extreme example, and meant for very high altitude operation.

Still it's a reasonable point that extreme intake area:engine area is not realistic or feasible IRL, and our jets in KSP can breathe in unrealistically thin atmosphere.

[tater]

Yeah, U-2 looks bigger than 1, smaller than 2X engine area. Without reading the areas on the wiki page, or in fact this thread, I would have never thought to put more intakes. It's the kind of person who is willing to exploit games that figures out stuff like that (past eyeballing the intakes and trying to keep them below maybe ~2x the engine part). I'd expect to SEE those parts on the designs, however. So 1 engine with 4 intakes should be obvious by looking. If they are on top of each other, the areas should clearly be identical to 1 part. I'd consider any design that hides multiple intakes to be… nothing I would ever take seriously. YMMV.

(I'd add that if this is common practice, it reenforces my lack of using the hanger at all, lol)

Edited March 2, 2015 by tater

[Brotoro]

I often use two intakes per engine because of symmetry on single-engine jets... but my more recent SSTOs have gone to using just one of the shock-cone intakes per engine, and I get to orbit just fine. More than two, I generally wouldn't do (although using more of the smaller intakes would be fine with me).

Air intakes that don't have a clear path for the oncoming air to reach them look goofy to me. Intakes blocking other intakes looks especially goofy.

But whatever floats your boat (ah! Flotation pontoons is another excellent use for the radial scoop intake, of course, but then I turn off their intake ability).

[viktor19]

Number of intakes > 2 * number of engines

[Slam_Jones]

I don't consider it airhogging until it looks truly ridiculous. And then, just add more struts.

[Pecan]

Anything that lets jets work above 30km, which I do all the time as a matter of course.

[jman508]

it looks like my definition of air hogging is much different than most of everyones here. i have a VERY "loose" definition of air hogging, which for me means anything more than 7 intakes per engine. plus having an army of intakes tends to make a craft ugly so i tend to shy away from it. but hey! its all in the play style

[Vashts]

reasonable design:

air Hogging: (can see this turning into something reasonable though)

0 ****s given

[SmallFatFetus]

I think if you can see how the air would flow into the engine its not airhogging. If you have a bunch of ram air intakes stuck on the end of your wings while the engines are at the back, then that's stupid and cheaty. Also, it annoys me that the ram air intakes can be used at low speeds/stationary. That's just not how they work. They should kick in at a certain speed, and provide you with high thrust, and generous amounts of intake air.