Engine rebalancing + vasmir?

[z26]

Hey

I don't expect (understandably) that this suggestion actually get heard out by squad, simply because of the massive amount of suggestions in this section. However, I'd like your opinion:

1.Some member made a chart of the optimal engine to use according to the situation here: Mass-optimal engine type vs delta-v The result can be summed in this sentence: Use the atomic rocket for big payloads where twr is of little relevance and use the 48-7s for anything else. I know that engine stats are not the only thing that matters (radially attaching, height, price and most importantly part count) but the engines could probably be rebalanced much more precisely by using a data a chart like this than by guessing values by hand. Something puzzles me however: small engines as a rule of thumbs seems to mostly outperform large ones. Wouldn't it be more sensible for it to be the opposite? AFAIK IRL Rockets having a ton of miniature engines wouldn't outperform these having a couple large ones.

2. Ion engines in this game are considered to be of little use by many players because of how slow they are. I don't think their twr should be made even higher because its already unrealistically high, I actually think it should be decreased once there is a solution to decrease how much irl time you spend waiting after them. But that's not what I want to talk about. I think the ion engine should be replaced by a VASMIR engine with equal stats. I am not fond about including near future tech in the game, but according to the wiki page on this thing, its going to have a major real-life application in being used on the ISS as soon as next year, meaning adding it to the stock game would be less of a stretch than with the nerva. Its twr is higher than than a normal ion engine and most importantly it uses argon gas, which is much cheaper than xenon and can be used to justify a lower in game cost.

Your thoughts?

[Wahgineer]

The VASIMR is technically more powerful than any ion engine. Also, the reason the 48-7s seems to out perform other engines is because it was accidentally made OP (hence why I don't use them and why I disregard vessels that take advantage of their OP-ness.). And while I and others understand your dislike of near future tech, your kind of too late to stop it: the R.A.P.I.E.R. is based off of the SABRE: an in development, near future hybrid engine.

[Red Iron Crown]

1.Some member made a chart of the optimal engine to use according to the situation here: Mass-optimal engine type vs delta-v The result can be summed in this sentence: Use the atomic rocket for big payloads where twr is of little relevance and use the 48-7s for anything else. I know that engine stats are not the only thing that matters (radially attaching, height, price and most importantly part count) but the engines could probably be rebalanced much more precisely by using a data a chart like this than by guessing values by hand. Something puzzles me however: small engines as a rule of thumbs seems to mostly outperform large ones. Wouldn't it be more sensible for it to be the opposite? AFAIK IRL Rockets having a ton of miniature engines wouldn't outperform these having a couple large ones.

Some real world designs have used a bunch of small rockets instead of fewer large ones, the N1 is a good example, and Soyuz is close (many nozzles sharing fewer turbopumps).

The 48-7S is overpowered in its current form. I fully expect it to be nerfed at some point to make the other engines more appealing.