So many new possibilitys!!

[mellojoe]

In the above quote, I think it was just the wording that made it confusing. I think he meant that the fuel rate was the same compared to the dV it was generating, not per time.

Yes, thank you.

[Streetwind]

My only beef with the new ion engines is the power consumption nerf. I liked the high-power-demand mechanic - in fact I think were I on the dev team I'd have increased the power demands, because as I see things now it's too easy to slap a handful of mega-panels and a 4k battery on a ship and be able to power anything (interstellar mod, etc. aside). Especially with the transmission nerf from the last patch, which means a lot of people won't be sucking as much power transmitting stuff.

I actually agree with you; I'll be solving that particular nitpick for myself using ModuleManager

[NecroBones]

Thrust per second isn't a thing.

"Acceleration per second" would be more precise, for sure, but since I'm talking about thrust specifically, I've edited accordingly.

[timsfitz]

I can't wait to use the new parts. IMO they're not at all overpowered. I like that ions are now useful. Besides much more powerful ion engines are being worked on as we speak IRL.

I was thinking earlier today at work that with some clever engineering with the claw and its pivoting ability that you could build an ion ship and pivot the solar panels on the fly to best capture the sunlight.

[Matt56]

I liked ion's the way they were. I think the money mechanic (which seems to be coming in .24) would have made them worth it compared to just building bigger rockets.

[SuperBigD60]

"Acceleration per second" would be more precise, for sure, but since I'm talking about thrust specifically, I've edited accordingly.

you don't need any time factor in your equation.

and acceleration per second is a thing, called jerk

[AmpsterMan]

To summarize what was said in that video:

- Four times as much thrust

- Isp remains the same

- Power consumption up by about 20% (to quote: requires the output of "a gigantor solar array at 1 AU distance", by which I assume is meant that it went from 15 EC/s up to 18 EC/s, because that's the standard output of a gigantor)

If this is true, EC/s per kN of thrust dropped sharply down, from 30 to 10. You only need one third as much power for the same thrust (or existing vessels will get 3x the thrust out of the power supply they have, unless they were overprovisioned from the start, in which case they'll get up to 4x)

As for videos that show otherwise - remember that the youtubers got early preview versions, while the version HarvesteR had at GDC was literally the latest build. Also, he's kind of the head dev, so he can state his intent even if it currently isn't implemented

But keep in mind that it hasn't been finalized yet and may change. We'll only know the final stats when the update arrives on our harddrives.

I think this may have been done to avoid having to put too many solar panels on a craft. 4 Gigantors per ION engine I think is a bit much. At one AU ( I assume he means Kerbal AU) you get 1 panel per engine. Beyond that I think it gigantor energy output decreases to about half output at Jool. What this means is that one would need 2 gigantors per engine when traveling around the Jool system which I think is fair and balanced.

[SuperBigD60]

I think this may have been done to avoid having to put too many solar panels on a craft. 4 Gigantors per ION engine I think is a bit much. At one AU ( I assume he means Kerbal AU) you get 1 panel per engine. Beyond that I think it gigantor energy output decreases to about half output at Jool. What this means is that one would need 2 gigantors per engine when traveling around the Jool system which I think is fair and balanced.

Yeah, it's definitely fair.

I suspect I still won't use them all that much, just because I can't ever be bothered to limit the mass of whatever I'm building. Which leads to long ion "burns"

the skill for making good ion craft is akin to making one of those elegant, not ugly craft. I don't have that skill

[NecroBones]

you don't need any time factor in your equation.

and acceleration per second is a thing, called jerk

Not sure what I did to annoy people... but whatever. I apologize if that's the case.

[SuperBigD60]

Not sure what I did to annoy people... but whatever. I apologize if that's the case.

I just had to jump at the chance to use the word "jerk" legitimately in a physics conversation.

I love you for that opportunity

[NecroBones]

I just had to jump at the chance to use the word "jerk" legitimately in a physics conversation.

I love you for that opportunity

Well, then glad to oblige! Heh

EDIT: And that's what I get for skimming a sentence and latching onto one word out of context.

[The Destroyer]

I like this. Sure, it's not as effecient, but atleast it actually is not boring to watch!

[WhiteWeasel]

This will be -not- a huge buff to my celestial warfare fighters!

EDIT: Dropping isp is bad, it kills DV, which is the only strong point of the ion engine.

Edited March 26, 2014 by WhiteWeasel

[WhiteWeasel]

double post, delete

Edited March 26, 2014 by WhiteWeasel

[NERVAfan]

I hope they really didn't lower the Isp. Higher thrust would be nice I guess, but not worth a lower Isp -- I use ion probes for really high delta v things like diving into the sun or achieving solar escape velocity.

[WhiteWeasel]

I hope they really didn't lower the Isp. Higher thrust would be nice I guess, but not worth a lower Isp -- I use ion probes for really high delta v things like diving into the sun or achieving solar escape velocity.

Yeah, lower ISP is actually quite terrible for Ions. I'd rather get a smaller buff to thrust (like to .75 or 1) if it means isp stays the same.

[Rakaydos]

It sounded like it's the same ISP, but more thrust means the same fuel burns faster. The Energy Management remains at 1 Gigantor at 1 AU for full throttle, however.

[WhiteWeasel]

It sounded like it's the same ISP, but more thrust means the same fuel burns faster. The Energy Management remains at 1 Gigantor at 1 AU for full throttle, however.

If the ISP is the same, even though it goes though fuel faster. That just means it's the same amount of DV, in less time right?

EDIT: Did some parts mucking, yup. I was right, I'd rather take this than the ISP nerf.

Original:

2x thrust and fuel consumption:

Edited March 26, 2014 by WhiteWeasel

[NERVAfan]

Actually (as other people have said elsewhere) I kind of wish they'd enabled on-rails (non-physics time warp) thrust for ion engines and made the thrust much lower, so you could use them like real-world ion engines... it's a very different kind of trajectory.

I think it's been done in a mod, so it's possible...

---

I can certainly see the benefit of buffing the thrust to make them less boring, but they'll still be very niche IMO -- because the KSP solar system has lower delta-v requirements to get around than our solar system, and because NTRs are available.

[Rakaydos]

Actually (as other people have said elsewhere) I kind of wish they'd enabled on-rails (non-physics time warp) thrust for ion engines and made the thrust much lower, so you could use them like real-world ion engines... it's a very different kind of trajectory.

I think it's been done in a mod, so it's possible...

Unfortunately, Scott Manley specifically brought this up to the developers at the GDC interview- the developers in the interview (C7?) were decidedly skeptical of the idea, despite it being in a mod.

[TMS]

They just seemed surprised and interested to me.

[CalculusWarrior]

They just seemed surprised and interested to me.

I agree, they even started to brainstorm how such a mod would work. That was one of my favourite parts of that video!

[MKI]

Unfortunately, Scott Manley specifically brought this up to the developers at the GDC interview- the developers in the interview (C7?) were decidedly skeptical of the idea, despite it being in a mod.

Squad doesn't touch on mods to often. If its a mod that isn't critical for the game to progress (part packs mainly)

Then Squad will probably not implement it. This doesn't mean they don't use mod ideas, take the Subassembly loader. It was a mod that was put into the game, but this is a special case. As this mod furthered the game tremendously.

Things such as adding more realism to the game, such as the proposed realistic ION engine designs are probably not going to materialize any time soon. Yes its ridiculous and not possible in the real world, but this is KSP not the real world. In a game you should have fun before anything, if that means buffing the ION engines so its not a pain to use, do so. Even if that means taking realism away from the game.

[Madrias]

I'm thinking of ION powered space probes and self-launching satellites that I can dump off my runway. I'm patient, and if I can SSTO a satellite-plane with an ion drive, I'll be happy. The boost in power of the ION drive is gentler than what I've done to the ones in my own game (I adjusted the ratio of Xenon to EC as well as boosting the thrust. Doubled the EC on the ratio myself) and so maybe, just maybe, I'll try again to flick satellites off of my runway.

[Vostok]

I reckon the claw's rotation ability will lead to it being used in helicopters as a rotor bearing. It's one of the first things I'll try...