ARM engines.

[magnemoe]

I bit disappointed they are not an new 1000-2000 science node in the tree for them,

And yes they are a bit overpowered, trivial to make SSTO rockets lifting an 25 ton to orbit and land on pad while an simple 6 booster asparagus lift 200 ton.

[Tiberion]

Yeah there is a lot of misinformation in the thread, and that is confusing the question at the poll tries to ask, but ultimately fails.

Having the new engines have more thrust than the Mainsail is fine, we've had bigger lifting engines than the Mainsail since KSP went public, as mods. And they have been balanced to be must more reasonable when played next to stock engines as well.

It is not impossible to make tweaks such that they are still just as powerful and useful for your new heavy lifting needs. That doesn't and shouldn't change. But they last too long, can lift too much payload due to their low mass, and that makes them open to abuse. I've had to tweak my own engines many many times to solve those issues; it did not break them or make them useless. They were still fun to use, while not being able to deliver a skyscraper to Duna.

So its easy to kneejerk and say that they are fine.. but they aren't. The math and the testing makes it clear they don't line up with the rest of the game. These numbers all need to line up and make sense for the game to work, even if you don't care about the numbers.

also Re: Career vs Sandbox: the distinction isn't important. When you unlock the top of the tech tree, then career pretty much IS sandbox, and the vast majority of any non-beginner's game-play will be spent in this "state of play" where everything is unlocked. And in either case, having one engine that should be used in pretty much every case isn't a good thing.

[Nao]

Meh, i understand why SQUAD did the new parts as they are, but I really don't like what it did to the *current* balance of the game (including lack of change to the 48-7S).

Some of you say "don't like it, don't use it" or "new parts cost more" or "its natural for technology to progress over time" and all of it is reasonable, but in the end it does not change anything about the way the most efficient (and competitive) stock designs will be made in this patch. Maybe it is just a nostalgia thing, since in earlier versions of the game where we could have 4-6 engine types on one ship, each choice tailored to particular part of the mission and each a difficult choice that had to be backed by math. And right now It's either 48-7S or LV-N for space and either 48-7S or KR-2L for surface.

I really like the already mentioned idea of filtering parts based on tech level thou. Each level would probably be too much, so maybe tech tree could be divided by only several "eras" like: early, middle and late. With parts balanced to each other in each era. (It would be more awesome if we could get improved versions of already existing parts in later eras, like for example: stronger struts, cheaper solar panels and more efficient engines).

Edit: Also i really like and agree with Tiberion's post above

Edited April 3, 2014 by Nao

[ArmchairGravy]

Yeah there is a lot of misinformation in the thread, and that is confusing the question at the poll tries to ask, but ultimately fails.

Having the new engines have more thrust than the Mainsail is fine, we've had bigger lifting engines than the Mainsail since KSP went public, as mods. And they have been balanced to be must more reasonable when played next to stock engines as well.

It is not impossible to make tweaks such that they are still just as powerful and useful for your new heavy lifting needs. That doesn't and shouldn't change. But they last too long, can lift too much payload due to their low mass, and that makes them open to abuse. I've had to tweak my own engines many many times to solve those issues; it did not break them or make them useless. They were still fun to use, while not being able to deliver a skyscraper to Duna.

So its easy to kneejerk and say that they are fine.. but they aren't. The math and the testing makes it clear they don't line up with the rest of the game. These numbers all need to line up and make sense for the game to work, even if you don't care about the numbers.

also Re: Career vs Sandbox: the distinction isn't important. When you unlock the top of the tech tree, then career pretty much IS sandbox, and the vast majority of any non-beginner's game-play will be spent in this "state of play" where everything is unlocked. And in either case, having one engine that should be used in pretty much every case isn't a good thing.

Should be used in pretty much every case? Just wait until you have to pay for that sucker. Also, if you want to nerf them, empty the tanks and limit the thrust. Your problem is solved. I'm going to use them as is so I don't have 2/3 of my part count in booster stages.

Edited April 3, 2014 by ArmchairGravy

[Jouni]

also Re: Career vs Sandbox: the distinction isn't important. When you unlock the top of the tech tree, then career pretty much IS sandbox, and the vast majority of any non-beginner's game-play will be spent in this "state of play" where everything is unlocked. And in either case, having one engine that should be used in pretty much every case isn't a good thing.

You are confusing the game as it is now to the game it will be a year or two from now. Right now the career mode doesn't take that long to finish, but it may change, if Squad continues to concentrate on the career mode as the default mode of play.

[Whackjob]

Whaaat rolls down stairs, even in pairs, and burns up your neighbor's dog?

It's great for a snack, you launch it from your back,

It's ARM, ARM, ARM!

It's ARM, it's ARM!

It's big, it's heavy, it's fueled by wood!

It's ARM, it's ARM!

It's better than bad, it's good!

Everyone wants an ARM!

You're gonna love it, ARM!

Come on and get your ARM!

Everyone needs an ARM!

ARM, ARM, it's ARM!

*NOTE: Whackjob in no way condones or supports the burning of neighborhood dogs with an ARM rocket system.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Whackjob

[m4v]

Should be used in pretty much every case? Just wait until you have to pay for that sucker.

If the science currency is any indication of how the other currencies will work then I very much doubt that paying for those suckers will be an issue at all.

[Twreed87]

If the science currency is any indication of how the other currencies will work then I very much doubt that paying for those suckers will be an issue at all.

It almost certainly wont be. Why would they make money work exactly the same as science, what would be the point? Go to Mun, get two types of currency, but new parts with both types of currency... why?

Money will probably be used to unlock parts, but then it will also likely be used to put those parts on your ship and launch them. If you need to go to the Mun, you'll want to do so using as cheap of a ship as possible.

[ArmchairGravy]

It almost certainly wont be. Why would they make money work exactly the same as science, what would be the point? Go to Mun, get two types of currency, but new parts with both types of currency... why?

Money will probably be used to unlock parts, but then it will also likely be used to put those parts on your ship and launch them. If you need to go to the Mun, you'll want to do so using as cheap of a ship as possible.

Exactly. Money is always the limiter in every sim. Remember, we haven't even begun game balancing. Right now everything is easily accessed so it can be easily tested.

[m4v]

of course it will be different, what I meant is that It won't be difficult to obtain. You think we will be having the equivalent of NASA's budget in KSP?

[ArmchairGravy]

of course it will be different, what I meant is that It won't be difficult to obtain. You think we will be having the equivalent of NASA's budget in KSP?

Yup. 10char

[magnemoe]

Meh, i understand why SQUAD did the new parts as they are, but I really don't like what it did to the *current* balance of the game (including lack of change to the 48-7S).

Some of you say "don't like it, don't use it" or "new parts cost more" or "its natural for technology to progress over time" and all of it is reasonable, but in the end it does not change anything about the way the most efficient (and competitive) stock designs will be made in this patch. Maybe it is just a nostalgia thing, since in earlier versions of the game where we could have 4-6 engine types on one ship, each choice tailored to particular part of the mission and each a difficult choice that had to be backed by math. And right now It's either 48-7S or LV-N for space and either 48-7S or KR-2L for surface.

I really like the already mentioned idea of filtering parts based on tech level thou. Each level would probably be too much, so maybe tech tree could be divided by only several "eras" like: early, middle and late. With parts balanced to each other in each era. (It would be more awesome if we could get improved versions of already existing parts in later eras, like for example: stronger struts, cheaper solar panels and more efficient engines).

Edit: Also i really like and agree with Tiberion's post above

I find use for most engines but some are used more than others, KR-2L pretty much replaces the mainsail outside of some special cases.

The 48-7S is a bit over-hyped, its perfect for small probes and landers, however once the landers dry weight passes 1.5 ton and you need more than 1000 m/s dv the 909 is better.

[SSSPutnik]

Some good discussion on here. Good to see.

Hoping the devs take note. I have not seen compelling reasons to keep the new engines as-is when they can be tweaked to still lift a lot but scale better with other parts.

Sorry the poll wasn't worded better, my first poll.

[TranquilTempest]

I find use for most engines but some are used more than others, KR-2L pretty much replaces the mainsail outside of some special cases.

The 48-7S is a bit over-hyped, its perfect for small probes and landers, however once the landers dry weight passes 1.5 ton and you need more than 1000 m/s dv the 909 is better.

The situation where 909 is the best option is pretty rare. That may change when money is introduced.

http://imgur.com/a/iNqmQ

edit: the album is a bit outdated, the LV-1 range will be bigger now.

[magnemoe]

If the science currency is any indication of how the other currencies will work then I very much doubt that paying for those suckers will be an issue at all.

Made worse in that its pretty trivial to make an SSTO who lift 18 ton to LKO and land back at spaceport with the new parts.

Same design but a bit longer and four of the new SRB and you can put an orange tank up and land safety. SRB lands on spaceport with parachutes.

[rkman]

Can't help wondering whether it is intentional or an oversight. I guess we'll find out with the next update.

In the mean time i have tweaked the mainsail and skipper to be a bit more in line with the new engines.

[Alymon]

I'm bad with part names, but holy crap the new liquid fuel engine that consists of a large tank and 2 engines with a total of 2000 thrust is insane. I had a chance to try it out this morning. My design was garbage, but I had to throttle back to less than half off the launchpad to avoid wasting fuel.

I don't have a preference one way or another on whether they are changed, but I can definitely see why some might want them to be a bit more balanced with the existing parts. For me, my rockets tend to be inefficient messes anyway, so I'll use them as is in some cases, or will use the old engines depending on my mood.

[Red Iron Crown]

I wish they were better balanced. Overpowered parts crowd out their lesser performing brethren, leading to less variety and fewer logical choices in design. The KR-2L as is will be the only rational lifter engine choice for all but the smallest payloads.

[maccollo]

You are confusing the game as it is now to the game it will be a year or two from now. Right now the career mode doesn't take that long to finish, but it may change, if Squad continues to concentrate on the career mode as the default mode of play.

How the game will be 1 year from now is not relevant unless sandbox is removed, not to me at least, because reasons already stated (I think career is boring and I don't expect things like the addition of a budget to make it not boring). As long as sandbox exists there should be balance in sandbox, unless they remove sandbox.

Also, there is no reason why you could not have the engines be balanced for both sandbox and career.

I mean all you have to do is make the bigger engines more cost effective per ton to low kerbin orbit, which is easy. Here is how:

1: Maintain reasonable balance between the engines performance wise in sandbox.

2: Make the bigger engines cheaper per unit of mass in career mode

.

The engines will still be able to lift the same mass per engine to orbit as they do now.

The medium lifter engines would be useful again in sandbox.

The bigger engines will be better for bigger payloads in career mode.

Everybody should be happy.

[a2soup]

Many of the arguments for the current stats of SLS engines revolve around the idea that they will be in very high tech nodes or prohibitively expensive, thus balancing them. While this could serve as a type of balance, this idea really misses the fact that unlocking better (in some cases strictly better) engines as the player progresses in career mode and increases in skill will make the game boring. From a gameplay perspective, it makes a lot of sense to unlock bigger engines as the game progresses, but very little sense to unlock better engines.

The distinction between bigger and better is that bigger engines have higher thrust, and thus allow larger rockets to be constructed, unlocking the possibility of sending ever-bigger payloads. They are distinguished from purely better engines by lying on the same Isp-TWR balance curve as smaller engines. This means that:

1. they do not substitute for smaller engines, as their mass makes them a poor choice for smaller rockets, and

2. it requires the same amount of thoughtful design/engineering from the player to construct a large lifter using large engines as it does to construct a small lifter using small engines.

To put it another way, they do not make launching any easier, they only make it possible to do with larger payloads, which will still require the design rigor of smaller payloads. I'm sure everyone has realized by now how trivial it is to orbit things with the SLS engines. This is because they are way off the Isp-TWR curve, reducing the thought that designing rockets with them requires.

As an example, think of the LV-T30 and the Mainsail, which lie on the same Isp-TWR curve. These engines have clearly distinguished niches. The Mainsail is more powerful and enables larger payloads than the LV-T30, but launching Mainsail-size payloads with Mainsails is just as hard as launching LV-T30-size payloads with LV-T30s. Mainsails cannot be used for LV-T30-size payloads because they are too heavy and LV-T30s cannot launch Mainsail-size payloads because they are too weak. The larger engine is a valuable unlock that opens up new possibilities, but it does not make the game any easier.

Now consider the Mainsail and the KR-2L. The KR-2L is perfectly able to substitute for the Mainsail with increased efficiency in >90% of cases. Furthermore, launching KR-2L-size payloads with KR-2Ls if far easier than launching Mainsail-size payloads with the Mainsail. The larger engine is still an exciting unlock, but ultimately makes the game much easier, and thus bores the player who is increasing in skill.

This post has gone on for far too long now, but I felt it was an important point to make. The Isp-TWR curve I refer to above is the one stupid_chris made here: http://i.imgur.com/m3aqgU2.png

Edited April 3, 2014 by a2soup

[magnemoe]

The situation where 909 is the best option is pretty rare. That may change when money is introduced.

http://imgur.com/a/iNqmQ

edit: the album is a bit outdated, the LV-1 range will be bigger now.

The graph does not factor in the dry mass of craft. with just an probe core the lightest engines works far better because of the dry mass at the end is so low.

Take an medium sized lander, two man landing can, landing gear and extra stuff and you find that the extra ISP of the 909 wins out, as dry mass is closer to 3 ton, the extra 0.5 from the 909 is not so important.

An LV-N on the other hand would increase the size of the craft a lot making it an bad idea, however with an kethane miner you might want to use them as long as its not just from minmus surface to orbit as the dV requirements would be to low for the LV-N

[kurja]

I think, that for career play, all parts do not need to be balanced; it's okay for parts discovered late in the tech tree to be 'simply better' than parts discovered earlier. For pure sandbox gaming it's a different story though.

[Killerdude8]

Many of the arguments for the current stats of SLS engines revolve around the idea that they will be in very high tech nodes or prohibitively expensive, thus balancing them. While this could serve as a type of balance, this idea really misses the fact that unlocking better (in some cases strictly better) engines as the player progresses in career mode and increases in skill will make the game boring. From a gameplay perspective, it makes a lot of sense to unlock bigger engines as the game progresses, but very little sense to unlock better engines.

The distinction between bigger and better is that bigger engines have higher thrust, and thus allow larger rockets to be constructed, unlocking the possibility of sending ever-bigger payloads. They are distinguished from purely better engines by lying on the same Isp-TWR balance curve as smaller engines. This means that:

1. they do not substitute for smaller engines, as their mass makes them a poor choice for smaller rockets, and

2. it requires the same amount of thoughtful design/engineering from the player to construct a large lifter using large engines as it does to construct a small lifter using small engines.

To put it another way, they do not make launching any easier, they only make it possible to do with larger payloads, which will still require the design rigor of smaller payloads. I'm sure everyone has realized by now how trivial it is to orbit things with the SLS engines. This is because they are way off the Isp-TWR curve, reducing the thought that designing rockets with them requires.

As an example, think of the LV-T30 and the Mainsail, which lie on the same Isp-TWR curve. These engines have clearly distinguished niches. The Mainsail is more powerful and enables larger payloads than the LV-T30, but launching Mainsail-size payloads with Mainsails is just as hard as launching LV-T30-size payloads with LV-T30s. Mainsails cannot be used for LV-T30-size payloads because they are too heavy and LV-T30s cannot launch Mainsail-size payloads because they are too weak. The larger engine is a valuable unlock that opens up new possibilities, but it does not make the game any easier.

Now consider the Mainsail and the KR-2L. The KR-2L is perfectly able to substitute for the Mainsail with increased efficiency in >90% of cases. Furthermore, launching KR-2L-size payloads with KR-2Ls if far easier than launching Mainsail-size payloads with the Mainsail. The larger engine is still an exciting unlock, but ultimately makes the game much easier, and thus bores the player who is increasing in skill.

This post has gone on for far too long now, but I felt it was an important point to make. The Isp-TWR curve I refer to above is the one stupid_chris made here: http://i.imgur.com/m3aqgU2.png

Career mode Is and Always has been like that, you progress the tree, You unlock better parts and therefore things get easier, The only thing that has changed is a raise in the upper limit of how big you could send up at once.

[EvilotionCR2]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74897-60-tons-to-orbit-SSTO?p=1062376#post1062376

I just did this. ARM needs a nerf.

[vinsent10]

I think they are okay but i don't like how the ends of the tanks look.I sometimes want to have big space to put multiple engines on these tanks but it looks quite ugly in the curret state