the ion engine is way too OP

[Red Iron Crown]

There is NovaPunch and KW with their "OP" big parts, many people use these mods - so they decided to add big parts to stock.

To be fair, the KW and NovaPunch large engines are balanced fairly well against the stock engines, they're basically just a way to keep part count down by avoiding clustering smaller engines. The SLS parts are not balanced against the older stock engines, their combination of TWR and Isp mean they outclass the older engines in just about every way.

I'm a bit surprised that you consider giving our feedback on the new engines to be some sort of bad thing.

[KerbMav]

And lets not forget they were mostly designed to work in the NASA demonstration scenario, to enable a broader public to play through a mission planned by NASA and were only made available in the core game, because the community was already sharpening their teeth should it not happen.

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

Making an ion-only plane was perfectly possible before, and not even very hard:

There was a whole challenge thread here if you're interested: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/26137-Challenge-An-aircraft-capable-of-flight-using-ion-engines/

The only thing the new ion buff made was to cut down the time burn time to get anywhere down. That I think is a good thing, since I've never used the stock ion engines on a space craft before, they were so uselessly slow to get anywhere. I don't fully agree with the decrease of electricity usage though, that should've been quadrupled along with the thrust.

[Accelerando]

Ion engines are NOT supposed to be for putting ships to the moon.

The unbuffed ions were fine for what ions should be used for, which is satellites and probes. (In fact they are fantastic for this).

You should not be able to use them to launch a hundred ton payload to Jool from LKO...

Yes its a cartoon space game but the engines in this release are getting a little too cartoony.

are you saying that being able to launch Whackjobian skyscraper towers of unaerodynamic fuel tank stacks strung together with spiderwebs of struts and square girders on chemical booster stacks is somehow not a "little too cartoony" by this measure? people have always been able to use ion engines in this game for purposes that would be ridiculous in real life; landing on minmus, gilly, landing at all, etc...

people innovate given their tools, if you don't want to land on a moon with these ions, then don't... if you want to wait for your satellite to complete its 20 minute burn with your thruster that was only balanced for sandbox gameplay, go ahead, it's just a config file change... ion engines IRL even have been seriously considered for launching huge interplanetary crewed missions, so your claim of "should not be able to launch this or that" is complete nonsense

[Padishar]

It isn't the giving of feedback that people object to, it is the demands that things be nerfed because they are OP. The devs have stated many times that their primary concern is playability, not realism (it is a game, after all, and is supposed to be fun). The game has good modding support and an excellent community of talented modders for people that want to go more "realistic".

[John Crichton]

Funny how building huuuuuuuuuuge rockets with dozens of orange tanks is considered perfectly ok...but the new ion engines are "unrealistic and OP".

[John FX]

i said the previous stats are OK

500times real life stats is fine in terms of gameplay.

the current 2000times realtime thrust is just too much

When you find 500 ok but 2000 not then it`s moved into the realms of personal preference.

My suggestion is for yourself to use tweakables to set your power to 25% then your game will be balanced how you like.

The rest of us seem to like the new change...

When people say "This part is OP and needs to have lower power/fuel" then the tweakables mean you can do that and everyone can play how they like. If the new part has too much power, lower it with tweakables. If the new part uses too little power for your liking, just put extra NTGs on board as though they are needed etc. Too much fuel in the new tanks? Lower it with tweakables.

There really is no need to ask for the game to be changed for everyone else too...

That`s just mean.

Edited April 4, 2014 by John FX

[andruszkow]

A lot of people are playing with interstellar mods, anti-matter and endless energy beamed through space. How's that for realism? It's cool that you have the time to sit at home and wait for a 4 hour ion engine burn. I don't. I seriously don't get all this negativity.

To begin with, people were p*ssed off because Squad took "too long" to release.

Now, new parts and existing parts are too overpowered. There's even posts stating all sorts of bs along the lines of "How the ARM Patch ruined the game for me"

Suggestions to set me back to a point where I have to resolve to 200+ parts builds to get the same (even more powerfull) results I get from the new SLS parts, with only 20 parts? No way.

EDIT: AWESOME UPDATE, SQUAD!

Edited April 4, 2014 by andruszkow

[magnemoe]

I hated the Ion engine, it was pointless. I tried using it a couple of times and gave up. It couldn't push the mass of all the damn energy it took to fly the damn thing. I'm with John Crichton. It's not OP. This isn't reality, this is a game, and games are meant to be enjoyable. Maybe now I'll actually use the stupid ion engine. (I don't know how people used it before, I must have been doing something wrong...)

Solar rider took me from Eve to Moho and back in my 100 ton grand tour.

lander in front, yes it required kerbal jet pack as upper stage.

The back part can be separated if low on fuel, as if 10km/s is to little,

[Streetwind]

Actually I was revering to the changes in the part.cfg.

So was I. The changes in the part.cfg you suggested do not do what you think they do, because KSP sadly does not work that way.

The only thing that lowering Isp does currently is creating more fuel draw inside the atmosphere. Thrust remains the same. You cannot have thrust scaling by atmospheric pressure in stock KSP by editing the part.cfg's, period. There is no support for such a thing present in the game.

That's why I mentioned both Near Future Propulsion and Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler, which do add support for that kind of thing. The former requires config editing but only affects the specific engines you want, the latter doesn't require editing but affects all engines.

[Kerbart]

Reset your game to .23 and fly an ion drive to Duna...we'll talk after that.

Heck, land a MkII capsule at Duna--and back--using an Ion drive, no need to reset the game. And then see how overpowered it is.

[SSSPutnik]

An ion engine burn on a satellite takes from a minute to say 15 minutes if you build it right. The comparison to whackjob builds is unfair, those are meant to be amusing.

All those saying the new stuff is fine are well entitled to their opinion, and I believe, are in the majority, however a substantial number of players are unhappy.

[Francesco]

No, it's fine.

Stop complaining.

[electronicfox]

Ever since I've started making mods for anything, I have noticed a very real pattern. Anything new, or anything different is OP. I've even had instances where something with the exact stats of a pre-existing item was OP.

No matter how much you might say otherwise, people will always find something OP. In this case the solution is simple, edit the cfg's to match what you want. Heck, make it a mod if you really want.

I'll also state that I much prefer the new stats. I dont have the time nor patience to burn for 20 minutes. This is a game. Its all about playability and fun, not the space-sim equivalent of watching paint dry.

Edited April 4, 2014 by electronicfox

[maccollo]

An ion engine burn on a satellite takes from a minute to say 15 minutes if you build it right. The comparison to whackjob builds is unfair, those are meant to be amusing.

All those saying the new stuff is fine are well entitled to their opinion, and I believe, are in the majority, however a substantial number of players are unhappy.

Overall I'm happy with the patch, especially the more stable joint connections, and the claw is cool. As for the ION engines, I tried to run a big science mission in RSS using the ion engines, and I ended up with several 4 hour burns. when I was done I swore never to use them again... But now I might. The only thing I'm really critical of is the TWR/ISP balance of the new size 3 engines, which allows them in a single stage the same mass fraction to LEO as serial staged configurations using other engines. I think this is sort of broken.

For those saying that these engines represent "advancements we've made in the real world after 60 years of R&D"

No. This does not match reality in any way.

the SLS really isn't significantly more efficient than the Saturn V, and it certainly can't single stage anything of significance to LEO.

There is NovaPunch and KW with their "OP" big parts, many people use these mods - so they decided to add big parts to stock

The big KW rocketry engines is actually a good example of generally well balanced engines.

[Bishop149]

I for one am disappointed KSP doesn't force me to sit in front of the computer for 2 straight weeks to make a single Mun burn like in real life

Reset your game to .23 and fly an ion drive to Duna...we'll talk after that.

Yeah pretty much this.

Realism taken to far causes fun to drop exponentially.

Duna! Pah! I thrusted 6 tons back from Laythe on Ion power. . . . yeah that 1 hour burn to leave the Jool system was fun, almost as much fun as the 4 hour burn back

Only did it once. . . . I'm all for the change personally.

[SSSPutnik]

If you don't want a 4 hour burn, the solution is simple, build your craft around that objective. (Ie use a bigger engine).

If you wanted a small elegant satellite, you could use an ion engine just fine in 0.23

You may get some longish burns but you're expecting that.

There are reasons you don't use a mainsail landing on Poll. Anyway, I've said enough on the subject. In summary each engine should have its place in the game.

[ScallopPotato]

Here's a map of Dawn's trajectory. It's continuously thrusting and coasting, like someone driving a car. Compared to our typical spacecraft where it's one big impluse then coast. There are people who get paid 5 and 6 figure salaries and comfy benefits to fly these spacecraft, we don't make such money thrusting things around.

So it makes sense to buff the Ion drives for gameplay.

What I think is silly are the ion powered planes, simply because such engines don't like atomsphere. For those who love the idea of solar electric planes, propellers could be a good realistic option.

[Commander Zoom]

To be fair, the KW and NovaPunch large engines are balanced fairly well against the stock engines, they're basically just a way to keep part count down by avoiding clustering smaller engines. The SLS parts are not balanced against the older stock engines, their combination of TWR and Isp mean they outclass the older engines in just about every way.

I'm a bit surprised that you consider giving our feedback on the new engines to be some sort of bad thing.

I've seen some complaints about the SLS parts that seem to be as much about the part count as the performance. "Noobs can just slap a few of these together and fly to the Mun! Where's the challenge, the engineering, the dozens of struts?!?!?!1"

(Pretty sure they, or others like them, said exactly the same when we first got Mainsails and orange tanks. No more "wedding cakes" of 1m tanks and T-45s lashed together like bundles of firecrackers...)

[The Error]

To summarize:

If you like to have FUN, play KSP. If you want realism, go play Orbiter.

-Please note FUN and REALISM are not mutually exclusive and may overlap.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Guys, please Keep in mind that KSP is not a Space Simulation like Orbiter.

The main purpose of this game is watching Explosions and Exploration. To reach your Destinations it is merely necessary that you dont sit for a week on your pc and watch your burn to happen.

Actually a One-Week-Burn is now reduced to a 1,75days-Burn which is really really helpfull

In Addition:

If you are now using Ion-Engines to propell your aircrafts, Squad has reached their goal to make them more attractive

Edited April 4, 2014 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Thiel]

I can see the argument for killing its performance in atmo, but on the other hand ****s and giggles experiments like ion powered planes are a big part of what makes KSP such a great game.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've seen some complaints about the SLS parts that seem to be as much about the part count as the performance. "Noobs can just slap a few of these together and fly to the Mun! Where's the challenge, the engineering, the dozens of struts?!?!?!1"

(Pretty sure they, or others like them, said exactly the same when we first got Mainsails and orange tanks. No more "wedding cakes" of 1m tanks and T-45s lashed together like bundles of firecrackers...)

As someone with only a modest machine for playing KSP I have to agree that the reduction in part count is a good thing. I'm not against bigger parts at all, just unbalanced ones. I feel the joint reinforcement is a good thing, too, strutting is tedious and increases part count while making the rocket uglier.

Though I would have preferred keeping the KR-2L's tank separate from the engine and having the S3-KS 25x4 split into individual engines and an adapter. More flexibility in using those parts for non-SLS designs.

[Bishop149]

If you don't want a 4 hour burn, the solution is simple, build your craft around that objective. (Ie use a bigger engine).

If you wanted a small elegant satellite, you could use an ion engine just fine in 0.23

You may get some longish burns but you're expecting that.

Yeah but I wanted a 5 ton manned craft with 7,000m/s DeltaV . . . . .

[The Error]

I'm not understanding the complaints about part counts, I really am not.

Kerbals, y'see, aren't really the explosion-loving failure-embracing nutbars they appear. Their rockets may lack some... structural integrity, but they shouldn't need to use struts to hold something onto the side of a ship. You want an engineering challenge? Simple: Don't use the new parts. Use your 400-part monstrosity from .23. No one's stopping you.

From my perspective, reduced part counts and tougher attachments make perfect sense. I fail to see why these merit complaints.