I don't understand the fuss behind ARM

[SSSPutnik]

KW engines scale with stock, ARM ones don't.

[Collin Dow]

Hell, the TWRs of the previous stock parts were really low compared to what we have in real life. The F1 still has the new parts beat for lift/engine weight...although we have much better ISP, which is nice.

[Dogface]

Remember, eventually Squad is going to update aerodynamics. And then a lot of the crazy ships we have built won't fly. When that day comes we will be grateful for larger parts. And Squad is planning for that day. Evidenced by the fact that the recently redesigned antennas are all flush.

[Hurry- Starfish!]

Hell, the TWRs of the previous stock parts were really low compared to what we have in real life. The F1 still has the new parts beat for lift/engine weight...although we have much better ISP, which is nice.

Kerbin is also very small compared to Earth.

But that's not the point. It doesn't even really matter how the new engines compare to real life ones, right now it matters how they compare to the other engines in the game. And right now they are overpowered.

Dogface: Plenty of us do use FAR already, I'm sure.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Hurry, Starfish!

[Aedile]

Kirbin is smaller but denser, you need roughly 4500dv for LKO (stock) and 9000-10000dv for LEO.

Kirbin engines are heavier too, and kerbal rockts have lower propellant mass fraction

[78stonewobble]

Would you object if Squad added in an engine that had an ISP of 1000 and a thrust of 5000? Or would you just accept it and say, well that's how they ment it to be. Kasuha, doesn't your argument go against the point of the suggestions page?

If all other engines are deleted and replaced with this? Then I'd be against that.

Because it means less choice and less options for many others and myself to have fun with the game. Being shoehorned into someone somewheres idea of "fun".

If the engine is an addition to everything else, no matter how overpowered, then I'd like to have it.

Not because I necessarily have to use it or want to, but because it gives everyone and myself more choice and more options to have fun with the game. However we want to have that fun.

It's better to have a game that allows you to make it as hard or as easy as you want it, than a game that only lets you enjoy it in a narrow spectrum of difficulty.

[Pecan]

[Re: my BAUI post]

I guess, I prefer rockets to look somehow realistic. Don't get me wrong, building monstrosities is fun, and you can build even bigger ones now, so sure.

Thank you for your comments. Would you indulge me further and make it clear that an asparagus-staged rocket does not necessarily have to be a monstrosity or even look unrealistic. Monstrosities are therefore not a consequence of asparagus but of (aesthetically) bad design. Apart from the obvious payload-ration advantage of asparagus I use it for increased control a lot of the time as it happens, as it stops my rockets getting too long and unwieldy. Drag is identical to any other staging strategy that has 2 - 6 boosters around the core; and certainly isn't a problem in FAR.

[Or just feel free to ignore this, I'm campaigning against knee-jerk 'because asparagus is ugly' comments but it's off-topic].

[SofusRud]

If all other engines are deleted and replaced with this? Then I'd be against that.

Because it means less choice and less options for many others and myself to have fun with the game. Being shoehorned into someone somewheres idea of "fun".

If the engine is an addition to everything else, no matter how overpowered, then I'd like to have it.

Not because I necessarily have to use it or want to, but because it gives everyone and myself more choice and more options to have fun with the game. However we want to have that fun.

It's better to have a game that allows you to make it as hard or as easy as you want it, than a game that only lets you enjoy it in a narrow spectrum of difficulty.

So by your standards the devs might as well have made a bunch of engine models and used a random number generator to assign stats?

[78stonewobble]

So by your standards the devs might as well have made a bunch of engine models and used a random number generator to assign stats?

That is not what I said nor was it related to the question.

If there is 10 engines I can choose to not use 2 of them.

If there is only 8 engines I cannot choose to use 2 I don't have.

[Aedile]

As I said, it's not about asparagus, it's about it's most common abuse. Single row of 6-8 side boosters in single row is fine, especially if they are smaller diameter.

Have you wondered why RL rockets are built and look the way they are?

Now for the people who tell me I BAIU reason, here are the actual reasons I dislike it - mainly because it cashes mechanics KSP does wrong.

1. ISP

KSP - varies ISP by varying fuel consumption, while IRL is the trust of the engine which varies. This is why a lot of RL rockets won't make it without SRBs, kerosine boosters and the like. This is also why asparagus is so effective in KSP - you have more thrust at launch than you should, you burn fuel faster than you should. You need less start thrust and stage faster - so you minimize dead weight. Now while this is issue with all ksp designs, the more you stage the more you gain (only drawback are staging parts). There is a mod around, which can scale trust with ISP, if you try it, it will make you appreciate the usefulness of SRBs and brings asparagus more in line with reality, together with the practice of using vac engines for main stages.

2. Engine weight - KSP balances engines by adding weight to them. Any engine which is not boosting, is payload which pretends to be engine. Radial boosters designs benefit from this. Since asparagus sheds dead weight faster, it's more efficient. Since RL engines are lighter, the gains from asparagus or radials is lower as well. Food for thought - skipper engine weighs 4 tons (that's an extra Mk1-2 pod) - you want that boosting instead of just doing nothing at the top of your rocket. Now this would be bad idea in RL due to 1. But how heavier KSP engines are ? Roughly 2-3 times the mass for the same thrust.

3. Drag - Drag in stock KSP has more to do with number of parts, than surface area and AoA. While asparagus (or any rocket with many radial boosters), still has more drag by virtue of more parts, it's much less as it should. Obviously there is mod for that as well. It's not a problem with FAR if you are reasonable, but less effective than tall rocket.

4. Control - Due to the ridiculous way torque (and drag) works you can control virtually any 'rocket' which stays together- this used to be somehow balanced with rocket floppiness, but yeah two wrongs making a right, and the art of playing the strutivarius . Again, nothing wrong with reasonable designs.

5. Reliability - KSP engines don't have stutter, flame out exactly at the same time, That is, you can rely on symmetric trust. Also decouples never fail to decouple (unless you mis configured something). Which again, gives benefit for asparagus launches.

6. There is no mission cost involved.

7. Lack of alternatives - a lot of rocket technology makes sense using, due to some particular benefits.

Take for example SRBs.

a. They are cheaper

b. They can be stored for years and still work, transported easier etc...

c. If they explode they are easy to clean up (as long as... you know)

d. They can be more easily recovered (as they can take much more punishment without damage)

e. While they cannot be throttled they don't provide constant throttle, they can be designed in different ways, for example near constant trust, near constant TWR. (This really annoys me in KSP, with the crazy TWR increase at the end of the srb burn).

I really don't understand why people have such issue with, "you can go further with bigger engines than with few smaller ones". Of course you can, and definitely should be able to. The problem with ksp, is that engines don't have the issues should should have, and have issues they should not. Also everything is free, so it like saying "OMG I can drive further with a truck full of fuel, than with a car".

To compare rockets, you need to compare their payload ratio. If we compare first (lifter) stage, say 80km low equatorial orbit. The payload vs the total size of the rocket will give you good point of comparison. I don't say engines are balanced, pretty sure Mainsail is totally lame.

[Dodgey]

If all other engines are deleted and replaced with this? Then I'd be against that.

Because it means less choice and less options for many others and myself to have fun with the game. Being shoehorned into someone somewheres idea of "fun".

If the engine is an addition to everything else, no matter how overpowered, then I'd like to have it.

Not because I necessarily have to use it or want to, but because it gives everyone and myself more choice and more options to have fun with the game. However we want to have that fun.

It's better to have a game that allows you to make it as hard or as easy as you want it, than a game that only lets you enjoy it in a narrow spectrum of difficulty.

There's a difference between being able to play how you want, and straight out deciding the balance of the game, which is what you are suggesting. If I understand correctly you would prefer it if you could decide on the precise stats of an engine.

Saying that more options are better (range of engines with varying stats) because you aren't "shorehorned" into someone elses idea of fun just fails on so many levels. Firstly it basically says that any game that restricts you in any way is "shorehorning" you into someone elses' idea of fun. It also says that if any sense of balance is introduced into the game is again trying to force someone elses' sense of fun onto you.

If I misunderstood you in any way please correct me.

[78stonewobble]

1:There's a difference between being able to play how you want, and straight out deciding the balance of the game, which is what you are suggesting. If I understand correctly you would prefer it if you could decide on the precise stats of an engine.

2: Saying that more options are better (range of engines with varying stats) because you aren't "shorehorned" into someone elses idea of fun just fails on so many levels. 3: Firstly it basically says that any game that restricts you in any way is "shorehorning" you into someone elses' idea of fun. 4: It also says that if any sense of balance is introduced into the game is again trying to force someone elses' sense of fun onto you.

If I misunderstood you in any way please correct me.

I numbered to address each of the points appropriately, sorry if this is against some rule.

1. Yes, there is. More options puts the choice of playing how anyone wants to and everyones taste of balancing in the hands of the player. Ie. if I think the new parts are too easy. I can choose not use them and challenge myself in other ways.

It's allready possible, if not encouraged even, for people to make modifications to the game. For the sake of creating options for people. Personally I don't have the need to tweak precise stats of each and every engine. It's enough for me with a nice range of mostly stock parts to choose from. I also don't see a problem that some of these options come from the vanilla game rather than mods.

2. No, it doesn't. It makes perfect sense. If I or anyone else enjoys making a rocket with part Y (no matter how op or under powered it is), then the game is better, for that person, with that part in it, than it would be without it. Ie. If I love chocolate an icecream with chocolate is better than an icecream without chocolate.

3. Which is absolutely true... Which is the reason all of us has games that we do not like and don't want to play. They're are simply not our cup of tea, eventhough they might be someone elses. The best we can hope for is that a game somehow matches some or, if we're really lucky, most of what we enjoy.

4. Which is, again, absolutely true. Fun is subjective. For some balancing adds fun and for others it can detract from fun. Since there is no universal truth when it comes to subjectivity, neither has the high ground from that perspective. The fact of the matter is that if a game offers balanced and overpowered, a player can choose balance or overpowered or both. If the game only picks one of the 2 to offer players, then players who like the opposite will either be forced to play the other or not to play at all.

Personally, I'm not adverse to balancing of the engines in kerbal space programme. I just don't need it enough, to hinder other people to play with unbalanced engines, as long as I can choose what I want. Ie. I can use the new engines or not, the new engines did not remove the old engines afterall.

In my humble oppinion it should be up to either a democratic ingame poll or we should let it rest with the autho... uhm creators vision for the game.

[ArmchairGravy]

If only there was some way we could adjust the engines we consider overpowered. A way to reduce thrust and/or remove some of the onboard fuel so their performance meets our criteria. A way to tweak them, as it were.

[Rakaydos]

If only there was some way we could adjust the engines we consider overpowered. A way to reduce thrust and/or remove some of the onboard fuel so their performance meets our criteria. A way to tweak them, as it were.

So, how do I set them to more thrust and more fuel consumption per thrust?

[Aedile]

So by your standards the devs might as well have made a bunch of engine models and used a random number generator to assign stats?

There is nothing horribly random. In fact old engines are more random.

Let's deliver max payload to orbit, and see what is the payload ratio Not that good of of a pilot and probably could do better, but trying to do this in a hurry

LV- T30: 1.8/16.6 - 10.8%

LV 909 0.3/4 - 7.5%

Aerospike - 1.46/14.2 -10.3%

48-7s - 0.23/2 - 11,5%

S3 KS - 25x4: 29/244 - 11.8%

LFB -KR 1x2: 20/152 - 13.1%

KR-2L: 28/199 - 14%

Mainsail 10/110 - 9.1%

Skipper 4/52 - 7.7%

Poodle - 1/18 - 5.5%

Some imbalance there but seems to be a compound problem, doesn't it?

[Dogoncrook]

I think a lot of people here are not considering that the vast majority of people who buy this game have zero interest in doing any sort of math to play a game and will likely never make it past the mun, if they even get that far. I mean you can't even see dv stock, you have to guess, ksp doesn't even give you the information you need to do the math as far as I'm aware. Most people are going to wing it, and I recommend more of you try it, it makes the game a bit lighter sure, but it's a blast. Now imagine doing that without even having a clue about the basic math or principles. Rockets will be over built.. These engines are not over powered, regardless of how much "evidence" you produce, the game needs to be easier so more people can enjoy it instead of catering to the top 1% of players who heavily mod anyway.. most of whom are mod makers themselves... This helps bring in fresh players and gives them some breathing room to learn. It's a good thing, it can help teach players the concepts without becoming frustrated at every launch. This is an amazing game that actually manages to grab otherwise disinterested people and slap a little science into them whether they realize it or not. I think an easy button is an allowance we can bear no? I mean nerf it don't nerf, it's not a big deal in my book, but I want more people to make more trips to distant planets, to really dive in, and I think this is a step in the right direction. Plus now I can run more mods and my FPS is awesome. Win win really.

Just gonna put this out there, If you have 50 posts on the subject, your not really stating your opinion or debating, your politicking. This is the first time I've seen the forums turn this sour (not that it's especially bad, but before it was far more pleasant than most forums) so I think everyone should actually be asking what is best for the community as a whole, including the casual players, and not what's best for gameplay or any other metric, because honestly this game has always been bigger than that. That's why it's special, and that's why Orbiter never took off. My vote is for whatever grabs the most people and opens their eyes and gets them interested in learning more. I understand the arguments all these graphs intend to show, and by all means suggest away, but bear in mind the little people, we are not rocket scientists and we don't want to be, but that doesn't mean we don't want to play. Aaaaand we vastly outnumber you mwuahaaaahahahaaaaa! (probably, I have no idea, but I'm guessing.. probably..)

[Pecan]

As I said, it's not about asparagus, it's about it's most common abuse...

Excellent post, thank you for the effort. You mention several things that other people have not although I've asked for comments as I'm doing a write-up on design and specifically why people prefer particular staging strategies.

[Rakaydos]

There is nothing horribly random. In fact old engines are more random.

Let's deliver max payload to orbit, and see what is the payload ratio Not that good of of a pilot and probably could do better, but trying to do this in a hurry

LV- T30: 1.8/16.6 - 10.8%

LV 909 0.3/4 - 7.5%

Aerospike - 1.46/14.2 -10.3%

48-7s - 0.23/2 - 11,5%

S3 KS - 25x4: 29/244 - 11.8%

LFB -KR 1x2: 20/152 - 13.1%

KR-2L: 28/199 - 14%

Mainsail 10/110 - 9.1%

Skipper 4/52 - 7.7%

Poodle - 1/18 - 5.5%

Some imbalance there but seems to be a compound problem, doesn't it?

Notice that every engine over 11% on your list is being complained about, including the 48-7, which was complained about before arm even dropped. And your low % engines like the 909 and the Poodle are not meant as kerbin asent engines- they're normally space and lander engines.

Your LV30, Aerospike, and Mainsail are all very close together.

[Dodgey]

I numbered to address each of the points appropriately, sorry if this is against some rule.

1. Yes, there is. More options puts the choice of playing how anyone wants to and everyones taste of balancing in the hands of the player. Ie. if I think the new parts are too easy. I can choose not use them and challenge myself in other ways.

It's allready possible, if not encouraged even, for people to make modifications to the game. For the sake of creating options for people. Personally I don't have the need to tweak precise stats of each and every engine. It's enough for me with a nice range of mostly stock parts to choose from. I also don't see a problem that some of these options come from the vanilla game rather than mods.

2. No, it doesn't. It makes perfect sense. If I or anyone else enjoys making a rocket with part Y (no matter how op or under powered it is), then the game is better, for that person, with that part in it, than it would be without it. Ie. If I love chocolate an icecream with chocolate is better than an icecream without chocolate.

3. Which is absolutely true... Which is the reason all of us has games that we do not like and don't want to play. They're are simply not our cup of tea, eventhough they might be someone elses. The best we can hope for is that a game somehow matches some or, if we're really lucky, most of what we enjoy.

4. Which is, again, absolutely true. Fun is subjective. For some balancing adds fun and for others it can detract from fun. Since there is no universal truth when it comes to subjectivity, neither has the high ground from that perspective. The fact of the matter is that if a game offers balanced and overpowered, a player can choose balance or overpowered or both. If the game only picks one of the 2 to offer players, then players who like the opposite will either be forced to play the other or not to play at all.

Personally, I'm not adverse to balancing of the engines in kerbal space programme. I just don't need it enough, to hinder other people to play with unbalanced engines, as long as I can choose what I want. Ie. I can use the new engines or not, the new engines did not remove the old engines afterall.

In my humble oppinion it should be up to either a democratic ingame poll or we should let it rest with the autho... uhm creators vision for the game.

What I got from your response is that because fun is subjective (which it is) and because some people might have fun with some parts, who are we as individuals to say I don't like that part, we should change it. Because we can choose weather or not to use a part, we are not being forced to use that parts. So why can't we just let them have their fun if we don't have to use those parts which we deem OP. Your position on this is further backed up by your statement that we are able to modify the game to suit how we like it (effectively saying we shouldn't use the suggestion page because we can modify the game).

In your second to last point, you say you're not against the balancing of the game, but not enough to "hinder other people to play with unbalanced engines". That statement is just blatantly paradoxical. If the engines were balanced, they wouldn't be playing with unbalanced engines, and I don't know where you got the idea of removing the old engines from.

Dogoncrook, the amount of assumptions and pure assertions (I'm sure there was an ad homnen in there as well) in that statement is just.......um.. wow, I don't even know where to start.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Dodgey

[Dogoncrook]

You probably shouldn't Start. Actually, you should probably wrap it up. You are no longer suggesting anything or providing feedback, you are just insulting people.

[AmpsterMan]

Just stopping by to remind folks to please keep the discussion on the actual parts and what your opinions, thoughts, etc. Please keep this discussion civil and on-topic.

[Dodgey]

At the risk of inciting a flame war I will say this and leave it at that. I am not insulting anyone, I am refuting an argument that they put forward, and defending an argument which I put forward. Nothing more. If you believe that I have said anything that is false, or derogatory by all means point that out, but don't make flat out assertions without any evidence.

78stonewobble, I think that we aren't on the same page with what we are saying. I'm not sure if you think this also but there might be a bit of confusion.

[ArmchairGravy]

So, how do I set them to more thrust and more fuel consumption per thrust?

You would need to edit the .cfg. There are plenty of tutorials out there on how to do so.

[Rakaydos]

You would need to edit the .cfg. There are plenty of tutorials out there on how to do so.

That doesnt sound like the "tweakables" you were implying earlier...

[SofusRud]

That is not what I said nor was it related to the question.

If there is 10 engines I can choose to not use 2 of them.

If there is only 8 engines I cannot choose to use 2 I don't have.

It is totally related to this issue. Because the implication of all gameplay balancing being a "choice" of the player is that the game would be better if Squad didn't bother at all. In such case the engine stats might as well be assigned by throwing a dart at a wall covered in numbers.

My position is that Squad should balance the parts in the same way that they always have, up until now. Its not like that hasn't been restricting you until now, or do you still mourn the old aerospike?