I'll be damned, Squad buffed the RAPIER in 0.24 - twice!

[Col_Jessep]

If you check the wiki you'll fin a note that the price of the RAPIER was reduced from 5900 to 3600: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/R.A.P.I.E.R._Engine

What the wiki doesn't seem to know yet is that the RAPIER's mass was reduced from 1.75t to 1.2t! That is a pretty significant change, especially considering that the turbojet brings 1.2t to the table as well. Hot damn! I was feeling a bit light in the bottom department lately. Erm, that came out wrong...

I'm kind of glad to see that spaceplanes get a buff but I'm a bit concerned about the viability of turbojets for SSTOs now. The RAPIER comes at the same mass, includes a powerful (if not very fuel efficient) rocket engine, has a gimbaling range of 3° (compared to 1° on the turbo), can be mounted on top of a decoupler and can have other parts attached to it to prevent overheating in clusters. The only downside is the lack of electrical energy generation, which is easily fixed with some cheap solar panels and a battery.

The only niche for the turbojet seems to be long-range SSTOs (SSTLaythe) that are usually equipped with NERVAs. But even then I might consider using the RAPIER for that extra TWR to get into LKO. I mean, the RAPIER comes basically with a free rocket engine now?

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Am I missing something important? Any ideas what could be buffed about the turbojet to give it more viability for SSTOs?

[TimePeriod]

In all honesty the Rapier engine is easy mode.

If you want more challenge then stick with a Rocket/Turbo-jet mix for the sake of your own ego, the respect of the community(skillz) and the general impression that you know what the heck you are talking about.

[smart013]

In all honesty the Rapier engine is easy mode.

If you want more challenge then stick with a Rocket/Turbo-jet mix for the sake of your own ego, the respect of the community(skillz) and the general impression that you know what the heck you are talking about.

Please talk only for yourself. My respect for the OP as part of the communtiy depends not on the question of him using the Stock (!) Rapier or not.

[TimePeriod]

Please talk only for yourself. My respect for the OP as part of the communtiy depends not on the question of him using the Stock (!) Rapier or not.

Before there was Rapier engines people used the combination of turbo-jet/Rocket engine to great success. Meta-game became the norm and now people are using the Rapier engine which is just much easier to use. Which is why I added the additional challenge of using the old system.

As for the topic, the turbo-jet may yet come to glory if more planets with a atmosphere is added to the game.

[Talavar]

For long distances, I always Use canister drop-off.. That is.. I use one centered thruster then stage my fuel cans radial, then stage more fuel (only)down from my radial fuel cans.. run fuel lines from the last to the first, and then let cans fall off the back without the need of the extra weight of extra staging rockets.. Only need the fuel, nothing else. youd be surprised at the amount of extra dV you get without the extra weight of those added rockets.

[cpast]

Changing the price doesn't really count as a "buff", because the price before 0.24 was completely irrelevant -- "buff" sort of implies they're shifting balance somewhere, but 0.24 is a first attempt at a balance.

[goldenpsp]

I would guess the other balance on it would be that at least in non-sandbox mode, it comes at the end of the tech tree. So it's not like you get to use them out of the gate.

[Eric S]

Anyway, what are your thoughts? Am I missing something important? Any ideas what could be buffed about the turbojet to give it more viability for SSTOs?

The turbojet engine still has more thrust in airbreathing mode (by about 15%) and a better velocity curve (drops to 0 thrust at 2400 m/s rather than 2200 m/s). Admittedly, the reduced mass is going to take away much of the turbojet's advantage.

In all honesty the Rapier engine is easy mode.

Depends on the plane. When the RAPIER came out, I built two almost identical spaceplaines, one using a RAPIER and the other using a turbojet and two small engines. The one using the turbojet consistently got to orbit using less fuel and had more available delta-v. Admittedly, these were fairly small spaceplanes, and I suspect that the balance will change if you're doing larger spaceplanes. With this change to the RAPIERs mass, the RAPIER plane would have less mass rather than more mass, but I suspect that the turbojet-based one will still be more fuel efficient because of it's higher thrust and better velocity curve.

This change will probably get me to try RAPIER engines again, especially on larger spaceplanes, but I still don't think of them as easy mode except that you don't need to find as many places to attach engines.

[Red Iron Crown]

One other improvement that came to the RAPIER in 0.24 that hasn't been mentioned yet is the ability to use gimballing for roll authority even when there is only one engine fitted.

Also, LOL at "don't use RAPIERs if you want the community to respect your skills". Build what you like and stuff anyone who'd look down their nose at you. Silly elitists are spoiling the community, not people who want to use RAPIERs (or any other "easy mode" game play).

[Renegrade]

This change will probably get me to try RAPIER engines again, especially on larger spaceplanes, but I still don't think of them as easy mode except that you don't need to find as many places to attach engines.

I have to agree here, the TurboJet's better air performance is very important, so really the Rapier is just a convenience piece as you say.

In stock, I generally fly up on air breathing power alone as much as possible, and use teensy tiny rocket engines to circularize. TurboJets carry the air breathing part further and better so..

...

FAR is a bit different however, it looks like this:

I don't think a teensy-tiny rocket circularization is going to work as well there..

[KvickFlygarn87]

Changing the price doesn't really count as a "buff", because the price before 0.24 was completely irrelevant -- "buff" sort of implies they're shifting balance somewhere, but 0.24 is a first attempt at a balance.

I believe the cost was lowered in .24.1., let me check.

EDIT: Nope, the patch notes say nothing about the RAPIER.

[Kinglet]

In all honesty the Rapier engine is easy mode.

If you want more challenge then stick with a Rocket/Turbo-jet mix for the sake of your own ego, the respect of the community(skillz) and the general impression that you know what the heck you are talking about.

Strange. I tried using the rapier, but the horrible jet ISP failed all of my designs. Making jet/rocket SSTO's is MUCH easier for me.

[Wanderfound]

Turbojets are slightly more powerful and slightly more fuel efficient, and if you're doing it right you can keep an air breather working right up until your apoapsis hits 70,000m.

My small SSTOs usually have one turbojet and two RAPIERs. The big planes work similar ratios but more in total (e.g. my big cargo plane has two turbos and six RAPIERs). This is under FAR, where the air-breathers were nerfed from stock by 50%.

Ignore the "easy mode" stuff, BTW. An SSTO with two RAPIERs and a turbo is not that different from one with two rockets and a turbo. If you've got a plane that works with RAPIERs, it'll probably also work if you set it up with turbos and rockets. The hard part is the flying and the aerodynamic design, not which brand of fireworks you strap on the back.

[GoSlash27]

Any ideas what could be buffed about the turbojet to give it more viability for SSTOs?

I'd say an easy location in the tech tree is buff enough. IRL you would never use a turbojet to try to get to orbit.

Best,

-Slashy

[Col_Jessep]

I'd say an easy location in the tech tree is buff enough.

Typically the plane parts are pretty much the last thing most people unlock in the tech tree. By the time you get to turbojets the 550 science required for the RAPIER is just an afterthought. And you can get a contract to test the RAPIER at that point which gives you access without spending any science as long as you don't fulfill the contract.

Real life comparisons are pretty irrelevant since orbital speed around Earth is 4 times as high as around Kerbin. Try to build an SSTO plane in RSS. More trouble than it's worth imo.

What I would like is if the turbojet would be moved earlier into the tech tree and instead we would get a scramjet engine. Scramjets can theoretically reach much higher airbreathing speeds than SABREs.

[John FX]

One other improvement that came to the RAPIER in 0.24 that hasn't been mentioned yet is the ability to use gimballing for roll authority even when there is only one engine fitted.

Also, LOL at "don't use RAPIERs if you want the community to respect your skills". Build what you like and stuff anyone who'd look down their nose at you. Silly elitists are spoiling the community, not people who want to use RAPIERs (or any other "easy mode" game play).

I`m glad someone else agrees that silly elitists are ruining an otherwise good community, also the pedants and minor point arguers.

I say build beautiful craft and enjoy flying them. Use mods or don`t, use certain parts or don`t. The main thing is to enjoy playing.

To get back on topic, I don`t really use the rapier, Now we have recoverable costs it is fairly easy to build a pure turbojet stage that will get to an Ap of 100km where you detatch the payload and circularise it then retake control of the jet stage and land it. Then you don`t have to carry the extra weight of air intakes and can have a more efficient payload.

[Rhomphaia]

Was the flameout threshold on the R.A.P.I.E.R always 33% or did it get nerfed? I don't seem to be able to run them as high as before.

[Guest]

In all honesty the Rapier engine is easy mode.

If you want more challenge then stick with a Rocket/Turbo-jet mix for the sake of your own ego, the respect of the community(skillz) and the general impression that you know what the heck you are talking about.

Go away, seriously, people play the SANDBOX GAME how they want to.

[Melfice]

In all honesty the Rapier engine is easy mode.

If you want more challenge then stick with a Rocket/Turbo-jet mix for the sake of your own ego, the respect of the community(skillz) and the general impression that you know what the heck you are talking about.

In a game about rocket science and going into space, easy mode seems like a good thing. So, I'm not sure why you're making it sound like it's a bad thing.

And screw the community (ie. you) if their (that is, your) respect for me stems from making things harder for myself.

[Michaelo90]

Unless they changed it, the extra max speed of the turbojet should make it the only one able to get an apoapsis over the atmosphere on jet power only.

Still, no extra weight and higher isp than the 48-7s certainly makes it interesting, I should give it a try.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Michaelo90

[r4pt0r]

In all honesty the Rapier engine is easy mode.

If you want more challenge then stick with a Rocket/Turbo-jet mix for the sake of your own ego, the respect of the community(skillz) and the general impression that you know what the heck you are talking about.

you are attracting alot of heat, but i understand your view. Its like when people use certain mods to autopilot their craft or partclip fueltanks into fueltanks (yes I understand its the same weight and drag, but artificially shortening a ship like that makes it easier to turn, you dont need to worry about long wobbly rocket syndrome, and liquids dont compress easily so it makes no sense for that volume of fuel in that volume of space)

Its singleplayer, so play however you want, but when I see craft on the formus like that im just not impressed what so ever.

[Superfluous J]

you are attracting alot of heat, but i understand your view. Its like when people use certain mods to autopilot their craft or partclip fueltanks into fueltanks (yes I understand its the same weight and drag, but artificially shortening a ship like that makes it easier to turn, you dont need to worry about long wobbly rocket syndrome, and liquids dont compress easily so it makes no sense for that volume of fuel in that volume of space)

Its singleplayer, so play however you want, but when I see craft on the formus like that im just not impressed what so ever.

I know. It's like when people use struts. I mean, before struts we flew rockets all the time. And those really long fuel tanks that hold 800 liters. Jeez, why not just make a "teleport to mun" button?

[Red Iron Crown]

you are attracting alot of heat, but i understand your view. Its like when people use certain mods to autopilot their craft or partclip fueltanks into fueltanks (yes I understand its the same weight and drag, but artificially shortening a ship like that makes it easier to turn, you dont need to worry about long wobbly rocket syndrome, and liquids dont compress easily so it makes no sense for that volume of fuel in that volume of space)

Its singleplayer, so play however you want, but when I see craft on the formus like that im just not impressed what so ever.

I can't hear you over the sound of all the fun I'm having watching mechjeb pilot my beautiful partclipped ship.

Seriously though, people who are deriving any self-esteem from what other players think of their ship design or piloting are in for a bad time. No matter how you play the game, someone out there thinks you're playing easy-mode. Better to just accept any compliments and ignore any haters.

[Col_Jessep]

Erm, can we go back to the topic at hand, namely the balance and leave the whole "easy mode" discussion for another day. I have build more spaceplanes than I can count, everything from from 7 parts to monstrosities that can lift the equivalent of 3 orange tanks to LKO.

My only concern is that the turbojet/rocket engine combo becomes less viable because the RAPIER basically gives you a free, powerful rocket engine for the same mass. You can save some money in career too with the RAPIER if you would use a toroidal aerospike or NERVA.

[Wanderfound]

Erm, can we go back to the topic at hand, namely the balance and leave the whole "easy mode" discussion for another day. I have build more spaceplanes than I can count, everything from from 7 parts to monstrosities that can lift the equivalent of 3 orange tanks to LKO.

My only concern is that the turbojet/rocket engine combo becomes less viable because the RAPIER basically gives you a free, powerful rocket engine for the same mass. You can save some money in career too with the RAPIER if you would use a toroidal aerospike or NERVA.

Yes, RAPIERs are overpowered in stock, but so are turbojets. This is why Ferram nerfed them both.

Relative to each other though, it's not too bad. Every RAPIER based plane should carry at least one turbojet; it's the one that you leave running after the RAPIERs switch to closed cycle, in order to take advantage of the rocket-driven ram-air effect.

That engine keeps running until it's time to shut off and coast to apoapsis; as it's never going to be burning oxidiser, you may as well take advantage of the turbo's slightly better power and fuel efficiency (and vastly nicer sound effects) instead of putting another RAPIER in its place.

Apart from that, the turbojet's niche is with purely atmospheric planes and detachable first-stage vertical lifters. I don't have a problem with that.