Overhauled Intake Air, solving airhogging and asymmetric flamout with one stone

[Capt Snuggler]

No one said it was impossible to get to space with one intake. I (and other people) was saying that intake spam makes it ridiculously easy and renders all other engines types redundant for launch stages = not the desired outcome.

and even though the game allows intake spam, the penalty for it is not sufficient.

but also the experiment proves again that the current Jet engine/intake air system does not adequately represent how a jet engine functions nor the limitations and considerations involved with using jet engines at such high altitudes.

[Kasuha]

By my definition, the normal amount is around 0.1 ram intakes/tonne.

Okay, that sounds like a definition. A bit strict to my tastes and most less experienced spaceplane pilots would be pretty upset about it but it at least quantifies things. My plane had 5 t with one intake. Gotta try it with a 10 t one.

... it raises the cruising altitude well past the point where terminal velocity exceeds orbital velocity

"Well past" is not the right word here. There's no way to go faster than 2400 m/s on turbojets. Maybe some 30 m/s if you use intakes at level which even I consider reasonable, and 200 m/s if you really go nuts. It still won't get you to Mun.

Below that point, you need a lot of thrust to keep flying at near-orbital velocities.

Or just a small impulse in the right direction to jump out of the atmosphere and get rid of all drag-related issues.

Increasing x above 3 is also beneficial, as it makes flying easier. If you were flying at 1/3 throttle with x = 3 before switching to rockets, you can just keep flying at full throttle with x = 9.

I still don't see any substantial benefit coming out of intake spam here. No matter how high you can fly on what throttle, you can't go faster than 2400 m/s. You can't fly to Mun on jets unless you use stored air. Which I agree is an exploit.

You can kick yourself on trajectory with apoapsis above atmosphere and periapsis in ground or in atmosphere, and you can still do that with even less intakes than your definition considers normal. Then you got to circularize and based on how well you have kicked yourself you may need more or less of rocket fuel. Besides saving insane amounts of fuel on lifting yourself through the atmosphere which already comes with turbojets with any amount of intakes, we're talking literally tens of units of fuel per ton less or more needed to circularize. Do you really consider that substantial? I don't.

Personally I see intake spam (as in huge amounts) as a newbie thing. If you need to spam intakes it means you can't fly planes efficiently. Actually planes intended for newbies (such as stock ones) should IMO contain sufficient intakes to let even inexperienced player reach orbit. I'm not talking about spamming, I'm talking about amounts maybe 3-4 times higher than what's set by your definition. Not extremely easy but also not extremely hard.

The better you get the less intakes you need up to the point when you start finding less intakes too uncomfortable. That's no exploit, that's how you find out where you have the most fun. Then, if you want more challenge, you can start building SSTOs using normal jets.

[Kasuha]

intake spam makes it ridiculously easy

"Ridiculously" is just your emotion on it, not an objective assessment. I agree it makes things easier. If you want to defend the "ridiculously" part, please come up with an example showing any ridiculous difference.

and renders all other engines types redundant for launch stages

That comes with jet engines, not related to intake spam. Even with 0.1 RAM intake per ton as per Jouni's definition, you save a lot of fuel and money by building lifter stages with jets. Once you have your fully recoverable SSTO lifter, more intakes make it easier but not even significantly cheaper.

but also the experiment proves again that the current Jet engine/intake air system does not adequately represent how a jet engine functions nor the limitations and considerations involved with using jet engines at such high altitudes.

KSP is a game, not a simulator. Almost everything in it does not adequately represent how its real-life counterpart functions.

[Jouni]

Or just a small impulse in the right direction to jump out of the atmosphere and get rid of all drag-related issues.

That's actually the basis of my definition. If you have enough intakes that the plane can get out of the atmosphere on jet engines, you're airhogging.

Let's simplify things somewhat. At high altitudes and high velocities, thrust is C1 * n * ÃÂ and drag is C2 * m * ÃÂ, where C1 and C2 are constants, n is the number of intakes, m is the mass of the ship, and ÃÂ is the air density. If C1 * n > C2 * m, you can climb out of the atmosphere on jet engines. If C1 * n < C2 * m, you can't. If C1 * n >> C2 * m, you don't even have to throttle down to climb out of the atmosphere.

This suggests that there are different levels of airhogging. At level 1, you can climb out of the atmosphere on jet engines. At level 2, you can do that without throttling down. At level 3, you can just use a rocket-like ascent path.

[Capt Snuggler]

"Ridiculously" is just your emotion on it, not an objective assessment. I agree it makes things easier. If you want to defend the "ridiculously" part, please come up with an example showing any ridiculous difference.

Ridiculous = deserving mockery; absurd.

when I show non KSP players how jet engines work and what the game allows, they make this expression

I believe this reaction from people is caused by a number of things:

1. you can feed air in to an engine by putting an intake on the end of a girder with no visual explanation of how the air is getting there.

adding air ducts similar to fuel lines and an 'air passable' tag to appropriate parts would help to remedy this.

2. the air intakes do not produce enough drag for their shape and size, allowing for absurd, un-aerodynamic shapes to achieve hypersonic flight.

3. jet engines in KSP are not heavy enough to represent the turbine.

moving the CG of the part forward of the mesh and increasing the mass would better represent this. or update the part models to include a turbine/compressor section.

more intakes make it easier but not even significantly cheaper.

yes, they do make it easier and cheaper.

KSP is a game, not a simulator. Almost everything in it does not adequately represent how its real-life counterpart functions.

your right KSP is not a simulator. a simulator would accurately replicate - make an exact copy of; reproduce.

I am asking for it to adequately represent - to stand for; symbolize.

for the most part, (with the exception of nuclear engine) the rockets in KSP do adequately represent the functions and limitations of their real world equivalents within a margin of gameplay balance.

I believe that the current air breathing engine system (jet engines and air intakes), does not adequately represent the functions and limitations of the real world equivalent, to the same standard set by the rest of the game.

[Kasuha]

...

I'm more interested in talking numbers and facts than impressions and nuances of english language.

If you have enough intakes that the plane can get out of the atmosphere on jet engines, you're airhogging.

I don't find such definition useful. Whether or not you're able to get out of atmosphere on jets with given amount of intakes depends on your piloting skills. By putting strong restriction on them for good pilots, you're putting unnecessarily stringent restrictions on less experienced players.

Also, I was expecting talking about where the ridiculous amount of intakes starts with airhogging. Your limit is IMO ridiculously low. Absolute majority of spaceplane users in KSP would IMO qualify as airhoggers.

The idea of restricting number of intakes per mass of the plane is nice, though. I like it. Applying that to limits I consider common sense, i.e. one jet per 10 tons and three intakes per jet would yield about 0.3 intake per ton. That sounds reasonable to me.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Kasuha

[Capt Snuggler]

I'm more interested in talking numbers and facts than impressions and nuances of english language.

If you feel I was being rude I apologize, i'm sorry, it was not my intention.

I was merely trying to justify and explain my view of overpowered jet engine system, as you asked and felt that some of my definitions needed clarification.

When flying air breathing jet powered craft in KSP it simply feels wrong. other people think so too. I have tried to explain why and offered possible solutions.

I can't give an objective assessment on a topic that is entirely subjective because like you said, its a game. it doesn't make my opinion any less valid here than yours.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Majorjim!]

I'm more interested in talking numbers and facts than impressions and nuances of english language.

Kasuha, Snuggler is clearly trying to get a point across that you are ignoring completely.

Its rude to ignore people. Put on your big boy pants and do the right thing.

[Kegereneku]

I sort of side with Kasuha you know.

It's more important to focus over the number of Intake per Engines and the weight, thrust, fuel consumption -range needed to achieve orbit, all balanced around both experimented and less experimented designers.

In my opinion such problem could be solved simply by changing the engines/intake characteristic more than creating a abstract "link" between engine&intake.

For now we have :

- Jet engine

- Ramjet (as turbojet)

- Ramjet/rocket hybrid

The first one have to allow VTOL since there's no other engine available.

The second one allow to reach orbit because there was no RAPIER before.

Maybe the solution would be to retry to emulate the basic.

- Subsonic jet engine

- Supersonic turbojet

- Ramjet RAPIER

plus, equivalent intake with peak efficiency at specific speed/altitude.

Personally I think it might even be worth it to make a "VTOL" engine that give massive thrust at the cost of fuel or other attribute making it unusable (hopefully) for orbit.