Looking for a Practical Comparison of the new Spaceplane Parts in 0.25

[capi3101]

Howdy, y'all.

So a couple of weeks ago I stumbled across DocMoriarty's KSP Space Plane Construction and Operation Guide, and have since been using it to help me build spaceplanes with a nearly 100% success rate (the single failure I have had since I started using the guide was my own fault - I attached a canard without having symmetry on, with the expected fiery outcome). Of particular note in the guide is a set of tables that set practical guidelines for things like "maximum take-off weight number of engines", "kN SAS per tonne take-off weight" and so forth.

Now, with 0.25 there's a bunch of new fandangled features, including a bunch of new spaceplane parts. What I'd like to know is how the new parts compare to the old ones. You know, something like "how many Ram Air Intakes equal one Shock Air Intake", or "how many Delta Wings can I replace on my old design with one of the new Swept Back wings", or "are any of the elevon parts actually any better than Small Control Surfaces", that sort of thing. Is there an already existing guide like this that I've simply missed in my searches? Does anybody have any experiences with these parts back when they were still part of the Spaceplane+ mod?

Any help here would be appreciated. Mainly I'm just trying to see if I can simplify some older designs.

[Tw1]

Not quite what you are looking for, but I made an album that compares the shapes of equivalent parts.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Captain Sierra]

The biggest thing you need to know is that all the Mk 2 parts now have integrated lifting body properties. This was one of the core features of SpacePlane Plus that did follow its parts into the base game. Generally you'll find yourself needing less wings than you normally would if you choose to use those parts. It also means that your wings are going to tend to sit farther back (fuselage alone likes to put the CoL in front of the CoM by a not-insignificant amount) to keep the thing balanced.

In case you don't do it already, disable certain axes on the control surfaces to make it act like a real aircraft. The SAS, while still terrible for planes, will be slightly less unhelpful with this type of mapping.

[capi3101]

Just bumping the thread here.

Well...okay, let's go with a different question then - is the Ram Air Intake still the best available intake to use or not, and if not, what would y'all recommend and why?

[sdj64]

The shock cone intake is equal to 1.2 ram air intakes. It does weigh more than twice as much and has more drag since drag is mass-based. The structural intake, like the old radial intake, doesn't seem to work well at high altitude. Four of them are equal to one ram intake. The new mk1 fuselage intake is a little more than half (0.6) of a ram intake. The old radial intake was buffed, it's now 1.5 times as effective as it was before (0.6 ram intakes).

Visually, the new intakes are much better looking than the old ones (in my opinion).

Wings are about the same, new control surfaces are worse than old so you might need more of them. The largest is only slightly higher lift than the old small control surface. There are no new all-moving wings like the old canards. Mk2 fuselages now generate lift, so you'll need fewer wings if you use them.

in terms of performance:

new delta wing = old delta wing

new wing connector = 2x old wing connector

new structural wing = old structural wing

new small wing connectors and structural wings are proportional by their size (1/2 or 1/4 the size, mass, and lift of the large ones)

new swept wings = less lift but same mass as old swept wings, but old are still there

[Pecan]

Anyone tried the nacelle, etc. in 0.25 yet?

[capi3101]

I have tried the Engine Nacelle and Radial Engine Body; as far as I can tell there's been no change with them from 0.24.2 to 0.25.

[numerobis]

Ooh, new intakes!

The new intakes play with the "intakeSpeed" parameter. That, times 60m/s, is a value added to your speed before calculating the airflow -- it's how intakes have airflow at zero speed. The Shock Cone Intake and the Mk1 Fuselage - Intake add 720 m/s to your speed, whereas all the others add 600 m/s. This makes them marginally more effective at all altitudes.

The more important stat is still going to be maximizing area/mass, so ram air intakes still reign supreme.

[Andrew Hansen]

Aww, I was hoping that the shock cone intakes would be better than the RAM intakes - I mean, they look way cooler!

Honestly, I hope they delete and remove the old RAM intakes, since they're just so ugly. They can fix the shock cone intakes' statistics to replace the old RAM intakes.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Aww, I was hoping that the shock cone intakes would be better than the RAM intakes - I mean, they look way cooler!

Honestly, I hope they delete and remove the old RAM intakes, since they're just so ugly. They can fix the shock cone intakes' statistics to replace the old RAM intakes.

I like the ram intakes, especially as the apertures of space telescopes (they look kinda like a telescope's sunshade). In general, I'd prefer not to have parts deleted unless they're outright reskins.

[Tw1]

I think the structural intake is there to replace the radial intake, but I would've like to see one where you can actually see it open and close.

Like one of those cars with pop up headlights:

Le quick paint drawing

[capi3101]

Has anybody figured out a decent use for Circular Intakes yet? Just curious...

The shock cone intake is equal to 1.2 ram air intakes. It does weigh more than twice as much and has more drag since drag is mass-based. The structural intake, like the old radial intake, doesn't seem to work well at high altitude. Four of them are equal to one ram intake. The new mk1 fuselage intake is a little more than half (0.6) of a ram intake. The old radial intake was buffed, it's now 1.5 times as effective as it was before (0.6 ram intakes).

Visually, the new intakes are much better looking than the old ones (in my opinion).

Wings are about the same, new control surfaces are worse than old so you might need more of them. The largest is only slightly higher lift than the old small control surface. There are no new all-moving wings like the old canards. Mk2 fuselages now generate lift, so you'll need fewer wings if you use them.

in terms of performance:

new delta wing = old delta wing

new wing connector = 2x old wing connector

new structural wing = old structural wing

new small wing connectors and structural wings are proportional by their size (1/2 or 1/4 the size, mass, and lift of the large ones)

new swept wings = less lift but same mass as old swept wings, but old are still there

This is the kind of information I was looking for. Thanks.

Kinda disappointed though...it sounds like if I was using eight swept wings in my 0.24.2 designs, I get to look forward to using eight swept wings in 0.25. There's no improvement at all?

The new intakes play with the "intakeSpeed" parameter. That, times 60m/s, is a value added to your speed before calculating the airflow -- it's how intakes have airflow at zero speed. The Shock Cone Intake and the Mk1 Fuselage - Intake add 720 m/s to your speed, whereas all the others add 600 m/s. This makes them marginally more effective at all altitudes.

Do what now?

[mhoram]

The new intakes play with the "intakeSpeed" parameter. That, times 60m/s, is a value added to your speed before calculating the airflow -- it's how intakes have airflow at zero speed. The Shock Cone Intake and the Mk1 Fuselage - Intake add 720 m/s to your speed, whereas all the others add 600 m/s. This makes them marginally more effective at all altitudes.

Did you find out about the intakeSpeed by experimenting or is the air-intake process described somewhere?

[Red Iron Crown]

Has anybody figured out a decent use for Circular Intakes yet? Just curious...

They are much cheaper than any other intake. I've seen them used in challenges where cost is a factor.

[capi3101]

They are much cheaper than any other intake. I've seen them used in challenges where cost is a factor.

And if I read it right they're about 80% as effective as Ram Intakes - so if I have a design that utilizes three Ram Intakes per engine, I could use 4 Circular Intakes instead, is that about right?

[Red Iron Crown]

And if I read it right they're about 80% as effective as Ram Intakes - so if I have a design that utilizes three Ram Intakes per engine, I could use 4 Circular Intakes instead, is that about right?

Not 100% sure, I've never seen a proper calculation for intake air, not even in mhoram's physics paper. I do know that three circular intakes are sufficient for supplying a single turbojet to orbit.

Circular intakes also look better than the rams, in my opinion. The shock cones look better still, but are too heavy/draggy.