Squad Should Re-Balance the Poodle Engine

[Tweeker]

Those two are not contradictory. TWR doesn't need to be above 1 to reach orbit. The higher the rocket is and the faster it flies, the lower TWR it needs for the rest of the ascent

They are contradictory in this case either you are suggesting the poodle needs a TWR of 1.0 or 1.3 in a 10 T rocket, it can't be both.

The lower stage is ridiculously bad in the Mainsail/Skipper rocket. It violates the basic design rule that lower stages should be clearly larger than upper stages, and, assuming a lower average Isp, provide more delta-v.

In the Mainsail/Poodle rocket, the lower stage is almost reasonable, while still having 2 tonnes of useless engine mass. The rocket is also 1 tonne lighter than the Mainsail/Skipper design, while providing 100-150 m/s more delta-v (the exact figure depends on how you estimate the average Isp for the different stages). The difference is more than enough to compensate for the slightly too low TWR after the ignition of the upper stage.

The lower stage is bad because that's what it takes to lift a 2 stage 10T rocket, If you wanted a different configuration you could have have said so, at any point. Instead of wasting days talking about 2 stage designs. It really seems like your moving the goal posts here.

A drop tank is an additional fuel tank that can be dropped without shutting down the engines. The Space Shuttle didn't use a drop tank, because the external fuel tank was the only fuel tank for the main engines.

The KSP fuel lines are unrealistic, because they are massless and have infinite capacity. In real rockets, the kind of fuel flows often seen in KSP rockets could easily tear the rocket apart.

Now your just playing semantics games. The space shuttle's fuel tank is external to the engine, the fuel has to get to the main engine somehow, that's got to be a fuel duct. While I can agree that the fuel duct shouldn't be massless I can't agree with your logic condemning external fuel tanks.

If you want to build a mass-efficient realistically staged rocket for a 10.9-tonne payload, you should use a Poodle with an X200-16 fuel tank in the upper stage, a Skipper with an orange tank in the lower stage, and two strap-on boosters with an LV-T30 engine, an FL-T800 fuel tank, and an FL-T200 fuel tank each. The rocket will provide similar delta-v as the ones we've been talking about, while carrying less fuel and having less engine mass.

And the earlier rocket with 1.25M engines is even lighter, and simpler, as it is a 1 stage + booster design instead of 2+ booster. That's a lot of extra complication to justify having a poodle on the top.

[Tweeker]

Frankly, that's a load of rubbish, it proves nothing other than you had a badly designed rocket before hacking the Poodle to solve the problems in your design. If your design needs twice the thrust of a Poodle before it works, then it should be using a Skipper instead. You're basically complaining that your half-gallon doesn't fit into a pint pot, then demanding that the pint be redefined to be closer to a gallon.

A double Poodle leaves a huge gap in 2.5m rocketry, at the low end. It is also ridiculously close to the Skipper. There is a strong need for a low power 2.5m engine, and no need for a second medium power 2.5m engine. Stop using the Poodle for stuff that should be using the Skipper.

The design in this case is specified by Jouni to be the "optimum" for a poodle.

Because we're working with a fixed set of engines in KSP, two-stage rockets are only efficient for limited payload ranges. A Skipper/Poodle rocket is only good for 6-7-tonne payloads, while a Mainsail/Skipper rocket is efficient at around 15 tonnes.

Which is why the rocket had a poodle in it in the 1st place. If it was me I wouldn't use the Poodle at all. It has far too little thrust for anything except circularizing an upper stage that has already been set into orbit, or orbital transfer. In the orbital transfer field it has too much weight. It's low thrust in relation to the Mainsail, ~1/8, spreads the 2.5M engines out over too wide of a range. I don't see anyone clamoring for a similarly sized engine in the 1.25m range, 25 thrust.

[sedativechunk]

I personally don't think anything is really wrong with the poodle engine. I think it's fairly balanced and has it's uses. I personally used it on my last Tylo lander design on the expendable engines stage. It's a good engine. Also used it on a sky crane ones to drop a rover on Moho. Cool engine, fun uses.

[Jouni]

They are contradictory in this case either you are suggesting the poodle needs a TWR of 1.0 or 1.3 in a 10 T rocket, it can't be both.

Now I don't understand what you're talking about.

The TWR required for the upper stage of a launch vehicle depends on when the upper stage is ignited, which in turn depends on how much work the lower stages do.

The lower stage is bad because that's what it takes to lift a 2 stage 10T rocket, If you wanted a different configuration you could have have said so, at any point. Instead of wasting days talking about 2 stage designs. It really seems like your moving the goal posts here.

And if you reread the discussion, you'll see that I've been talking about two-stage rockets that can increase their payload capacity with strap-on boosters all the time. That's the right way to build realistically staged rockets in KSP, because we can't scale engines arbitrarily. The same approach is also used in the real world, because designing new engines is expensive.

Now your just playing semantics games. The space shuttle's fuel tank is external to the engine, the fuel has to get to the main engine somehow, that's got to be a fuel duct. While I can agree that the fuel duct shouldn't be massless I can't agree with your logic condemning external fuel tanks.

The difference is functional, not semantic. Drop tanks are means to shed unnecessary dry mass, while continuing to use the same engines. This improvess the mass ratio of the remaining rocket, and increases the delta-v available. If you drop the fuel tank only after you've stopped to use the engines, it's not a drop tank, because its function is different.

Real-world terminology is a bit different, because many of the staging methods we use in KSP are not feasible there.

And the earlier rocket with 1.25M engines is even lighter, and simpler, as it is a 1 stage + booster design instead of 2+ booster. That's a lot of extra complication to justify having a poodle on the top.

That rocket was meant for 10-tonne payloads, while we're talking about 10.9-tonne payloads that your original 3-stage rocket carried. If we increase the payload by 9%, the rocket can't reach orbit reliably anymore. Besides, it's a two-stage rocket, not an 1.5-stage rocket. If you ignite the central engine at the same time as the outer engines, the rocket has far too little delta-v to reach orbit.

[Tweeker]

Now I don't understand what you're talking about.

The TWR required for the upper stage of a launch vehicle depends on when the upper stage is ignited, which in turn depends on how much work the lower stages do.

That's very true, but for an optimal rocket your trying to give the upper stage a certain TWR, you've thrown both number out as the target for this rocket, it can't be both 1.0 and 1.3 which is the target number?

And if you reread the discussion, you'll see that I've been talking about two-stage rockets that can increase their payload capacity with strap-on boosters all the time. That's the right way to build realistically staged rockets in KSP, because we can't scale engines arbitrarily. The same approach is also used in the real world, because designing new engines is expensive.

If that is what you wanted to build you should have said so 4 or 5 days ago, rather than wasting all this time talking about other designs.

The difference is functional, not semantic. Drop tanks are means to shed unnecessary dry mass, while continuing to use the same engines. This improvess the mass ratio of the remaining rocket, and increases the delta-v available. If you drop the fuel tank only after you've stopped to use the engines, it's not a drop tank, because its function is different.

Real-world terminology is a bit different, because many of the staging methods we use in KSP are not feasible there.

If you do some digging you'll find out that not only the space shuttle, but also Falcon X crossfeed fuel between stages, so It's kind of hard to say that it is unrealistic, or not feasible.

[Jouni]

That's very true, but for an optimal rocket your trying to give the upper stage a certain TWR, you've thrown both number out as the target for this rocket, it can't be both 1.0 and 1.3 which is the target number?

1.3 is close to the optimal upper stage TWR for a two-stage Skipper/Poodle rocket. 2.5-stage rockets are more efficient and and more flexible than two-staged ones, and with them, the optimal upper stage usually has a TWR close to 1.0 with stock aerodynamics.

If you do some digging you'll find out that not only the space shuttle, but also Falcon X crossfeed fuel between stages, so It's kind of hard to say that it is unrealistic, or not feasible.

The Falcon Heavy with fuel crossfeed is a hypothetical design that has never flown. Nobody knows if it's going to work reliably. The Space Shuttle didn't use fuel crossfeed, because crossfeed by definition means that the engines can use fuel from multiple sources.

[EdFred]

I like the Poodle, and have used it for:

Upper/Mun-Minmus transfer stage

Transfer stage to Duna

Lander engine for an Mk2 lander

Injector engines at Moho

Yes, I could use 48-7S or LV-909 cluseter for better dV on the transfer stages, but the problem is those two engines don't fit nicely inline with 2.5m parts. I have gravitated toward 2.5m parts recently, and the Poodle fits the bill better than the others. The 0.625m and 1.25m engines don't have engine shrouds that go between 2.5m tanks well, the double/tri/quad adapters don't stack on top of a Mainsail/Skipper lifter, or you have to install 2/3/4 decouplers, flip another double/tri/quad adapter, and then another decoupler, then then the 2.5 stage. That doesn't work for me. But, Ed, you you just put radial 48-7S or LV-909 engines on your 2.5m stack! No, just no. Engines hanging off the sides not directly attached to a fuel tank just do not look right at all.

I also don't like installing lander cans upside down on my stages, and as mentioned I don't like the naked radial engine, so that also leaves out what would be the "perfect" engine for what I want to do most times - the aerospike. So, enter the Poodle. I can stack it seamlessly, and it fits perfectly on the bottom of a RockoMax -8 tank for a lander. I almost always use the heavy duty landing legs, and those have the right length to clear the Poodle's profile. However, the lander can end up being too tall, and I do often go with radial 1.25 fuel tanks and engines on the Mk2. Wider is better on a lander.

My best use of the Poodle ended up being injection burn at Moho. While clustered LV-N's would have worked, they were, well, clustered, and fell into the issue mentioned above with the LV-909 and the 48-7S clustered engines. The Poodle provided the right amount of thrust and dV to inject at Moho. No other engine would have worked and kept the look I wanted.

I don't think the Poodle needs to be changed at all other than maybe a slight weight reduction, to increase the dV and give it a better niche. However, I think what is needed is a low profile (even more so than the Poodle) 2.5m 120-150kN engine with ~400 ISP, that is able to have a decoupler put on it.

[Tweeker]

I don't think the Poodle needs to be changed at all other than maybe a slight weight reduction, to increase the dV and give it a better niche. However, I think what is needed is a low profile (even more so than the Poodle) 2.5m 120-150kN engine with ~400 ISP, that is able to have a decoupler put on it.

That change would work equally well to give the poodle a nice of it's own. I'm not pushing for any one specific change. just saying that the poodle definitely needs something.

[John FX]

It needs a big exhaust cone like the one on the Apollo command module...

[panzer1b]

The poodle and the lvl-909 are both useless in my book. The little extra vacuum LSP over higher t/w engines isn't worth their extra weight. I much prefer the rockomax 48-7s in landers due to its phenomenal t/w which generally gives it more dV despite having lower lsp. And then there's the weightless mono propellant engines and the overpowered KR-2l.. the engines are just way out of balance in general.

I agree with you, except i sometimes use the 909 on mid-range landers. The 48-7s, while crappy isp, makes for a surprisingly powerful and efficient enough lander engine. And the KR-2L is just insane right now, since it has ALMOST the same isp of the 909/poodle, and has insane thrust for its ISP.

Right now in my opinion, the only viable engines in 90% of the time are:

both jets (obviously noone is gonna use rockets in atmo for a plane)

rapier (situational but on small SSTOs its actually better then a jet/rocket combination, better isp then a 48-7s in space, and access to jet mode, so superior to a turbojet/48-7s in most builds ive used)

nuke (800 isp, the go-to engine for any and all deep-space stuff)

monoprop engines (if you use stock physicsless version, its so cheap i modded out the ignore physics flag)

KR-2L (380 isp with 1500 thrust, the go-to engine for everything thats over 100 tons, such as my capital ships/super massive carriers ect)

KS-25x4 (good atmo isp, great thrust-weight, very high thrust, not the best engine out there, but probably the best pure heavy lifter when u wanna cut down on part numbers)

All other engines have their used, but are extremely situational, and outside of some very specialized builds, make little sense to even go near. 909s are sometimes used as a lander engine, but yeah, the 48-7s is usually a better choice in terms of thrust-weight (and the effective dV is usually on par when we are talking about anything but a massive lander, where even 909s are too weak to cut it)

Engine balance is a lot better than it used to be. There are five engines I can't find good use for, and for two of them it's only because of my design preferences:

• The LV-1 and the LV-1R are just too small for my taste.
  
• The Mark 55 is too inefficient to be used as a main engine, too weak for a booster engine, and too large for a lander engine or an orbital maneuvering engine.
  
• The LV-909 is useful in the early career mode, but the 48-7S replaces it in most uses almost immediately. Aesthetic preferences are pretty much the only reason to favor the LV-909 over the 48-7S, as the former fits better in an 1.25 m stack.
  
• The RT-10 is just too small and short-lived for anything but silly contraptions.
  

The rest of the engines are quite useful for one purpose or another. Here are my typical uses for them:

• The O-10 and the 24-77 are my standard orbital maneuvering engines. Sometimes I use them in landers as well. As small radial engines, it's easy to place them almost anywhere, and they're also quite powerful.
  
• The 48-7S is small, powerful, and quite efficient. It's the engine of choice for small landers, if ease of use is more important than maximal efficiency. Its main drawback is that it's a small inline engine: using more than one of them usually requires ugly hacks that unnecessarily increase the part count.
  
• The LV-T30 and the LV-T45 are general-purpose engines. I mostly use them in small launchers, with an LV-T45 in the lower stage and LV-T30s in the boosters. Their shape is a bit unwieldy for using them in space.
  
• The Aerospike is the right engine for one-kerbal Eve landers. It could be useful as a vacuum engine, but because there is no attachment node in the bottom, you usually need at least two of them, and you rarely need that much thrust in vacuum.
  
• The LV-N is the ultimate vacuum engine for large payloads and/or high delta-v requirements. Its much more efficient than any other engine using LF/O, and the TWR is high enough for landing on most bodies. The shape of the engine is very unwieldy, however, so you'll almost always need at least two of them.
  
• The Poodle is a good upper stage engine for a large range of common payloads. It's also useful as a transfer stage engine to Mun and Minmus, as well as for giving the initial boost for interplanetary transfers from low orbits. I don't use it in landers, because nuclear engines are almost always a better choice, if you need that much thrust.
  
• The Skipper is another general-purpose engine. I use it in the lower stages of small rockets, in the upper stages of larger rockets, and sometimes also for giving the initial boost for interplanetary transfers.
  
• The Mainsail has become a niche engine. I sometimes use it as a booster engine in medium rockets, where the higher thrust of the LFB is not as important as the higher Isp of the Mainsail. It might be a good engine for large Eve landers.
  
• The LFB is obviously a booster engine for uses, where raw power is more important than efficiency. As the 3.75 m engines are all too weak, I often use LFBs to allow these big rockets lift off with a useful amount of fuel.
  
• The KR-2L is yet another general-purpose engine that can be used when the Skipper becomes too weak.
  
• The KS-25x4 is the most powerful stock engine there is. It's useful for the lower stages and the boosters of large rockets.
  
• The two larger SRBs are obviously useful as boosters. In smaller rockets, I often adjust their thrust down to avoid the TWR dropping too low when the boosters burn out. In larger rockets, a bunch of SRBs can be useful for increasing the initial TWR a bit.
  
• The PB-ION is hard to use properly. It's very efficient, and even the TWR is high enough for landing on the Mun. With larger xenon containers, the ion engine would replace nuclear engines in transfer stages, but now its mostly useful for small ships.
  

Then there are the airbreathing engines. I don't use them, because they feel silly.

Ions are a great engine, but im not THAT patient, and i very rarely fly stuff thats actually light enough to even bother with xenon engines/tanks. Most of my builds average from 10-50 tons, and at that size, ions are impractical and can very well be useless since they actually dont allow you to make a efficient burn in one pass (the shorter you burn near PE, the more dV you get from it in practice). Nice for the micro-craft/probe community, but for anyone who likes to have 20 tons of ship, stick to nukes.

As for LV-N shape, i fix that issue by clipping it inside a fuel tank or something, leaving only a small portion exposed. Yes there is a subset of the community that calls tyhis cheating, but sicne i dont touch the alt-f12 menu, and teh game lets me do it (+ it looks nicer in my opinion), i dont see a reason not to do this.

i strongly disagree on RT-10 usefulness, it is byfar the most lethal anti-ship torpedo (that doesnt require elaborate systems) in the entire stock game. So if you are into shooting people in MP, those things are just insane, theyll instawipe anything they hit (velocity and mass combined). But about ship boosting, true, thrust is crap, and its so small (+ extremely notorious for overheating is stacked). Its useable extremely early in career, but yeah, the bacc is so much better.

LV-1 are junk, outside of costs, if its so light these things are useable, the ion is way better (and has great isp), and for stuff that requires multiple of them, just grab a single 48-7s, lighter, fewer parts, exponentially better thrust/isp.

jets are useful on planes. If you build rockets, i agree, jets dont really have much of a place there (some use them as makeshift boosters at low altitudes, but i didnt find teh complexity of intake setup ect worth the bother unless its an actual atmospheric aircraft)

poodle is personally one of the more pointless engines, if you are able to lift it, the 909/48-7s is way lighter and more practical, if its so heavy you need the poodle to move it, nuke gives you way better dV, and if its super heavy, the skipper is probably a better choice

mark55 is pointless, crap ISP, extremely heavy, meh thrust (heck the bloody mega fuel hungry rapier is better then the thing in every category except mass (and .3 isnt a big deal here)

mainsail after the nasa engines were added become obsolete, if you need a ton of thrust, makes more sense to make a booster stage with the nasa engines (either the advanced OPness engine, or the quad cluster), have some uses, but outside of people so impatient then need to burn very very fast with 2.5 rockets, a cluster of 2-4 nukes makes way more sense (or 1 if you are patient)

aerospike is decent, it has great atmo-preformance when you cant use the usual jets. Great on eve, but its mass is a little high for anything but atmospheric usage (a 909 is way better in space, or a nuke for large stuff)

Anyways, the poodle makes no sense, it falls into the extremely situational engine category, and outside of people who like its appearance, there is little reason to use it in anything. Personally i could care less for its looks (im more of a sci-fi fan, so in terms of aesthetics, i prefer some of the sleeker mod engines). Its just subpar in almost every category. Lander engines are almost always 48-7s or radials, with some 909s. Skipper beats it for stuff that actually needs that much thrust. There are far better circularization/transfer engines (nuke has better isp, and or circularizing/transfers the low thrust of nuke is meaningless). I just cant find any category that it isnt outpreformed by at least one other engine. If it got a ISP buff or a mass buff id say itd be useful, but right now it is truly meh. Perhaps 490 isp, or 1.5 mass?

I don't think the problem is the Poodle's numbers (Mass, ISP, TWR). I think the Poodle's numbers are great for an upper-stage engine, and I use it frequently for orbital maneuvers with medium sized payloads.

The problem is that players are calling for re-balances and stating the engine is "really useless" because it doesn't fit their play-style. The engines don't need to adhere to some formula. There are a hundred "right" ways to play the game, so if an engine doesn't work for you, don't use it. But that doesn't constitute justification for a re-balance, especially since so many other players use the engine successfully in the their play-styles.

Now, this isn't an argument that "balance is useless" or "balance is impossible" or some other reductio ad absurdum argument. It's incredibly important, but it's one of the hardest parts of a game to get right because of the variety of play-styles and strategies that have to be taken into account. There was an engine re-balance back in 0.24 that really improved the game IMO, because things were seriously out of whack with a bunch of new engines. Not just one.

i agree that there are always people who will be using it from personal preference, but id say in terms of raw STATS it is outpreformed by at least 1 other engine in every role i can think you would even use it in.

[Jouni]

Right now in my opinion, the only viable engines in 90% of the time are:

This is probably because you're placing artificial restrictions on what you build. Try doing something different, and see whether your opinions change. Build spaceplanes, SSTO rockets, jet-boosted rockets, and staged rockets. Build pancakes and aerodynamic rockets. Try rockets with multiple parallel stacks. Use vertical staging, solid boosters, liquid boosters, onion staging, and asparagus staging. Build smaller or bigger than you usually do, or try launching the intermediate payloads that you usually ignore.

As for LV-N shape, i fix that issue by clipping it inside a fuel tank or something, leaving only a small portion exposed. Yes there is a subset of the community that calls tyhis cheating, but sicne i dont touch the alt-f12 menu, and teh game lets me do it (+ it looks nicer in my opinion), i dont see a reason not to do this.

It's borderline cheating, because you're going against the intent of the rules, while following the letter of the rules. Of course, it's a single-player non-competitive game, so you're the only one who cares whether you cheat or not.

jets are useful on planes. If you build rockets, i agree, jets dont really have much of a place there (some use them as makeshift boosters at low altitudes, but i didnt find teh complexity of intake setup ect worth the bother unless its an actual atmospheric aircraft)

Jet engines can be very useful in small-to-medium rockets. In a properly designed jet-boosted rocket, over 70% of the launch mass can be payload. With four turbojets in the first stage and two 48-7S engines in the second stage, you can launch up to 32 tonnes of payload to orbit. Obviously this all depends on the fact that all airbreathing engines in KSP are broken by design in every conceivable way, and they feel more like Star Wars technology than jet engines.

mainsail after the nasa engines were added become obsolete, if you need a ton of thrust, makes more sense to make a booster stage with the nasa engines (either the advanced OPness engine, or the quad cluster), have some uses, but outside of people so impatient then need to burn very very fast with 2.5 rockets, a cluster of 2-4 nukes makes way more sense (or 1 if you are patient)

Mainsail became obsolete in 0.23.5, but the rebalancing in 0.24 made it useful again. It's less powerful but more efficient than the LFB, making it more useful as a lower stage/sustainer engine, while the LFB is better as a booster engine. It could also be useful in large Eve landers due to its convenient size, high TWR, and relatively high atmospheric Isp.

[DuoDex]

IMO the rocket engines are pretty well balanced. Jet engines and aerodynamics, on the other hand...well, let's just say I've circumnavigated Kerbin with about 500 m/s of dV

[Laie]

I agree with you, except i sometimes use the 909 on mid-range landers. The 48-7s, while crappy isp, makes for a surprisingly powerful and efficient enough lander engine. And the KR-2L is just insane right now, since it has ALMOST the same isp of the 909/poodle, and has insane thrust for its ISP.

Allow me to just quote myself:

Also, the KR-2L having an "amazing" ISP is mostly psychological. It's sitting squat in the middle between the skipper and the poodle, yet somehow we insist to see it as "almost as good as the poodle" rather than as "an improvement over the skipper". Also bear in mind that it's atmospheric ISP is considerably worse than the Skipper's.

The other problem is TWR. We've come to expect that when the ISP goes 370->390 (a whopping 5% improvement), the TWR has to drop by like 30-40%. This already poses the problem that the good-ISP engines are sitting in a tight niche: you need to run them for like 2500m/s of delta-v until they make up for their extra weight. For that kind of delta-v, the LVN will be better still. Also see the other threads about perking the Poodle and nerfing the LVN that are currently active. The KR-2L is breaking that pattern of good ISP coming with bad TWR, and frankly, I think that's a good idea.

(emphasis added)

[SpacedCowboy]

In particular situations, the "Poodle" can prove to be pretty handy. Many factors come into play; ,,, too numerous to mention. Going slightly off topic here but,If the "Spike", engine were to be stage and stackable, it would greatly affect the usability of the "Poodle", in a good way.

[panzer1b]

This is probably because you're placing artificial restrictions on what you build. Try doing something different, and see whether your opinions change. Build spaceplanes, SSTO rockets, jet-boosted rockets, and staged rockets. Build pancakes and aerodynamic rockets. Try rockets with multiple parallel stacks. Use vertical staging, solid boosters, liquid boosters, onion staging, and asparagus staging. Build smaller or bigger than you usually do, or try launching the intermediate payloads that you usually ignore.

It's borderline cheating, because you're going against the intent of the rules, while following the letter of the rules. Of course, it's a single-player non-competitive game, so you're the only one who cares whether you cheat or not.

1st point: my argument was from an efficiency standpoint. I do not so called "limit myself" to a specific playstyle, i use a wide variety of engines and designs, heck i pretty much have built at least one design using every type of engine. But i will say that many of them are simply bad in terms of efficiency and what you can pull off with them is again, limited because the engines are just a bad choice in general. Heck, i have a few rockets that use the poodle for the lander, but i could have created a higher efficiency design had i chosen to say swap the poodle for a cluster of 48-7s or 1-2 909s. It really boils down to personal preference, are you willing to sacrifice some or even alot of performance to make a rocket appear realistic or in a certain shape or whatever you feel looks better. The poodle is an engine that is not very useful for performance in the majority of cases. Yes its useful, but its primary use is right now either cutting down part counts by making a slightly less efficient setup then multiple smaller engines. Or well, making a rocket look believable in terms of real life (stacking lots of tiny engines isnt exactly as good looking.

2nd point: since im a primarily "aesthetic" craft designer (mostly focused on SSTOs but also make rockets, stations, vehicles, whatnot), i will often end up using what i feel looks better. This is also why i clip parts, i just do not like the way certain things look on cerain craft. Say radial batteries, yes technically placing them internally isnt what teh game intended you to do, but if it makes my craft look better i will do this. Same with say a stack of intakes, or whatever else i prefer to not be visible. Im also a fan of "compact" designs, many of which are simply IMPOSSIBLE to create without minor clipping here and there. If the game ever goes MP and the game designers decide clipping is game breaking, then i guess ill retire my array of cool looking sci-fi/real life stuff, but even still, being a SANDBOX GAME, i see no reason why clipping should matter or be considered a cheat (as there is no advantages to be gained or lost with clipping aside from possibly ruining the appearance). Anyways, i have some friends who are against clipping, and others that use it alot especially with so called minimalist compact builds. I fall into the group that considers clipping a legit building style, and unless Squad OFFICIALLY says that clipping is against the game's design (and or adds procedural parts so we can make whatever shape wings we want without clipping 2 into each other to get desired shape), i dont think im gonna change my ways. Also, i consider cheats things like inf fuel, no crash damage, Hedit, to a certain extent mechjeb, but the last 2 have other uses like cutting down on tedious stuff that you have already dome 10 times in a row (why go through the exact same procedure of get in orbit, transfer, and then get in orbit around x, when for example you have 10 identical modules each with their with their own rocket launch system, i like to launch maybee 2-3 of em 100% manual, rest ill use MJ to automate it, and go grab a coffee).

[Jouni]

1st point: my argument was from an efficiency standpoint.

What do you mean by efficiency? Maximizing payload fractions? Minimizing costs? Do you consider costs with or without recovery? Do you use the ridiculous costs in the stock game, or are you using something more reasonable (such as making engines and staging events really expensive)? Do you use the unrealistically powerful/efficient parts, such as jet engines, ion engines, and interstage fuel lines? Do you refuel and reuse the ships already in orbit, or do you consider them expendable? Try using a different definition for efficiency, and see how it changes the usefulness of different engines.

Heck, i have a few rockets that use the poodle for the lander, but i could have created a higher efficiency design had i chosen to say swap the poodle for a cluster of 48-7s or 1-2 909s.

If you can replace the Poodle with 1-2 LV-909s, the ship is too small for the Poodle. On the other hand, if you replace 4 LV-909s with a Poodle, you get some extra thrust for the same mass.

[cadaverific]

If I may, I would like to inject my 2 cents into this debate. It's an opinion i have yet to see stated. My perspective comes from playing the game with custom/hard options (i personally run 50% rewards and 200% penalties). There are 2 problems i can see with the poodle right now and both are related to its position on the tech tree relative to other engines.

NOTE: I'm not going to argue about efficiency overall, just about the specific point you can obtain and use the poodle. I'm not going to beat a dead horse here, the poodle is a niche engine that is easily overtaken.

First off I believe the the poodle engine is more balanced towards the point in the tech tree that you unlock it. Normally, as you gentlemen have stated, the 909 is the clear early choice for small landers to get that early science going. However, most often after you unlock the 909 you are able to rocket (no pun intended) up to using the more advanced engines (aka nerva and to some degree the 48-7s but ill get to that later) and skip the poodles usable stage all at once. Ignoring that fact, at the time you unlock the poodle it is the best engine for its designated task (landing and orbital maneuvering) so I wouldn't say theres much to argue with that. But on the flip side you could argue that the 48-7s is in the same tech level, however i would not yet have access to cubic struts or the ability to make a decent stack using them(sometimes its easier and cheaper to just slap on 1 poodle instead of attaching 48's without cubics). In my careers the poodle has the ability to be the first engine i can use to go interplanetary and as an overall good vacuum engine with a decent isp and a good twr to keep the burns short. This leads up to my second problem i can see: it is placed on the same level as the 48-7s

So I've already said that the poodle is good for it's position, but at the same time it has a serious competitor in the 48-7s. Don't worry I won't get too much into the tech tree or it's balance as I believe it is still very much a work in progress(I personally think some of the nodes are too crowded/too empty/too easy). As soon as the poodle is available you already have a better option available, so what is the point in getting it? As stated by many before me: the twr of the 48-7s is just too good to be passed up. Why waste the sci points on the poodle and co. when you can make much greater progress with the 48-7s(aka fuel systems), and then get heavy rocketry just to have the larger tanks for convenience?

It would seem to me that the devs have a direction for where the poodle should be used, however it will only ever end up being used by those running the harder difficulties unless it is given greater time to function before it is beaten. The best buff you could give the poodle is to move the 48-7s and the nuke further up the tech tree to make the poodle more viable in the mid-game.

TL;DR~ The poodle is the best choice for a veeerrrry brief period of time before it is eclipsed, and with the 48-7s available on the same tech level why not get that instead?

~~forgive and bad sentences and structure, its late:sticktongue:~~~

Edited December 9, 2014 by cadaverific

[rkman]

If you can replace the Poodle with 1-2 LV-909s, the ship is too small for the Poodle. On the other hand, if you replace 4 LV-909s with a Poodle, you get some extra thrust for the same mass.

~10% more thrust, same dV (Poodle's high ISP is off-set by its high mass), at the expense of a taller engine profile. The 909 configuration might be preferable for landers.

If anything, the Poodle's niche is very small.

It would be the go-to engine for interplanetary if the LV-N would not beat it hands-down.

[Scoundrel]

If I may so humbly add my worthless 2 cents:

Firstly, there's no point comparing the poodle to the LV-N, especially since the LV-N is going to undergo some rebalancing when it switches from LFO to LF. It was supposed to be corrected when tweakables came out, but I guess someone forgot.

Secondly, Squad is going to start to go over all the parts post 0.90* as they shift their focus towards content. The devs are well aware that stuff needs a good going over and rebalancing, but they won't do that until they've got the essential parts in the game and get community feedback.

Finally, in terms of engines, the poodle offers convenience in terms of setup for landers, which in turn can offer some surprising efficiencies outside of pure performance statistics if one looks at a lander as a whole, and the amount of mass saved working around taller engines. That said, I mostly never use poodles because they suck.

Go rapiers!

*FYI this is an opinion derived from several of HarvesteR's posts on the various sites he frequents rather than an official statement, therefore my post here shouldn't be construed as such. Also, fine print

[ddenis]

LV-1 are junk, outside of costs, if its so light these things are useable, the ion is way better (and has great isp), and for stuff that requires multiple of them, just grab a single 48-7s, lighter, fewer parts, exponentially better thrust/isp.

LV-1 is ideal for FinePrint and it's contracts which are going to be in stock Soon. They are useful for small satellites with: antenna, probe, few solar panels and engine with the Oscar-B. It's enough to fulfill most contracts with "launching satellites" for it's final correction of it's orbit. ion is to expensive for it and too far in the tech tree, other engines are too overpowered for such contracts. I use it with BoxSat

Edited December 11, 2014 by ddenis

[Wanderfound]

LV-1 are ideal for FinePrint and it's contracts which are going to be in stock Soon. They are useful for small satellites with: antenna, probe, few solar panels and engine with the Oscar-B. It's enough to fulfill most contracts with "launching satellites" for it's final correction of it's orbit. ion is to expensive for it and too far in the tech tree, other engines are too overpowered for such contracts. I use it with BoxSat

Most of my Fine Print satellites have actually been RCS powered lately. Plenty of TWR available without the need for pricey liquid fuel engines:

[icecreamberni]

I think the Poodle engine is nice. I often use it for my landers and for small transfer burn. The only thing needed is a bit higher ISP.