What engine do you guys consider to be over powered and game breaking?

[ScytheElement]

i was looking at what engine i can use on my craft and this question came to mind. what are your thoughts on the engines in the game at the moment?

[iFlyAllTheTime]

48-7S

*ducks for cover*

Edit: Not necessarily game breaking for me. I'll limit myself to use it on certain missions so that all my craft don't end up with this overachiever.

Edited February 1, 2015 by iFlyAllTheTime

[Lhathron the Elf]

I actually usually don't use the big engines (from Kerbodyne), but I sometimes use Rockomax. I think the Kerbodyne engines are a little too overpowered, and I usually don't use them for regular things (e.g. space stations). I might use them for interplanetary rockets, but usually I just stick to Skippers or Mainsails as the biggest engines I use.

[NecroBones]

Yeah, the 48-7S is a little ridiculous. It's often my main workhorse engine for landers, or a combination of those and LV-909s.

I don't have a problem with the Kerbodyne engines. At 3.75m, I see those more as lifter engines than interplanetary, though I've used the KR-2L for moving heavy landers (for Eve, for instance).

I just wish the Kerbodyne cluster engines had larger engine bells, since it feels a little odd that the highest-thrust engines in the game look almost like they're just groups of LV-T45s.

[ScytheElement]

Yeah i like to stick with Lv-T30'S i tend to use the command pod Mk1 alot

Edit: or the rockomax for big missions.

[Pthigrivi]

Can we look at the obvious though? It's the LV-N. I use it for literally everything outside the atmospheres of Kerbin, Eve, and Laythe. It's totally necessary, and I would by no means nerf the ISP because it makes the game playable, but it needs both bigger drawbacks and closer competitors so there is some decision making required besides "how many LV-Ns do I strap to this thing?". I think it should cost more and overheat nearly instantly after coming into contact with the thinnest atmosphere. I also would love a 2.5m variant that has slightly better ISP, but lower TWR and weighs close to 10t, making it great for big payload transfers but terrible for landers. Another larger electric engine could be great too, for instance a 1.25m VASMIR that runs on xenon for large solar sailers.

[Jovus]

I'm confused. In my install, the 48-7S has a lower vacuum ISP than the LV-909. Is this a change in 0.90 that others haven't noticed, or is one of my mods messing with my engines? (I don't have any that should be.)

[EdFred]

I'm confused. In my install, the 48-7S has a lower vacuum ISP than the LV-909. Is this a change in 0.90 that others haven't noticed, or is one of my mods messing with my engines? (I don't have any that should be.)

It's been that way for a long time. But because if its low mass, the dV on it outshines the LV-909.

[tater]

Nerva Isp in game is already low in atmosphere, and about right for vacuum.

The test nerva (a friend's dad actually worked on it here in los alamos (tested in nevada at the test site)), and they ran it 28 minutes at full power, (and around couple hours total). Not many in-atmosphere burns in KSP that exceed 28 minutes are possible, lol.

Nukes should be used for everything in open space, frankly. That was NASA's plan in the 60s

On topic, aren't the jets simply absurd?

Edited February 1, 2015 by tater

[UmbralRaptor]

Turbojet/RAPIER - Airbreathing engines need a major rework.

48-7S - It's a direct upgrade from the LV-909 in most cases, and the cost mechanic is the main thing keeping it from being an upgrade to the LV-T30. Plus the way it obsoleted the 24-77 has never been well addressed...

Technically the KR-2L (and KS-25x4), but we appear to be wandering towards buffing engines to that level of performance. I'd still like to see the KR-2L and KS-25x4 be significantly higher thrust than their size 2 counterparts, but with more modest TWR/Isp advantages.

edit:

[the LV-N is] totally necessary, and I would by no means nerf the ISP because it makes the game playable

...no.

but it needs both bigger drawbacks and closer competitors so there is some decision making required besides "how many LV-Ns do I strap to this thing?"

Have you tried building smaller? The awkward layouts of landers are already a somewhat hidden drawback.

I also would love a 2.5m variantt

Likewise. I'm slightly sad that the KSPX LV-NB wasn't made stock.

Another larger electric engine could be great too, for instance a 1.25m VASMIR that runs on xenon for large solar sailers.

A size 1 ion engine would be interesting, but keep in mind that the current one already has VASIMIR level (if not higher) Isp, and several orders of magnitude better TWR. I would mainly like to see electricity consumption and solar panel electricity consumption scaled to make designs more convenient. Edited February 1, 2015 by UmbralRaptor
response

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah tater its not about realism, its about gameplay. Having 1 engine that does everything from upper stage launchers to jool transfers to duna landings is crazy boring. Like I said its not about an ISP nerf, its about needing to make choices above 30k.

[SaturnV]

48-7S and NASA ones

KR-2L is Extra large but only 8.3% heavier than Mainsail (6.5t), result in the highest TWR in the whole game: 39.2, which is 53.7% higher than Mainsail

And 2500kN trust which is 66.7% higher than Mainsail

And 380 Isp, 5% higher than Mainsail

I suppose these means KR-2L is more than bigger, it's 1.537*1.667*1.05=2.7 times more powerful (and more efficient) than the former best engine.

So technically KR-2L beat Mainsail in every way except the price.

I know the price is balanced but rocket since is not something you can buy X thrust with 3X dollars.

[Jouni]

Turbojets and Rapiers are broken in every conceivable way. The differences between them and rocket engines (and what jet engines should be) are so huge that they make any other differences in engine stats negligible.

If we ignore the engines that are obviously broken, ion engines are a bit silly, because they're quite good as lander engines. The lack of bigger xenon tanks balances them by making them less useful for bigger stuff.

Otherwise engine balance is starting to look quite good. Most engines have a niche where they are the natural choice. The 48-7S should be nerfed to a similar level of performance as the 24-77, but apart from that, I'm content with the current stats.

With better aerodynamics, engine size is probably going to matter a lot more than it currently does in the stock game. If you can lift something with either a 2.5 m rocket or a 3.75 m rocket, you build a 2.5 m rocket, because it will have less drag. The KR-2L and the KS-25x4 only become better than the Mainsail, if the payload is large enough that the 2.5 m rocket would need too many side boosters.

[EdFred]

Yeah tater its not about realism, its about gameplay. Having 1 engine that does everything from upper stage launchers to jool transfers to duna landings is crazy boring. Like I said its not about an ISP nerf, its about needing to make choices above 30k.

I only try and use the nukes AFTER the ejection burn from Kerbin, or maybe the last 20% of the ejection burn. Why? Because when trying to go to Moho from an 80km orbit with just LV-Ns, you end up back in the atmoshpere, and I've even gone low enough to crash while attempting to do so. I use more than one engine pretty much all the time above 30km.

- - - Updated - - -

48-7S and NASA ones

KR-2L is Extra large but only 8.3% heavier than Mainsail (6.5t), result in the highest TWR in the whole game: 39.2, which is 53.7% higher than Mainsail

And 2500kN trust which is 66.7% higher than Mainsail

And 380 Isp, 5% higher than Mainsail

I suppose these means KR-2L is more than bigger, it's 1.537*1.667*1.05=2.7 times more powerful (and more efficient) than the former best engine.

So technically KR-2L beat Mainsail in every way except the price.

I know the price is balanced but rocket since is not something you can buy X thrust with 3X dollars.

And I look at it as new technology.

Take car engines today for example. We are getting better mileage, better power, better everything out of the same displacement as we did in the 80s, 70s, 60s, etc. And when you go with an aluminum block, like in my car, they are even lighter.

[GoSlash27]

#1 culprit is the turbojet. An engine that good is completely ridiculous and breaks the game to the point that it makes no sense to use anything else.

It's so good, in fact, that no real life analogue exists for it. I'd just as soon remove it from the game completely. A basic jet is a fairly good representation of an actual high performance jet engine.

#2 would be the Rapier. If I didn't have access to the turbojet, I'd use Rapiers for everything. Reducing the thrust to about 50kN should do it.

#3 the 48-7S. It's too cheap, too efficient, and too powerful. It renders almost every other rocket useless. It's supposed to be getting a vicious beating with a nerf bat, so that's a plus.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited February 1, 2015 by GoSlash27

[Jodo42]

I personally don't use turbojets/RAPIERs much, but they're both obviously broken with the current atmo & IntakeAir model.

Otherwise, same boat as everyone else. 48-7s, KR-2L. I don't see a big problem with the engine cluster or the tank+engine though, since their size/shape/attachment nodes make them hard to work with in situations they weren't designed to be used in.

Nukes are largely balanced by their long burn times. Many players simply don't have the patience for them, and anything you can do with nukes, save some rather extreme missions (Jool 5, Grand Tour come to mind) can be done for only a bit larger with conventional engines with shorter burn times.

[GoSlash27]

And I look at it as new technology.

Take car engines today for example. We are getting better mileage, better power, better everything out of the same displacement as we did in the 80s, 70s, 60s, etc. And when you go with an aluminum block, like in my car, they are even lighter.

Aye, but the important thing in a game like this is balance. You need a reason to use all the different engines in the game. If you're going to have something that's clearly superior across the board, it should be either more expensive or unlocked later in the tech tree.

Ideally, there should be no engine that's superior across the board.

Best,

-Slashy

[cantab]

The 48-7S is the infamous standout. Let's look at it.

TWR: 30.6. That's more than any liquid fuelled engine besides the KR-2L, the four-engine cluster, and the massless O-10.

Mass: 0.1 t. That means it's viable on the smallest of spacecraft, unlike the NASA engines or even the LV-N.

Isp: 300-350 s. That's low but not low enough, the TWR more than offsets the drawback. The older 24-77, on which the 48-7S is based, has 250-300 s Isp.

Gimbal: 1°. It has one, essentially - if it didn't that might have been a balancing factor.

Alternator: None. Well that's something the 48-7S is lacking in.

So even in sandbox play it's already one of the best engines in the game. Now let's consider science/career mode aspects.

Tech node: Fuel Systems, 90 pts. You can unlock the 48-7S without needing to upgrade the R&D facility, making it an early game engine. You could well do your first Mun landing with one of the game's best engines. Oh, and it's in the same node as the insanely useful fuel lines.

Cost: 300 Funds. That's cheaper than any other engine besides the Sepratron.

The excessive performance is bad enough, but the career aspects are just ridiculous.

Yet, with all that said, the 48-7S is not game-breaking. Despite being overpowered in every respect, it's not to the point that it's forced all other engines out of use.

[GoSlash27]

Nukes are largely balanced by their long burn times. Many players simply don't have the patience for them, and anything you can do with nukes, save some rather extreme missions (Jool 5, Grand Tour come to mind) can be done for only a bit larger with conventional engines with shorter burn times.

And their high mass, poor thrust, and huge price tag. I have no problem with the nuke remaining as-is. It's ideal for the job of interplanetary travel, and it should be.

Best,

-Slashy

[wumpus]

48-7s. I can only hope that after its scheduled encounter with the nerf bat it is still reasonably possible to escape Eve.turbojets: a jet that goes up to orbital velocity? Would some sort of intake limit be enough, or does the jet itself need nerfing.basic jets: not as obvious with the OP turbojets nearby, but great for vertical takeoff and absolutely have no reason to break the sound barrier, let alone act as reasonable first stages the way they do.rapiers: haven't played with them. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are a problem.LV-N: absolutely fine as an interplanetary engine. Lowering thrust a tad might keep it out of landers, where it really doesn't belong.Other issues:ion engine: ion engines are basically OP in real life, but kerbal makes them nearly impossible to use. Some means of letting ions work while "on rails" needs to be used. Note: LV-N basically acts as a stand in for ions. They can't be nerfed that hard as long as ions aren't usable.aerospike: clobbered with the nerf bat. If 48-7s get battered beyond use in lower level Eve ascenders, I can only hope that aerospikes get buffed enough for use there.

[tater]

Nukes are supposed to be the be all end all in vacuum. Split atoms, not wood.

[GoSlash27]

Nukes are supposed to be the be all end all in vacuum. Split atoms, not wood.

^ This.

People use them in landers, but if they did the math they would find that nukes aren't the best option for the job. They are ideal for interplanetary travel and they should be.

I would like to see them require specialized heavy and expensive fuel tanks though; ones that cannot be filled using kethane.

Best,

-Slashy

[cantab]

Regarding the aerospike being underpowered, I think it should just be made possible to put a decoupler under it, like with nearly all the other engines in the game. On paper it's not that bad, it's like a more powerful 909 that's also efficient in atmosphere, but not being able to take a decoupler makes it just plain awkward to use.

[Pthigrivi]

People use them in landers, but if they did the math they would find that nukes aren't the best option for the job.

They are if you're using the same engine for both the transfer and the landing. Its hard for me to see why I'd use LV-Ns to cart a less efficient engine to Duna. Or to Dres. Or Vall. Or Moho. Or pretty much anywhere but Eve or Laythe.

Again I'm not saying there needs to be a nerf. Im saying there needs to be competitors. Thats why I brought up a 2.5m Nerva and a VASMIR. It's funny that people go ape about how imbalance restricts choice and sucks the fun out of gameplay except when it comes to the LV-N.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[magnemoe]

I'm confused. In my install, the 48-7S has a lower vacuum ISP than the LV-909. Is this a change in 0.90 that others haven't noticed, or is one of my mods messing with my engines? (I don't have any that should be.)

The 48-7S is the default probe an small lander engine because of its low weight. However if you increase the weight the 909 is better. In short if you move more than the MK1 or the one man landing can you need a good reason to use it.

- - - Updated - - -

Can we look at the obvious though? It's the LV-N. I use it for literally everything outside the atmospheres of Kerbin, Eve, and Laythe. It's totally necessary, and I would by no means nerf the ISP because it makes the game playable, but it needs both bigger drawbacks and closer competitors so there is some decision making required besides "how many LV-Ns do I strap to this thing?". I think it should cost more and overheat nearly instantly after coming into contact with the thinnest atmosphere. I also would love a 2.5m variant that has slightly better ISP, but lower TWR and weighs close to 10t, making it great for big payload transfers but terrible for landers. Another larger electric engine could be great too, for instance a 1.25m VASMIR that runs on xenon for large solar sailers.

The LV-N has an unrealistic low trust and TWR. As for using the LV-N for everything, its not for small stuff, ship styled crafts.

One thing they could do with it to nerf it would be to increase the heat genearation to make it harder to cluster or mount radial. However this whould require an 2.5 meter version to avoid us suffing 9 at the back of a ship to get enough TWR too not use 2 hours burning for Jool.

It belong on the back on large interplanetary ships.

For probes its only the 48-7S, that is unless you launch from Minmus or worse Gilly, in the last case the ant is OP.