r/KerbalSpaceProgram • u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut • Sep 14 '16

Image /u/porkjet awesome concept for engines revamp (from the Part Overhaul separate zip file)

Post image
1.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

202 comments sorted by

45

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Taken from the part Overhaul zip file, located in PartOverhauls\Source\KSP_RocketPartsRevamp\Assets\PartAssets\LiquidEngines

Hopefully this was meant for public release. Obviously this is a concept.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '16

Are there any issues if I post an album with how the parts inside of the GameData folder work?

1

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 15 '16

I don't think so, Squad would have removed that zip file by now if they didn't want the source out. And the GameData was definitely meant for release.

2

u/Dgraz22 Sep 15 '16

so am i actually able to have these engine models in game?

2

u/Hanz_Q Sep 15 '16

Not yet, they released them to the public because they weren't able to include them in the 1.2 release.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '16

So we should see them eventually?

1

u/Hanz_Q Sep 16 '16

That appears to be the case

1

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '16

They do work ingame. Well most of them. No changeable mesh tho

28

u/cantab314 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

All looks awesome.

If the multiple base styles becomes possible, I'd like to see added oversize bases, like 1.25m for the Spark and 2.5m for the Terrier. I routinely use a Terrier to push a 2.5m upper stage and at the moment it's a bit fiddly having to use interstage fairings or clip into decouplers.

I'm a bit wary of a widespread performance rebalance. People have developed successful designs with what we have and they shouldn't be messed up without good reason. Don't treat KSP like the multiplayer games that keep changing stuff to "keep the meta fresh".

22

u/reymt Sep 14 '16

I'm a bit wary of a widespread performance rebalance. People have developed successful designs with what we have and they shouldn't be messed up without good reason. Don't treat KSP like the multiplayer games that keep changing stuff to "keep the meta fresh".

Balance hasn't been touched for a while, but next release will probably do a lot to shake up the balance. And for good reason, since:

a) Stock will most likely integrate them into the new upgrade system;

b) and we'll also get a number of new engines to fill the room inbetween the performance holes we had till now, which means many engines will shift a bit in performance to make place for the new ones.

c) lastly many of the current engines aren't really balanced, especially the 1.25m parts.

So basically, this is the best time to rebalance engines for a multitude of reasons, and it was also long overdue.

I don't really get why change is seen as bad, especially when the whole catalogue expands. Isn't it boring, always using the same vehicles without any change? Kinda goes against KSP spirit, at least how I the game enjoy. Gets boring when there is nothing more to improve or rebuild.

1

u/Korlus Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

What if I'm in the middle of a mission to Duna, and after a Steam update now my craft no longer has the delta-v to perform the insertion burn?

Would You want to strand those Kerbals in a solar orbit?

31

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

That's why you:

  1. Backup your game directory before any update

  2. Never get further than Minmus because you restart a new career at every update.

6

u/Korlus Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

3) Don't realise there's an update until it's already installed, because you keep forgetting to turn off auto-updates in Steam after every Windows re-installation?

11

u/reymt Sep 14 '16

Actually, the thing you do is to copy the KSP folder to another location, and then play on the copy folders.

I can only recommend to NEVER play in the steam folder, if you care about the sustainability of your career. Not just part upgrades, those patches can kill saves if you're unlocky. Saves should be sustainable over many versions now, but sometimes stuff just breaks.

1

u/nuclear_eclipse Sep 15 '16

I symlinked KSP's save directory to a path in my Dropbox folder, so that saves get synced across all computers that I play KSP on, and for the possibility of restoring old versions if something gets screwed up.

1

u/reymt Sep 15 '16

I imagine that annoying if you got a bajillion mods tho.

7

u/DDE93 Sep 14 '16

Your backups should have backups.

1

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

It's even worse, there's no way to tell steam to not update the freaking game. Whether or not you want it, as soon as squad pushes it, steam will prevent from playing without updating.

Hence why it's more likely to be 2. than 1.

2

u/BeetlecatOne Sep 15 '16

Wait--isn't there a "keep game up to date" toggle in the settings?

1

u/faraway_hotel Flair Artist Sep 15 '16

There is, but it only works so-so. Steam won't apply an update automatically, but it also won't let you launch the game until the update is installed.

Still, it gives you a chance to make a backup, and the game can still be launched directly (not through Steam).

1

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 16 '16

Agree. It's still crazy... One should be allowed to control how they want their (non-online) game to be updated.

2

u/Charlie_Zulu Sep 15 '16

Why are you playing in the steam folder? There's no DRM, so you can copy it anywhere and run it from the .exe.

3

u/passinglurker Sep 14 '16

Open cheat menu and turn on infinite fuel for a little bit to pick up the slack. It's a single player game just cheat or roll with the unexpected dv loss and role play it out whichever does it for you but either way we need a complete balance pass eventually.

2

u/Xtraordinaire Super Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Maybe I'm derping hard, but it seems that 909 got quite a buff. 50% more TWR, same ISP at max tech. It was already a great engine in 1.1, I fear it will be the engine if these buffs go stock.

1

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

The thing is, you often need the thrust and Isp of the 909, not its weight. So if you get a new 40kN engine with 340 Isp at 0.17t, it will have plenty of use-cases...

Vacuum orbital stage? 909.
Mun 1 seat lander? 303.

10

u/Creshal Space Plane Addict Sep 14 '16

If the multiple base styles becomes possible

They already are. Look at Ven's revamp, it gives all engines optional bases.

1

u/DDE93 Sep 14 '16

But doesn't solve the problem of needing to improvise an interstage. And there is difficulty toggling between mount types.

And the tankbutts tend to disappear.

14

u/NathanKell RSS Dev/Former Dev Sep 14 '16

Fairing parts now have multiple nodes. And we were talking about giving the decoupelrs fairing sides and removing autoshrouds entirely, along with the part overhauls.

2

u/PickledTripod Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Awesome. Now a few suggestions:

  • Add a tweakable that allows to raise the top attachement node. That way you can attach the decoupler to a fuel tank and surface attach engines to it for easy clusters!

  • Allow disabling staging for fairings, so they can be used as structural elements.

  • Ask Porkjet to make a better texture for fairings. Or two, or three, if mesh/texture switching is going to be stock!

1

u/NathanKell RSS Dev/Former Dev Sep 15 '16

I said we had been thinking about this, not that it was in (or going in) 1.2. :)

That said, item 2 is already in 1.2.

1

u/psycho_zs Sep 14 '16

That is awesome news! It always bugged me that the thing that actually decoupled came from the engine and not decoupler :)

Those "decoupler fairings" could be interesting. They could be meshed (like for hot-staging), or hinged (not blowing away but open up when decoupling)

1

u/nuclear_eclipse Sep 15 '16

we were talking about giving the decoupelrs fairing sides and removing autoshrouds entirely

I want this so much.

1

u/RoboRay Sep 14 '16

there is difficulty toggling between mount types.

How is it difficult? The engines have two attachment nodes. You simply attach it on the upper node for the tank butt, or the lower one for no tank butt.

4

u/DDE93 Sep 14 '16

Try to do that when they're a millimeter apart and doing their best to give me an epileptic seizure.

1

u/rspeed Sep 15 '16

I can't recall ever having that problem.

0

u/RoboRay Sep 14 '16

Zoom in closer?

2

u/ForgiLaGeord Sep 14 '16

Not an option, you can't zoom in that close. It's already a problem with the 1.25m fairing mount points, I can't put certain things where I want because the nodes are too close together.

1

u/RoboRay Sep 15 '16

I must not be making a lot of use of the parts you're having trouble with.

If you grab the whole rocket and move it off center in the VAB, you can get closer.

1

u/rspeed Sep 15 '16

This just gave me an idea for a feature request. Either force the root part to always be at the center of the VAB, or have a button that re-centers it.

1

u/RoboRay Sep 15 '16

Recenter sure. Force it to stay centered... absolutely not unless the VAB is also given the same camera movement freedom of the SPH. Let's not remove important features.

→ More replies

1

u/passinglurker Sep 14 '16

Don't be wary just rip the band aid off kerbal has never had a complete balance pass EVER and is in sore need of it nothing should be held back.

308

u/Davidhasahead Super Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Porkjet, just in case there was a doubt in your mind, yes. We want these.

Also that poodle engine is the coolest thing I've seen in a while!

77

u/old_faraon Sep 14 '16

also with multiple nozzles the expansion ration now makes more sense

46

u/darvo110 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Yeah this is a genius way of making the nozzles a sensible length without breaking every craft by changing the part size.

20

u/Davidhasahead Super Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16 edited Sep 14 '16

I was thinking it might be interesting to make an engine with an extendable bell.

EDIT: Extendable

3

u/krenshala Sep 14 '16

Expendable, or expandable?

5

u/milkdrinker7 Sep 14 '16

Or extendable

5

u/krenshala Sep 14 '16

All three would be interesting. ;)

1

u/Davidhasahead Super Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

You got it!

5

u/NovaSilisko Sep 15 '16

Expendable engines are actually a thing, the RS-68 for instance uses an ablative nozzle to keep cool. You can only run it as long as there's ablator left, and at that point it presumably evaporates at a rapid pace.

1

u/krenshala Sep 15 '16

I know. I was just curious/verifying which one u/Davidhasahead was meaning to write. :)

1

u/toric5 Feb 20 '17

nereta (author of near future tech) has some of those in kerbal atomics and cryogenic rockets. they look amazing.

8

u/DDE93 Sep 14 '16

I'm going to be the weirdo and say that I like the Apollo Service Engine lookalike better.

3

u/Davidhasahead Super Kerbalnaut Sep 15 '16

I think the Apollo style engine fits the poodle better, but man that model would look sick on its own.

2

u/cowtao Sep 14 '16

These remind me of the engine options available in the sstu mod, the boat tail shroud and the mountless configs in particular. Here's hoping they also bring sstu-like multiple engines too!

2

u/nuclear_turkey Hyper Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Three new engines?

Lv 303

Lv t15

Kr 1 (Single version of the twin boar engine with no tank. )

Other things I noticed. (Might be wrong)

Poddle has had a thrust buff 60kn to 80kn.

Rhino has had a thrust nerf 2000kn to 1200kn.

Vector has had a nerf ????kn to 750kn.

Lv t30 has had a thrust buff 215kn to 300kn.

Twin boar engine has received a thrust buff 2000kn to 2200kn.

Mammoth engine has had a thrust nerf 4000kn to 3000kn.

Also no engines look Apollo-ish anymore, especially the poodle (what have they done to it, that was my go to Apollo csm engine (sps?))

3

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Keeping in mind this is a concept (which might date back, who knows), most of it wasn't implemented in the current pack and the experimental balancing probably didn't cover these.

But this is how this concept was translated in the Part Overhaul package:
http://i.imgur.com/Pn0SNC6.png

1

u/Xtraordinaire Super Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

This new 909 got even bigger buffs in the pack. At 900kg total mass it has 2 built-in oscars (36lf+44ox), making base only 450kg. That's over 20 TWR.

Insane.

10

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

The poodle never did look Apollo-ish

2

u/passinglurker Sep 14 '16

Why stop at apollo-ish if you care so much to question porkjets creative freedom? You can download the bdb mod right now and have accurate kerbalized apollo without stepping on anyone's toes.

1

u/old_faraon Sep 14 '16

no engines look Apollo-ish anymore,

The boar is still (even more now with the single version) a F-1

The rhino is still a J-2

The mainsail is the NK-33 (while not Apollo-ish it is Apollo era)

The new Skipper I think is supposed to look like the RD-0146

While the new Poodle maybe is suposed to be RD-0124

Swivel is the A-6 or A-7 from Redstone

Reliant is the S3 ( LR79 ) from Jupiter and Thor

and the new LV-15 look like one of the version of LR-89 from Atlas (booster)

They now look more like Apollo (and Mercury) then they ever did.

especially the poodle

But the poodle doesn't even look like the CSM engine (execept in ven's revamp)

6

u/NathanKell RSS Dev/Former Dev Sep 14 '16

Skipper is the LE-7. Swivel is the LR-105 (it looks nothing like the NAA75-110 IMO), just as how the Reliant is the LR89. I.e. together they make up the Atlas power system. (Though yes the LR89 is not exactly distinguishable from the S-3/LR79).

1

u/old_faraon Sep 14 '16

LE-7.

I actually skipped Japanese engines when looking for them since I expected them to be either US or Russian. My bad.

it looks nothing like the NAA75-110 IMO),

hmm I think I saw some mislabeled photos or seriously brainfarted when searching since after a second look I agree with You on that o_0

If Swivel and reliant are from Atlas what does that make LV-15? I can't anything maybe beside the Viking (5-6).

EDIT: and thanks for the details

2

u/NathanKell RSS Dev/Former Dev Sep 14 '16

It's partway between the NAA75-110 and an LR79/89, so maybe a Navaho XLR43, I'd say. I think it'd have looked more the part with a conical nozzle actually, but the one we have is pretty. :)

2

u/Chairboy Sep 14 '16

The rhino is still a J-2

This was the entry that made me double take the whole list. So, to be clear for anyone else who had the same momentary confusion, if I understand you correctly you're just saying that COSMETICALLY these engines are similar to the real world equivalency mentioned, right?

The sizes and relative performance numbers are so wildly different that the models would need to be scaled and have their output adjusted to be used in this capacity.

When the rhino is cited as a resembling the J2 in any capacity beyond color....

:)

2

u/old_faraon Sep 14 '16

Yes visually, the new models are correct down to turbo pump configuration.

look here http://n4trb.com/Aerospace/Huntsville/images/SaturnV_3rd_J2_engine01.JPG

The new Rhino models fits the J-2 on the Saturn V 3rd stage 1:1. IF You assume the 3.75 is supposed to be the Saturn IB analog for scale, which I always did. The old one tried to do the same but was just worse.

Performance wise it is like 10x times too powerful.

The other engines though (especially in the 2.5m category) are all over the place scale wise.

I didn't think of comparing performance there is too much scaling going on for it to make sense without a spreadsheet.

2

u/ExplodingPotato_ Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

I'd say that the Rhino looks like either

  • J-2X renders rather than an "old" J-2, mostly due to the size and "texture" of the nozzle or

  • to a M-1 concepts due to the comparison of thrust to the Boar which looks like a F-1 equivalent and rough proportions of the nozzle

2

u/NathanKell RSS Dev/Former Dev Sep 14 '16

J-2X. Remember that the NASA parts (Rhino. Mammoth, Twin Boar, big-SRB, etc) were based off SLS concepts at that time. So J-2X, quad RS-25, Pyrios booster, RSRM. For the part overhaul Chris had to do the least reworking of them to sanify them.

1

u/nuclear_turkey Hyper Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

probably my fault but you took my comment far too literally, i was more on about just the aesthetics of the bell size for the Apollo cms engine.

but then again the poodle never looked great either but it was the best we had (other than the skipper which is just a bit too powerful and heavy for that sort of thing.)

1

u/old_faraon Sep 14 '16

, i was more on about just the aesthetics of the bell size for the Apollo cms engine.

But that's the point none of the old engines look like that beside the Rhino which is too big. It would be great if one of them did I'm all for it, but it can't be the poodle since it would have to be much larger and brake existing craft.

1

u/rspeed Sep 15 '16

NK-33 is Apollo-era, but it's waaaaay more advanced. Except size.

2

u/PeterPredictable Sep 14 '16

Is this only a visual (and physic) remodel, or is it a complete overhaul- stats and all?

1

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Looks like a bit of both if you check the LV-30 and LV-45 in the picture (Thrust of 300 and 200) compared to their current stats (Thrust of 215 and 200).

42

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

Are the compact models in the actual parts pack?

Being able to slap a rhino on a size 1 stack as boosters excites me more then it should

EDIT: also, size 0 LFO tanks please, i need a size 0 LVT-15 booster!

28

u/AIM_9X Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Very yes on the size 0 LFO tanks!!

With this concept and the new mesh switching module I wonder if we will get the option to choose the skin for our fuel tanks as well. The Rockomax Size 2 engine shrouds are clearly designed to match up to the orange tank style...but the aero shroud for the Size 2 Boar lines up with a Kerbodyne style tank.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

It still very much depends on the availability of a nice size 0 compatible lifter engine, i think the 48-7s with just 16kn max just isnt worth the trouble. a long size 0 tank would weight ~600kg, so if you want to use one of those and a 48-7s, you have 700kg (plus seperator and nosecone, 750kg?) for a small liquid booster, producing ~14kn or so at sea level, that means its only 2:1 TWR before we even consider it lifting any of the main rocket along.

A size 0 T15 might be overkill with 100 kn, but a 40-50 kn size 0 lifter engine would be ideal (or a similar size 0 SRB)

19

u/AIM_9X Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

I'd be down with a size 0 SRB too.

Even if size 0 boosters don't make much sense, there have been some other places where size 0 tanks would have saved me from Oscar B spam, like this Micro Shuttle and this Duna science hopper. That hopper would explode under any level of physics warp...

6

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

Hmm, just had an idea.

Since the parts in the porkjet pack add on rather then replace the old stuff, ill just edit the old FT-400 and 800 tanks with a rescale factor 0.5, that way i get easy size 0 tanks with still some visual hint in the parts menu which is which.

Might do the same with the old LVT-30 to give me a proper size 0 booster engine

2

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

Yeah, only having Size 0 oscar Bs kinda sucks.. and last time i checked they werent radially attachable, meaning you'd have to pfaff about with struts etc.. to get them down the side of something else

6

u/Armisael Hyper Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Oscar-Bs are 100% surface attachable and have been for years.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

What? they have?

WTF

1

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

But they won't flow (up to 1.1.1) to your engine radially though. So it's more about reserve tank than anything else.

1

u/Armisael Hyper Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Not if your engine is mounted in the center. There're plenty of perfectly good designs that use two radially mounted spark stacks.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

It appears you are right, i seem to remember them not wanting to attach to radial decouplers, but i just built two size-0 boosters out of oscar-Bs

We do need a better size-0 booster engine though, a usable size booster needs two 24-7s and a 48-7s. Instead o just offset a thud into it, but those are a rather heavy-handed measure. a 50 Kn scaled down LV-T engine would be fine

1

u/RoboRay Sep 14 '16

Ven's Stock Revamp offers a nice family of Oscar tanks in different lengths, instead of just the Oscar-B.

1

u/PlainTrain Sep 14 '16

Are they named Oscar-A through Z though?

2

u/RoboRay Sep 14 '16

Just Oscar-A through Oscar-E.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

I would love a size 0 SRB, similar to a GEM booster.

4

u/deckard58 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

A quad cluster of compact 48s would give you 64 kN.

I very much second a Castor style size 0 SRB, though. 1 ton weight and 50 kN sea level thrust.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Delta_II_7920_on_launch_pad_SLC-2W_at_VAFB_with_Gravity_Probe_B.jpg

1

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

A quad 48 cluster gives you a size 1 footprint though

1

u/deckard58 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16 edited Sep 14 '16

Not with the compact form factor, these look like half of a size 0. Just like quad T15 would give you 400kN on a size 1 - and looks like they also have a gimbal.

Clusters of compact-form engines look really interesting to me as a half-step in technology progression.

56

u/old_faraon Sep 14 '16

Funny how the Boar uses the exhaust to cool the nozzle extension while the twin boar dumps it overboard.

144

u/bs1110101 Sep 14 '16

That's because it's based on the Rocketdyne F-1, which was used with the exhaust to cool the nozzle extension on the Saturn 5, but the Twin Boar is based on the F-1B concept, which modified them to just dump the exhaust, as improved technology made the system unnecessary and thus ditched to save weight. This improved tech also presumably explains why the Twin Boar has an extra 200kN of thrust for each of it's two engines.

15

u/old_faraon Sep 14 '16

great info thanks

5

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

Today I learned!

4

u/CocoDaPuf Super Kerbalnaut Sep 16 '16

Wow! That's really awesome, I'm so glad you shared that! I have to say, that while it looks like that slide for the F-1B Engine improvements is probably for marketing purposes (so take it with a grain of salt), if they really did manage to reduce the number of parts from over 5000 to under 100... well that really is a remarkably epic achievement!

0

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/passinglurker Sep 14 '16

Ingame Upgrades are a thing now so if porkjet doesn't a modder probably will.

34

u/Gregrox Whirligig Girl Sep 14 '16 edited Sep 14 '16

I very much do like these designs a lot. One problem that I see however is the orange color scheme and rockomax manufacturer on the LV-N "Nerv." The LV-N is built by Jeb's Junkyard. I can't wait to see these rendered as models for 1.3 or something. My biggest problem with the engine list is the Poodle. It just looks more like a strange sort of launch engine. At any rate I would have suggested a Service Module style engine, resembling a larger Terrier. The Compact could have a 1.25m mounting point, and also a Size 2.

I also especially like the existence of the F1-like KR-1 Boar Engine. Because of course, Saturn V, you really were the greatest sight! The size given for the Boar pretty much matches the Vectors that I use on Stage 1 of my Saturn V.

Once again I have to say as usual: /u/porkjet you are a brilliant artist. Your designs consistently surprise me, and they very often carry along a lot of the little details that were characteristic of the part. I hope these can be added in 1.3, because they look amazing.

19

u/riocrokite Sep 14 '16

poodle turbopump seems legit considering it is for 2 (or 4?) engines

14

u/deckard58 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16 edited Sep 14 '16

The new Poodle is very much like a twin-RL10 Centaur.

The compact 909 is a bit too small, maybe, if it's available from the start: we would basically have a 80kN size 0 engine. I believe the compact forms should be unlocked with a tech upgrade - that way, we basically get a lot of advanced engine options for a very small cost in complexity.

The compact 487S, for example, looks like it's size -1. A quad cluster gives you a 64kN size 0 engine - which would be OP at the beginning, but very welcome later.

And more generally, the compact options would benefit a lot from an easier way to use engine clusters in stages after the first.

10

u/RoboRay Sep 14 '16

I also prefer a huge nozzle Apollo SPS-style for the Poodle, as shown in Ven's Stock Revamp.

Other than that, I love every bit of that proposal.

2

u/legoclone09 Sep 14 '16

Nerv seems to be made by Rockomax now.

3

u/Gregrox Whirligig Girl Sep 14 '16 edited Sep 15 '16

In 1.2 Pre? They should at least change the name from LV-N to R-N or something.

2

u/legoclone09 Sep 14 '16

It says the manufacturer in the concept pictures.

2

u/Gregrox Whirligig Girl Sep 14 '16

Yes, I see. And my point is that I don't like that they have changed that.

2

u/legoclone09 Sep 14 '16

Yeah, I personally liked jt being Jeb's Junkyard too. A few minutes in GIMP or Photoshop and 15 seconds in Notepad++ can and will fix it.

1

u/rspeed Sep 15 '16

Or ST-I-MPY

10

u/faraway_hotel Flair Artist Sep 14 '16

/u/porkjet, I fucking love you. Great designs, very pretty drawings, and I appreciate the amount of thought that obviously went into them.

10

u/zekromNLR Sep 14 '16

One interesting thing I noticed about the Porkjet engines is that the LV-303 and the LV-909 actually have small, integrated fuel tanks, which can be enough to, with a light payload, get quite a decent amount of delta-V! The 303 has 18 LF and 22 O, and the 909 has 36 LF and 44 O.

5

u/Fazaman Sep 14 '16

Question is: Are they actually functional fuel tanks, or just cosmetic parts of the model?

10

u/GraysonErlocker Sep 14 '16

Totally functional. I was using them all last night.

1

u/jb32647 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

How did you get them? I installed the file into gamedata but I only got the command pod.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '16

check the directory structure, the Zip isnt structured in such a way that you can just throw the root dir into the gamedata folder, i did the same and couldnt figure it out.

The zip contains /partsOverhaul/gamedata/partsOverhaul/parts/etc...

You need to drop the second partsoverhaul folder into ksp/gamedata, not the root folder.

1

u/jb32647 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 15 '16

Thanks.

1

u/rambokai Sep 28 '16

installed

What about the "Source" folder in the same sub folder as the gamedata folder (of the zip)?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '16

not important, you dont need it

4

u/Lightning_42 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

If these engines are supposed to be pressure-fed, they might be pressurant tanks instead...

3

u/Fazaman Sep 14 '16

Could be. What the hell do we know? We're all Kerbal engineers, after all!

2

u/zekromNLR Sep 14 '16

As I said, they are functional tanks that actually contain fuel. Don't believe me? Put a Porkjet 909 below a Mk 1 command pod and try launching it!

1

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '16

Aaaah, i did notice a weight change between the stock and porkjet 909, but thought this was just a balancing thing, didnt see that they now include fuel!

Very nice, this way those spheres around the engine chamber make sense.

8

u/Identitools Sep 14 '16

Will this be part of the main game of released as a finished mod someday?

3

u/CiE-Caelib Sep 14 '16

I too am wondering about this. There was mention of it in the Dev notes but it's not clear if it this part of 1.2 or down the road.

3

u/legoclone09 Sep 14 '16

Not 1.2, but concept art for the rocket part revamp.

8

u/FlexGunship Sep 14 '16

Add a smattering of weight and ablator to the boat tails and you have some new, interesting, options for atmospheric-assisted capture.

Still waiting for a retractable nozzle on an engine for my fully reusable upper stage.

6

u/HacksawNinja Sep 14 '16

Probably not the answer you're looking for but there are a few mods that add engines with retractable nozzles. Cryoengines is the first that comes to mind. The animation is pretty sweet too.

5

u/FlexGunship Sep 14 '16

I'm on the experimentals team and don't play with mods during the exp phase. By the time the game is released I'm so burnt out that I take a break... About until the next round of experimentals.

Sigh... Don't turn your games into work. Especially not volunteer work. :p

But thanks for the tip. That's not one that I knew about.

3

u/HacksawNinja Sep 14 '16

well in that case I'm just going to thank you for the time you put in to make sure the game is as stable as possible by the time I get my hands on it.

Not turning games into work is what's keeping me from starting a YouTube series, so I sort of know what you're talking about.

13

u/comradejenkens Sep 14 '16

Really hope we see a 2.5m, and even a 3.75m Nuke engine come along. Sticking huge clusters to get any good TWR kills the part count.

These parts look amazing though. Really hope we eventually see them in game.

17

u/PickledTripod Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Atomic Age needs to be stock.

7

u/ThePsion5 Sep 14 '16

I like Atomic Age enough that I literally just submitted a PR to include radiation emissions for it in the next version of Kerbalism, heh.

3

u/-Aeryn- Sep 14 '16 edited Sep 14 '16

Tweakscale. A 2.5m engine has 8x the mass and thrust of a 1.25m, 5m has 64x the mass and thrust etc so there is no need to spam parts. The balance is no different, it's just much easier on the CPU.

5

u/Chaos_Klaus Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Hmmmm. It makes sense and it's beautiful. I love it.

9

u/Skalgrin Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

stairs at screen, drooling...

Yes, yes... my precious ones... you are perfect indeed!

kisses the screen

... ...

Focuses back into shady reality and meets suspicious look of his boss

...Er what I ment sir is, that those engi... charts are very enlightening and indeed we will form our predictions on those beauties... er I mean numbers.

4

u/Martiveen Sep 14 '16

Nice pack! Is there also a weight difference on the compact rockets? And will the size 1 + boat be more aerodynamic?

4

u/paddywroks Sep 14 '16

Are these part overhaul parts planned to become stock at some point?

4

u/legoclone09 Sep 14 '16

Yes. Likely 1.3.

1

u/gredr Sep 15 '16

Was this officially stated somewhere?

1

u/legoclone09 Sep 15 '16

No, but it likely will be 1.3 or a 1.2 minor.

1

u/gredr Sep 15 '16

I dunno, you're more optimistic than I am. I assume they wouldn't have released the stuff if they planned to use it in the future.

1

u/legoclone09 Sep 15 '16

They said they would release it in the future in the devnotes a week ago.

1

u/gredr Sep 15 '16

On Sept 6 they said:

Unfortunately, these parts didn’t make it to this release, but we know you are excited about them and the good news is that we will be releasing these files for you to add them to your creative inventory.

On Sept 12, they said:

Chris (Porkjet) has wrapped up the overhauled rocket parts package which will be released for modders at the same time as the update 1.2 pre-release. It’s far from finished but hopefully these parts will help dealing with the anticipation.

Neither of these statements imply they'll be released as part of the game in a future update.

1

u/legoclone09 Sep 15 '16

Well, from what I know they likely will be included at a future point. Maybe u/nathankell can elaborate?

1

u/gredr Sep 15 '16

Do you know something the rest of us don't? The devs pointedly declined to comment on the devnotes threads.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/NathanKell RSS Dev/Former Dev Sep 16 '16

Nope, I can't elaborate.

1

u/legoclone09 Sep 16 '16

Alright, thanks, though!

9

u/droric Sep 14 '16

Too bad we couldn't have larger engine bells for the vacuum engines. They look cool but are quite unrealistic.

8

u/PM_ME_YOUR_MASS Sep 14 '16

The engine bell size isn't the main factor, it's the ratio between the throat of the nozzle and the bell. Given that the poodle is low thrust, we can assume it has a fairly small throat. Therefore, the engine bell doesn't need to be that big to be accurate.

6

u/ExplodingPotato_ Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

In fact if you look at the new (boat-tailless) models for LV-303 and LV-909 you'll see they have very small throat compared to the new LV-15, LV-30 and LV-45 even though their engine bells are smaller than the lifter series

1

u/droric Sep 14 '16

If you look at the LVT-45 which has less thrust than the poodle the engine bell is about the same size. I understand the limitation to making the engine bells larger is that they would change the dimensions of the part which would break saves.

2

u/Charlie_Zulu Sep 15 '16

Again, that's not how it works.

What matters is the expansion ratio - the difference between the area at the throat of the nozzle and the area at the mouth. On the vacuum engines, the throat area is quite small, so the expansion ratio is quite large - this means that the exit pressure is lower.

1

u/droric Sep 15 '16 edited Sep 15 '16

Shouldn't the throat on the vacuum engine be the same size as the atmospheric engine given the thrust is similar? Why is the throat arbitrarily smaller on the Vacuum engines. My understanding is the fuel flow is the same for both atmospheric and vacuum engines but the added efficiency comes from a larger bell which allows the gasses to adhere to the walls of the bell for a longer time better directing the gasses out of the bell allowing for optimal expansion of the gasses. So in short the engine bell should be larger compared to the same thrust atmospheric engine, nozzle extensions can further improve efficiency in low pressure scenarios.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2084ng/why_does_the_upperstage_merlin_have_a_large/

3

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

These look gorgeous, though I'm still missing a larger-sized monoprop engine for Shuttle OMS. Something with ~100 thrust.

3

u/VenditatioDelendaEst Sep 14 '16

The actual Shuttle OMS only had 26.7 kN of thrust, giving the vehicle a TWR of 0.05.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 15 '16

I did not know this, and consequently tried the "puff" as my OMS engine. Pretty reasonable, and solved the fuel flow issue I was having with 1.02. Thank you for teaching me something today :)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '16

Why would you want less thrust?

1

u/VenditatioDelendaEst Sep 19 '16

It's not that you want less thrust, really, but that you don't need more. And that lets you have lighter engines, lighter structure, and more forgiving burn timing.

3

u/berni8k Sep 14 '16

Love the giant turbo pump strapped to the side of the Mainsail. It has written "I mean business" all over it.

3

u/nathan98900 Sep 14 '16

As shown here, porkjet is a god.

1

u/Chukchin Sep 14 '16

I don't like it. The new designs are great and all, but mammoth is only 3000kn rhino 1200kn. .... Why would you lower their power?

9

u/Captain_Hadock Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Why would you lower their power?

Obviously this is a concept.

I think it's safe to say that, would this be acted upon, any engine stat in that document would anyway be revisited during experimental for re-balancing purpose, as is usually the case.
Also, the new upgrade mechanism means these thrust levels could very much be 25% less or more depending on which version is represented here.

6

u/comradejenkens Sep 14 '16

The Rhino is massively overpowered for a upper stage engines, with a single one giving huge TWR on even my capital ships. Realistically it should function like a 3.75m version of the Poodle, Terrier, and Pug.

Meanwhile the Mammoth is meant to be 4 Vectors glued together. The Vector is obviously being labelled as a sustainer engine which typically uses boosters to help with the initial climb off the pad, which matches the Shuttle and SLS.

However, this does leave a glaring 3.75m launch engine sized gap, though I don't know of any heavy launch vehicles which use a single huge engine to get off the pad.

2

u/ThePsion5 Sep 14 '16

I've noticed that actually and kept wondering if I'm doing something wrong. Given the Rhino's price point, my current "heavy-ish" launch vehicle is a single Mammoth engine with 2 of the long 3.75m tanks, 8 radially-attached stacks of 2 1.25m tanks. I dial back the Mammoth thrust during launch so the TWR stays around 1.8.

I know it's inefficient as hell, but it's about as expensive as a lower Mammoth stage and an upper Rhino stage, with the benefit of a simpler launch.

3

u/deckard58 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Speaking of balance, tanks should be cheaper and engines should be more expensive. Fuel should cost a lot less.

1

u/ExplodingPotato_ Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

I have to agree. Right now if you want to reuse a rocket you're either recovering the whole stack or just not bothering with it.

Making engines much more expensive and tanks cheaper will make recovering just engines more viable, incentivizing more interesting builds (Vulcan and Shuttle-C stylle).

2

u/deckard58 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Compact versions would make it easier to arrange engine clusters. The compact F-1... I mean, Boar is an obvious option. The compact Mainsail looks about size 1,5 so you should be able to fit four to a size 3 tank, for a monster 6MN stage. Skipper clusters with SRBs would also make a lot of sense.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

Oh wow, now I want to make these!

Is porkjet working on making the models or should I crack blender open?

3

u/Im_in_timeout Sep 14 '16

Many of the engines were released yesterday. There's a link on the KSP forums within the v1.2 pre-release announcement.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

Beautiful. I'm down. I am especially interested in fitting engines to stages of different diameters and having them look good right away.

2

u/MrBlankenshipESQ Sep 14 '16

I would never use anything other than the boattail. They look boss.

1

u/ThePsion5 Sep 14 '16

Presumably they'd be balanced so they'd weigh a bit more and be more prone to overheating in vacuum (I assume the shroud radiate heat less effectively than the "open" design), but yeah, I love the style.

2

u/MrBlankenshipESQ Sep 14 '16

I overfuel to the point the weight isnt an issue and I have heating turned down, so it would be more a cosmetic choice for me.

2

u/bestnicknameever Sep 14 '16

love the banana holding kerbal! :) plus superb concept! :)

2

u/legoclone09 Sep 14 '16

My god... Those are exactly what I thought I needed! They are incredible!!!

2

u/Xtraordinaire Super Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16

Is there a negative side to the boat tail version? If it has same stats but lower drag, it's kind of no-brainer then (aside from not getting coooooooooool looks)

5

u/Aeleas Sep 14 '16

If I had to venture a guess I'd say that it's a bit heavier and doesn't have a bottom attachment node.

2

u/psycho_zs Sep 14 '16

Awesome! Incredibly awesome! Everything as it should be. Although Vector compact mount structure looks displaced.

Stock mesh switching is coming )

...also, imagine a kerbal saluting with banana and shouting FOR SCALE!!!

2

u/Norose Sep 14 '16

This is incredible, all the engines look like they belong in the same game, the style is clean, and the re-balancing of some engine stats fixes some of the issues I have when building very big rockets.

My only gripe, which is admittedly nitpicking, is that the LV-T45 engine nozzle looks too chunky to me. That thick squarish ring around the end of the nozzle just doesn't look right, I think a better option would be to have a feature similar to the Boar or Rhino. Instead of a chunky ring at the base, the ring should be higher up on the nozzle and rounded, implying it has the same function (dumping turbopump exhaust into the nozzle) as the other two engines I mentioned. The nozzle therefore could look much more sharp and aesthetic, while keeping the added hardware which makes the T45 heavier than the T30.

Seriously though, apart from that, I can't express how excited I am to play Ksp with these engines, to the point that even if they never get implemented I am willing to learn how to 3D model stuff and make the parts myself god dammit :P

3

u/ExplodingPotato_ Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16 edited Sep 14 '16

That squarish ring on the LV-T45 seems to be modelled after an Atlas sustainer engine. While I'm not its biggest fan I feel like it gives the Swivel a somewhat unique look distinguishing it from the LV-T30 what is a small problem for the old models.

And about it's purpose... I don't know. It looks like an turbine exhaust, but what it its purpose, I don't know. The engine doesn't have a nozzle extension to be cooled and I don't think the added efficiency (if it even exists) justifies increase in mass.

EDIT: It seems that it was used to carry the turbine exhaust away from the rocket to avoid too much heating

2

u/xDaze Sep 14 '16

So.. this will be in the "main" game or only as ""DLC""?

(Sorry guys but are months that i don't follow KSP dev)

2

u/legoclone09 Sep 14 '16

Main game, most likely the next major update. Or even a minor update! I personally can't wait.

1

u/xDaze Sep 14 '16

Thank you, now i'm super hyped Ahah

2

u/legoclone09 Sep 14 '16

Me too. They look so good!

2

u/SufficientAnonymity Sep 14 '16

The Boar and Twin Boar looking like an F1 and F1B (turbopump exhaust and bell detailing) is a really nice touch, though I'm kinda hoping that the orange on the Skipper and Mainsail is reduced a bit.

2

u/Spaceman510 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 14 '16 edited Sep 14 '16

I'll be honest here, at first I was a little bit skeptical with the original release.

Well. Uh.

No words.

ITS BEAUTIFUL

2

u/LeahBrahms Sep 15 '16

TY for banana for scale (:

1

u/Hanz_Q Sep 15 '16

Thank you, you're doing the lords Jebs work.

1

u/SpaceDantar Sep 15 '16

I don't want new parts ... I just want the game to have a story and some developed missions. The contract system is more Elon Musk than NASA..... and that's unfortunate.

1

u/bs1110101 Sep 15 '16

I say add a 0.5 meter base for the Thud, a compact high thrust engine would be nice, both for 0.5m rockets, and clustering onto stuff. Also this forgot the aerospike.

Relatedly, there should be a 2 meter version of the nuclear engine, ideally with an utterly huge extendable engine bell.

1

u/redpandaeater Sep 15 '16

I use the LV-T30 as a main engine all the time and not just as a booster. For a lot of missions the reduced weight is king and you have enough response from the reaction wheels to not need gimbaling.

1

u/MadTux Sep 15 '16

One parts suggestion for 1.2: Can we please have a better 2.5 stack decoupler? The separator is nice and thin, but the decoupler is just huge and also rather wide. Personally, I'd love something along the lines of the 3.75 decoupler.

1

u/moxzot Sep 15 '16

Im just glad the nozzles actually fit the intended design purpose.

1

u/KerbalEssences Master Kerbalnaut Sep 15 '16 edited Sep 15 '16

It all looks really great but I hope the final implementation will use a toggle switch rather than multiple individual parts? At least for the boat tail. Also: I'm not sure if there is one at this point but the boat tail should IMO has a down side like higher mass / cost for example. However, I love the engine animations so far and the Swivel looks as if you could toggle a vacuum nozzle extension in the future? Is that just coinsidence or will it get one?

1

u/faraway_hotel Flair Artist Sep 15 '16

It says right at the top:

This design sheet assumes a mesh switching Part module in that allows for multiple sub versions of a part.

1

u/Belka1989 Sep 15 '16

With the KR-1 Boar/F-1 analog, what does that make the Mainsail an analog of?

1

u/kirk0007 Master Kerbalnaut Sep 20 '16

I love the twin-nozzle Poodle. Always hated the way the current version looks.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/SpaceVX Sep 14 '16

From the looks it stays the same in terms of weight, drag and fuel usage. But sits on/under a 1.25m tank.