Engines #6
Comments
|
Following your thought process here, in order to give some variety, as well as being more realistic, we should find one engine/combo from each 'nation'. That way you get a fair bit of choice, as well as not being limited to having one space agency per launcher type. |
|
So, as someone who doesn't have a background in rocketry, one of the most painful parts of playing RPL was engines. They all had utterly impenetrable names like LR-89 or RD-107 or J-2. There were altogether too many of them, and I had to check every time to see what each of them did and what they were for. I cried whenever I unlocked a new engine node, because now I had even more impenetrable names to deal with. If I wanted obscure acronyms that nobody could understand, I'd be working in microbiology, or IT. I remember the engines I could most easily remember had names like "mother" and "centurion". I don't remember if these were from RftS or another parts-pack, but I found names much more memorable and easier to work with than letter/number combos. I think that whatever we do in RP-0, the base game should have a relatively small number of engines, and the naming should be friendly to folks who don't have a background in rocketry. That may mean fictional engines rather than real ones, and I'd be totally cool with that. If we have upgraded or clustered engines later in the game, their naming should make it easy for players to understand that. I don't really care what naming schemes we use. Hypergolics could be dogs (we already have the poodle), lower stages could be mythical creatures (with the largest obviously being the kraken), or whatever other scheme we choose. Having said that, I'd like us to choose a single parts pack to boost our engine selection. It gets our players in the game faster (less to download and install), it reduces the amount of work we have to do, and if they've played with that parts pack before they're going to have some familiarity with how things work. That parts pack should already has solid support with RealismOverhaul; anything else is exposing ourselves to a wider bug surface than required.
As part of RP-0 expansions, yes. As part of the core game, no; please no. I have a terrible time figuring out which engine to use from a relatively small selection. If I have to deal with engines with overlapping purposes from many nations, I'll find my fun is rapidly diminished. Inventory and part management is one of my least favourite bits of any game, but especially in KSP. I'm very supportive of people being able to download RP-0-China, RP-0-Russia, or RP-0-USA packs if they want to play as the nation of their choice, but I don't want all of these in the base game. ~ Paul |
|
I really, really do not think we should be either maintaining an engine pack. We might do what RPL did and use RftS (whence Centurion--Brits got Roman names), but I strongly discourage it. All the rest of our kit will be real, and I'd like the engines to be as well. That said, there is absolutely no reason not to have descriptive names and good descriptions. For example, the LR-89 is the Atlas Booster engine, and the description can talk about how it was used as a main engine for various US rockets (Atlas, Saturn I [as the H-1], Jupiter, Thor and Thor-Delta, etc). The AJ10-37, assuming we use it, should be named the Vanguard Upper Stage (AJ10-37) and the description will talk about how it's a small pressure fed upper stage engine, used in everything from Vanguard through Delta, with derivatives used on Apollo, Titan, and still today. As for parts pack, I would suggest SXT. Since it reuses Squad textures, it does not increase memory usage, it has a great variety of parts (some of which we should hide until supported), and--key--it has some useful parts for this purpose, and Lack is a very flexible guy who's already made some parts for me by request. Oh, and no tankbutts except where they make sense. Note that we would have to configure a few odds and ends, but that's really not very hard. |
|
It's worth noting some of the (relevant) parts SXT has. It has some high end engines (Lack's made N-1 and Saturn V parts out of stock textures), and it also has some early British stuff (Waxwing kick motor, Gamma 8 booster engine). While both technically date from the mid sixties, and I would advocate a lower Isp on the Waxwing (i.e. to pretend it's in its early use on Black Prince, where maybe it had lower Isp), they would serve very well for the Vanguard-alike stuff. |
RPL required NovaPunch. It was also my inspiration for the CKAN, since I could never get everything installed properly. :)
OMG, yes. So much yes. If we change the name from "LR-89" to "LR-89 Heavy Atlas Booster" or something, that would rock. I'd also be inclined to put the engine size (eg: 4m) in the name, because I'm always trying to find the right size engines. For my reference, SXT is Stock Extended, but that seems like an old link. Have a newer one for me? +1 for SXT if it's already got RO support and uses stock models. |
|
Right, RPL required NovaPunch, but also RftS which should have changed the name. The engine size is in the name now, in RO. :) At least it is for the stock part engines. There's certainly no reason we can't do this, but it might work well in RO proper too. However, one thing RO (and RP-0) should teach people is not to match engine to tank size. It's perfectly fine to have a dinky little 1m upper stage engine on a 3m tank, for example. That is the correct link; there's also a release thread, though, and like the WIP thread it's for both SXT and LLL. It hasn't been updated all that recently, but Lack's been moving house. SXT does not have RO support for all its parts--hence my mention of hiding the ones there aren't support for, or doing up some quick configs. But I think it is far and away our best option. |
|
Yes, we should have an FAQ that notes that having smaller engines is fine, maybe with a note that ProceduralParts curved tanks make great butts if you want those. Ven's Stock Revamp removes engine butts and makes things pretty, but if it doesn't change gameplay then I'd suggest it be optional. Hence:
You mentioned on IRC that VSR changes some of the textures for SXT. If we install them as-is, will that break anything? (If there's going to be a compatibility patch, that would best go in the SXT/VSR distros, and not ours.) |
|
I am creating a package that SXT should install if VSR is detected. |
|
Huh. These are very smart ideas. Like the idea of naming things descriptively as well as with their proper names. Definitely think we should stick with real engines, as this is designed to be used with RO, which has real engines. Once we have the base down, we can consider things like adding support for RFTS. Totally in support of removing built in tank butts through VSR. I loved the old RE having the nodes shifted so that only the engine was visible. I still cover the current tank butts with a clipped through procedural part. |
|
Tried out VSR. It's amazingly wonderful. It includes, so far: No other rocket engines have been changed in a way relevant to us, so far. SXT includes all sorts of things. Relevant to the current discussion: I plan to ask Lack to make a Waxwing with a smaller nozzle and larger tank, which can be the Vanguard kick motor. I will also ask if he has time to make the AJ10-37, which can be the early pressure-fed upper stage. He may also plan to make RD-180 and RD-190 variants of his RD-170, which would fill in the late game booster requirements. |
|
Just to summarise our IRC discussion, VSR also wants to overwrite Squad assets, doesn't it? |
|
Yes. But to further summarize, it can manage not to with some MM-fu. |
Stock KSP simply does not offer sufficient engines for RO, especially given the choices RO makes about what to assign each engine to be (while the LMDE and LMAE could work as upper stage engines, because they have been scaled such that the nozzle is the correct size, the tankbutt is gigantic). The tankbutt issue might be solved by switching RO to using Ven's Stock Parts Revamp, which has sane-looking (indeed, quite pretty and reasonable), no-tankbutt engines, but we still have the issue of engine choice and limited supply.
Given that all (AFAIK) of the US engines stock parts are turned into are also in FASA, it might be worth considering changing what the stock engines are made into; but even were that to be done, it does seem the case that we need more engines than stock provides, especially because we have needs that stock KSP does not have (verniers, 5ton to 2500ton LVs, etc).
I am opening this so we can brainstorm what engines are actually needed. I have been tossing around the idea of Start tech as sounding rockets, Basic Rocketry as Vanguard/R-5, General as Atlas/R-7 level. That means at minimum we would need:
*A sounding rocket engine, either 30kN for small or ~300 for large (see below)
*A Vanguard lower stage in the 140-300kN range (perhaps combined with the sounding rocket engine if the V-2 or Jupiter C is our sounding rocket example), or if we go the Jupiter C / R-5 route, 400kN.
*A Vanguard liquid upper stage in the 30kN range (perhaps combined with the sounding rocket engine if the WAC Corporal / Aerobee, on a solid booster, is our sounding rocket example).
*the LR-89/LR-105 combo, or the RD-107/RD-108 combo: For Atlas, that means 350kN core, 750kN boosters; for R-7, 900-1000kN for each.
If we are willing to treat the H-1/RS-27 as an outgrowth of the LR-89, we can have the LR-89 be our H-1 and RS-27/RS-27A as well.
Moving on, we will need enough "oomph" to launch crewed BLEO missions. That means that the RS-27A is not sufficient. The options here are F-1 and J-2, or NK-15 and -15V (later developed to -33 and -43).
What do you all think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: