@AndrewGarrison Oh so the chamber pressure is a constant! In reality the thrust power would be a constant as the two different propellants share the same nuclear reactor (this the same thrust power). But I guess this approach could work too.
@AndrewGarrison the water NTRs should have around double the thrust as liquid hydrogen (same mass flow) as they share the same reactor (so the total energy is the same).
@AndrewGarrison I think you should have an “efficiency” tag in the engines’ XML. 1.0 will be the engine’s ideal performance, and 0.8 will be suitable for the stock system. This could also make the real engine makers’ lives easier @pedro16797 @AnotherFireFox
@AndrewGarrison I still insist on at least 10% reduction in Isp for rocket engines, and maybe doubling (or quadrupling) the mass of the engines (their twr should be around half to one forth of what they currently are)
For example, a KeroLOX staged aerospikes engine has a twr of 200. While in real life such engine would be lucky to get 50 (because aerospikes are incredibly heavy and full flow staged combustion uses heavy plumbing systems)
this
+1 5.7 years agoF6 for custom launch location
5.7 years agoOh well. Hope you could keep getting better at this and maybe activate windows.
5.7 years ago
+1 5.7 years ago>quote___ divider@SupremeDorian Sorry.
5.7 years ago@Gregrox Current water NTRs are still very beneficial as water is very dense.
5.7 years agoThis is my video
5.7 years ago@LegendPlayer975 It’s KellAerospace. You can’t deny it. You used the same music and tried to imitate my text style.
5.7 years agoDid you literally copy my style
5.7 years ago
5.7 years ago[stuff to display](https://www.yourlink.com)@OldCoach remember to reply to my comment so I will receive a notification. Click on any part inflight to open its part inspector.
5.7 years ago@AceDAVE3000 I’m not a dev but the mobile version is at least half a year away. A year is more likely.
5.7 years agoThis had always been a problem for me
5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison will there be a fix?
you Fiddle around with the part inspector inflight.
5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison Oh so the chamber pressure is a constant! In reality the thrust power would be a constant as the two different propellants share the same nuclear reactor (this the same thrust power). But I guess this approach could work too.
+1 5.7 years ago@IFeelFine Wikipedia and Atomic Rockets
5.7 years agoYou can’t have efficient and power at the same time. More efficient engines are usually less powerful, or heavier, or more expensive.
5.7 years ago@MarioG It's a beta, bugs are to be expected. Be patient. Jundroo is working hard on 0.7.
+6 5.7 years ago@SupremeDorian the news only shows official updates. Betas don’t count
5.7 years ago@SupremeDorian the news only shows official updates. Betas don’t count.
+2 5.7 years agoGreat job Jundroo!
+1 5.7 years agoNo. SR2 uses patched conics rather than n-body.
+1 5.7 years agoPistons masterrace
+1 5.7 years agoThis will require significant effort from both developing teams and has little benefits.
+1 5.7 years agoThis is a lot of forum posts :/
+2 5.7 years agoIt’s basically the same
5.7 years agoIt’s AndrewGarrison not Andrew Garrison
+1 5.7 years agouwu @emiIy
+1 5.7 years agono @legohelobilly
5.7 years ago@legohelobilly no
5.7 years agoIt’s currently work in progress in the roadmap
+2 5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison oh ok good luck with Aero Effects VR ;D
+1 5.7 years agoAero Effects VR - Coming Soon (TM)
+1 5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison the water NTRs should have around double the thrust as liquid hydrogen (same mass flow) as they share the same reactor (so the total energy is the same).
+1 5.7 years ago@AdAstra This is already implemented
5.7 years ago@pedro16797 8 was about nerfing.
+1 5.7 years ago30MPa hasn't been achieved irl yet
12 isn't a thing
@AndrewGarrison I concluded that the engines are fine, the staged and full flow engines are expensive enough that they deserve to be this powerful.
In other words, using electric and gas generator I cycles are painful enough that nerfing them will kill me.
+3 5.7 years ago@LiamW wait till the beta is over.
5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison @pedro16797
5.7 years ago@Chancey21 You have electric motors
5.7 years ago@pedro16797 Shrugs
5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison I think you should have an “efficiency” tag in the engines’ XML. 1.0 will be the engine’s ideal performance, and 0.8 will be suitable for the stock system. This could also make the real engine makers’ lives easier @pedro16797 @AnotherFireFox
+1 5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison Yes! Indeed!
5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison do you mind reducing the minimum engine size to 0.25? Small satellites need small engines. And retro motors for crewed capsules too.
+1 5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison do you mind reducing the minimum engine size to 0.25? Small satellites need small engines. And retro motors for crewed capsules too.
+1 5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison Why not just make the game RSS
+2 5.7 years ago@pedro16797 :(
5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison I still insist on at least 10% reduction in Isp for rocket engines, and maybe doubling (or quadrupling) the mass of the engines (their twr should be around half to one forth of what they currently are)
For example, a KeroLOX staged aerospikes engine has a twr of 200. While in real life such engine would be lucky to get 50 (because aerospikes are incredibly heavy and full flow staged combustion uses heavy plumbing systems)
5.7 years ago@Shoot2kill Be patient! The devs are already rushing the builds.
+1 5.7 years ago@AndrewGarrison
5.7 years ago