Engines, thrust structures and interstages

Psycho_zs

Member
Oct 30, 2025
19
9
Wouldn't it be great to not have interstages magically appear on the engine parts?
Instead, have actual thrust/load bearing structure parts with central attachment point(s) for engines and a kind of circular attachment points for interstages/decouplers. Or maybe thrust structures could be engine's (sub)parts, but still, the idea of dedicated circular attachment points on the top (instead of the bottom) of engines feels like a more proper construction method.
Let's discuss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kerb24 and NANDbrew
Upvote 0
That sounds a lot like KSP's engine plates, which I rather like for their versatility. In general I think decoupling engine diameter from tank/stack diameter is a good thing.
Also I agree that having magical attachment nodes on the bottom of engines is pretty nonsensical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moeggz
Wouldn't it be great to not have interstages magically appear on the engine parts?
That sounds like busy work to me. Interstages appearing automatically when you put a decoupler below an engine is a great quality of life feature that makes it easier to build rockets as a new player. Sure, you could make everyone manually do something that used to be done automatically in KSP, but what fun does that bring the average player?
 
Well if we're using that logic, decouplers should be automatic too. There's never a time when the player wants to attach an immobile object to the bottom of an engine. (Unless said player is Bradley Whistance, but I don't think that's the main target audience)
 
Well if we're using that logic, decouplers should be automatic too. There's never a time when the player wants to attach an immobile object to the bottom of an engine. (Unless said player is Bradley Whistance, but I don't think that's the main target audience)
No. The engine should only have autoshrouds when something is attached below it, but adding a decoupler that only works when there is something below? I think that would be quite hard (you would also have to change the icons it had in the staging, and you'd need two seperate icons [decoupler + engine] for one part). And since you need standalone decouplers for other things, the added complication is probably unnecessary. I can't think of a single thing for which you need a shroud without an engine (counting fairings as different, because they would need to be highly customizable in any case). Admittedly you could base it on a fairing, but the average player doesn't want (i.e. I don't want) the bother of having to make a custom engine shroud every time they place an engine.
 
Looks like you may have got your wish @Psycho_zs . From today's dev update by Daishi:

Moar boosters! A smaller, thrustier engine for pushing bigger payloads into orbit. Inspired by the LR-87, it can be mounted on both a 1m frame, 2m frame, or clustered on a 3 meter engine mounting plate in pairs or quads. The first engine now shares a common turbopump exhaust with it, with its vernier engines as an optional toggle.

Speaking of which - to make things more streamlined, I've approached stage decouplers closer to what happens in the real world. Interstage fairings snap onto the base of a tank (or a engine mounting plate) and you adjust them based on how big your engines are. Attach your engines in whatever arrangement you want, then attach your next stage to the base of the interstage fairing. The forces of the rocket are directed past the engine - not through it - allowing you to build in more creative ways (and stuff other things in there, like retro rockets, batteries, or other spacecraft). 🛰️
1000020097.png
The extra options allowed by having fairings be manual parts (like the cutouts for vernier thrusters in the image) makes it worth losing the ease of automatic fairings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Psycho_zs
I see circular markers for attachments in the latest vessel editing video. Making attachment points and their markers of different shapes has large potential.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TROPtastic