TopHeavy11

1.3 Part Suggestion MEGA THREAD!

Part Suggestions!   111 members have voted

  1. 1. What would you like to see added to the game in 1.3?

    • Better FX
    • New Plane Parts
    • More Porkalike Parts
    • 1.875 m 2 Kerbal Capsule
    • Other (Please post in comment section below)

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

53 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I thought, when I heard of the new 1,875 stock parts based on the Gemini missions, "Why not make a 1.875 m 2 Kerbal pod?" Then I thought, "What might everyone else like to see added to the new update?" That is how this thread was born. Vote on the poll above or voice your opinions in the comments below.

SPOILER IS FOR MODERATORS ONLY

Spoiler

If you are reading this, you are a moderator. Once the 1.3 update is released, please feel free to take this thread down if you so wish.

 

Edited by TopHeavy11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is a good idea, but you should probably remove the 1.875m cockpit option, as that's already confirmed and finished. :D

XhHKDrI.jpg

Also you might want to change the title to what parts you want to see, as the only parts they are adding in 1.3 are the asteroid day parts, which are all already made. and pretty much nothing else.

 

Edited by MiffedStarfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, we have an incomplete 3.75m lineup and old looking rocket parts which don't match the style of the newer parts. I'd rather have an art pass and a full 3.75 lineup (reaction wheels, command probes, maybe one landing can, more powerful RCS, a slim monoprop tank) than another incomplete size lineup

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.3 should fix the extant rocket parts. Anything made with a combination of DLC parts and extant rocket parts should look like they go together (assuming the DLC parts look nice, and don't look like current rocket parts). The rim on the tanks needs to go. Stacking 4 tanks should look like 1 tank 4x as long. The 2 landers need to be improved, mostly the mk2. All the decouplers need to be flush.

 

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game really needs spicing up visually.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with @tater instead of holding roverdude back and make parts that look good with the mess we already got (like they are doing now making him model his saturn parts after Hugo's ugly nasa placeholders) squad should improve art of the stock parts that are meant to be used in the DLC missions alongside the DLC parts.

This could be a thing @Badie and @UomoCapra could use to promote the DLC at almost any price point because it tells the existing user base that better art in the base game would coincide with the release of DLC and that as the DLC succeeds more DLC will follow, and as a result more stock part art updates. Basically a revolutionary twist on the Paradox studio "buying our dlc is like paying a subscription to fund improvements to the base game" model.

EDIT: See here for how the 3.75m NASA parts can be improved on the cheap. Technically it's talking about the making history parts but since they were modeled after the NASA parts the same principles apply.

Edited by passinglurker
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

I agree with @tater instead of holding roverdude back and make parts that look good with the mess we already got (like they are doing now making him model his saturn parts after Hugo's ugly nasa placeholders) squad should improve art of the stock parts that are meant to be used in the DLC missions alongside the DLC parts.

This could be a thing @Badie and @UomoCapra could use to promote the DLC at almost any price point because it tells the existing user base that better art in the base game would coincide with the release of DLC and that as the DLC succeeds more DLC will follow, and as a result more stock part art updates. Basically a revolutionary twist on the Paradox studio "buying our dlc is like paying a subscription to fund improvements to the base game" model.

EDIT: See here for how the 3.75m NASA parts can be improved on the cheap. Technically it's talking about the making history parts but since they were modeled after the NASA parts the same principles apply.

Thanks for your comments @passinglurker, I´ll share them with the team 

17 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A poll of what should be in the game without rocket parts as an option. I'd almost mistake it for an official Squad poll.

Also, I don't think that 1.3 will have new parts. The emphasis was made on the localisation (and bugfixes) and the expansion has nothing to do with 1.3.

But yeah, rockets parts (stuff to build actual rockets not mining stuff or shuttle parts). More of them, and overhauling the current ones (style and performance). And please get rid of these stupid tankbutts and make all engines surface-attachable.

Edited by Gaarst
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, passinglurker said:

I agree with @tater instead of holding roverdude back and make parts that look good with the mess we already got (like they are doing now making him model his saturn parts after Hugo's ugly nasa placeholders) squad should improve art of the stock parts that are meant to be used in the DLC missions alongside the DLC parts.

I'm pretty sure it was @C7Studios who made the ARM parts.

Apart from that, I agree. The emphasis should be put on the stock parts. The DLC pack should complement the stock, not surpass their quality.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MiffedStarfish said:

This is a good idea, but you should probably remove the 1.875m cockpit option, as that's already confirmed and finished. :D

XhHKDrI.jpg

Also you might want to change the title to what parts you want to see, as the only parts they are adding in 1.3 are the asteroid day parts, which are all already made. and pretty much nothing else.

 

I actually wasn't referring to that, though that will be a nice addition to the game. I was referring to a Gemini Style pod, that would conform to the 1.875 parts like the Mk1 does to the 1.25 parts. I mean, we have the Mk1 and the Mk1-2, but we don't have the Mk2. Perhaps a 2-kerbal capsule would bridge the gap between 1 and 3 kerbal pods. Yes, we have the lander can, but are you really satisfied with that? It works, but it's ascetically displeasing. Remember @Porkjet's alternate 1.25 parts? The re-made Mk1 capsule? It would look like that, only with 2 windows, a slightly longer extension stem, and a 1.875 m diameter. It just seems like the next logical step. NASA thought so. Also, sorry that I replied to this so late. ALSO also, I accidentally wrote a part proposal above. :P

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I'm pretty sure it was @C7Studios who made the ARM parts.

Apart from that, I agree. The emphasis should be put on the stock parts. The DLC pack should complement the stock, not surpass their quality.

Unless he was haveing a bad day I don't think so the flaws from low janky poly's, lazy texturing tricks, and some of the worst uv mapping I've seen all points to our dear temporary intern and all around amature Hugo. @C7Studios art may have been rendered obsolete but at least he was consistent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Badie @SQUAD or whoever listens, we need bigger landing legs, Falcon 9 legs would be awesome and I know many players agree. Gridfins would be icing on the cake, but landing legs for big boosters are long overdue.

An Mk2 nosecone would be nice too.

Thanks for reading.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that 1.875m parts are a thing, some shuttle boosters of that size would be nice. Apart from that maybe grid fins and rocket landing legs. Also the 3.75m lineup needs finishing.

 

Hopefully we will also see all the old parts get overhauled at some point as they are all still placeholders. After seeing what Roverdude has done with the new DLC parts i feel confident that he is the person for the job. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new lander pod should have been designed to accept stand-alone RCS parts at 45 degrees, then make the 45 degree RCS, so that they could be used on other craft.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tater said:

The new lander pod should have been designed to accept stand-alone RCS parts at 45 degrees, then make the 45 degree RCS, so that they could be used on other craft.

Doesn't work with lem it's shape is defined by those thruster arms it would look weird any other way that's why it's in the history dlc and not the base game. I say you're better off saveing your gap filling wishlist for a proper update :wink:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grid fins would be cool, or a stock autopilot landing system.  Landing 2 boosters at the same time is next to impossible.  While flying a rocket to orbit.  Anyone think the same?  Also, stock boat parts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rocket parts overhaul and the removal en masse of tankbuttes which will free us from the tyranny of engine form factor resulting in engines based on "role" rather than "niche".

Vector, lead the way into the future!

Edited by regex
11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, regex said:

Rocket parts overhaul and the removal en masse of tankbuttes which will free us from the tyranny of engine form factor resulting in engines based on "role" rather than "niche".

Vector, lead the way into the future!

Add in stock clustering, with an interstage node.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like a radial EVA hatch you can place anywhere on your ship.

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tater said:

Add in stock clustering, with an interstage node.

Nah, surface-attach engines would be enough. No more cubic strut nonsense.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost exclusivly build stock warships, so these would probably be totally useless to 90% of players, but I would really like curved structual panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An 0.625 m version of the claw would be cool. Also, some smaller wing parts for the 0.625 m parts. I find that the current wing parts look weird for things like micro planes and drones, and the wing surfaces could also be very nice for aesthetics.

2 minutes ago, regex said:

Nah, surface-attach engines would be enough. No more cubic strut nonsense.

Why not just press T to toggle that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Why not just press T to toggle that?

Is that a current feature I'm missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, regex said:

Is that a current feature I'm missing?

Apparently (I think. It might be a mod, let me check)

EDIT: No, I think its courtesy of editor extensions. Sorry. (I haven't played without that mod for a while)

Edited by qzgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, regex said:

Nah, surface-attach engines would be enough. No more cubic strut nonsense.

That can certainly work, but the stock fairings now effectively have the interstage node if you think about ti with those attachment points. The goal might be to put 2 LT-30s as an upper stage with a decoupler below without having to make a contraption. 

I honest;y haven't used a stock engine or decoupler (or tank, for that matter) since the update first came out, and I tested stuff stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now