Stock fairings: Procedural or not?

[Nitrous Oxide]

The way I'm seeing it procedural fairing is inconsequential, a facilitator to the rest of the gameplay. We've played for YEARS without them and since the goal of any rocket is to get out of the thick atmosphere as fast as possible they aren't used for long.

Fairing mostly serve to "make things look right" as part of the ambiance. They weight little to nothing and are void so changing their size within reason wont play a big roles even with a better aerodynamic model.

Except that's completely wrong, fairings are used to protect the payload from aerodynamic forces so that your satellite actually makes it into space in one-piece. We've never had to use fairings to this point because the stock aero is absolute garbage. Tell, me... do you see rockets with a bunch of gadgets and gizmos sticking off the side or are they as smooth as possible?

Fairings aren't inconsequential, in fact a bad fairing design will completely cripple your rocket. It's just as huge as fuel tanks, if not more so because it actually factors into whether or not the rocket actually flies, not just how much TWR and dV it has.

Procedural tanks should be a no brainer if we get procedural fairings. Seriously. We already have procedural tanks in one sense, just with 20 different models. What do you do every time you pick a piece from the menu? Right, you choose a length and a diameter. I swear some people just don't want to think and want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

How is having more options ever a bad thing in a game like KSP? If you can't have self-control and make your own limits for your sandbox games, why are you playing KSP? Go play Skyrim or something with clearly defined goals and objectives, because that seems to be more suitable.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[kStrout]

I love procedural fairings, one of the many great things about it is that it uses less parts than KW style fairings, and allows great flexibility. But I also like the idea of limiting fairing size until certain technologies are unlocked.

[Azimech]

"because the stock aero is absolute garbage"

I've got a name for it: Errordynamics.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there is no such option available.

If I have the right tools to build something that I want, I don't want to build it anymore, because it's no longer fun. If I know that something is possible, building it is just boring and tedious work. What I find fun is exploring new ideas and trying to do things that could well be impossible. Procedural parts just make it harder to find new interesting ideas that could turn out to be impossible.

Essentially, limits are restrictions make a game fun, while having too much freedom makes it boring.

Respectfully I say: Total .........

There are always other things you can build. Most limits to people's creativity are self-imposed.

[Nitrous Oxide]

But I also like the idea of limiting fairing size until certain technologies are unlocked.

Yeah, definitely. I'm kind of at odds with how PFairings lets you have some ridiculous looking stuff. It's a simple fix... just limit the maximum diameter of the fairing to be relative to the size of the base ring (maybe 1.5x max?). Either way, you're already limited to the size of the base ring depending on your tech level.

Most limits to people's creativity are self-imposed.

True that. I don't complain about being able to make whatever graphic art in Photoshop... I pick my own limitations and go from there. The way some people in this thread put it though, is they'd rather have their color palettes predetermined because it's too hard to figure out what works on their own. Billy needs someone to hold his hand.

Sorry if it's mean, I just don't see why my creativity should be limited because someone else can't figure out what to create without a hard limit.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[Azimech]

You call that ridiculous?

[Jouni]

Respectfully I say: Total .........

There are always other things you can build. Most limits to people's creativity are self-imposed.

You obviously didn't get it.

Some people say that mathematics is a young man's field. If you look into the past, you see that many famous mathematicians did their best work in their 20s. The picture looks quite different, if you look at the present situation. Most major contributions are made by people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Mathematicians in their 20s are still learning the basics, because there's much more "trivial" stuff to study than in the past.

The issue with procedural parts is similar. The more flexible the new parts are, the more time I have to spend learning the proper ways of using them, before I reach the part of the game where the fun really begins. I'm not as interested in fitting payloads inside fairings than pushing the limits of what can be achieved with the parts we have. That's why I don't want flexible parts that do what I need them to do. Parts that almost do what I need but are still somehow wrong lead into more interesting gameplay.

[John FX]

You obviously didn't get it.

Some people say that mathematics is a young man's field. If you look into the past, you see that many famous mathematicians did their best work in their 20s. The picture looks quite different, if you look at the present situation. Most major contributions are made by people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Mathematicians in their 20s are still learning the basics, because there's much more "trivial" stuff to study than in the past.

The issue with procedural parts is similar. The more flexible the new parts are, the more time I have to spend learning the proper ways of using them, before I reach the part of the game where the fun really begins. I'm not as interested in fitting payloads inside fairings than pushing the limits of what can be achieved with the parts we have. That's why I don't want flexible parts that do what I need them to do. Parts that almost do what I need but are still somehow wrong lead into more interesting gameplay.

I guess you'll have to find a way for the game to be fun once we get the procedural fairings then.

It's like when docking was not in the stock game, you could say the lack of docking forced you to be more inventive as you were restricted to single launch missions and it would be less fun with docking and it also would be more learning before you get to the 'fun' part of the game. You could say "I'm not interested in multiple launches, that would be boring and grindy. I want to push the limits of what can be done with the parts we already have. That's why I don't want flexible parts that do what I need them to do. Parts that almost do what I need but are still somehow wrong lead into more interesting gameplay."

Now that docking is firmly part of the stock game that argument seems invalid and anyone trying to use that argument to petition for the removal of docking ports would quite rightly not be listened to. That person would be told 'just don't use them, there are challenges if you want to do that', and that is what we find, that there are challenges to see what can be done without multiple launches. That area of fun gameplay has not gone, it still exists even though the parts that make it unnecessary are in the VAB. It just is not forced on every player in the sandbox.

In a similar way, procedural fairings will not stop you from exploring the limits of gameplay without them.

IMHO career is made for the experience of building craft in a limited environment and seeing what is possible and sandbox is for unlimited play with all the tools for rocket building anyone would desire.

To attempt to limit sandbox to force certain types of gameplay is to go against the reason career was implemented.

EDIT : Just re-read the mathematics bit of your post and it seems to support proc fairings as it would extend gameplay and not make the game so simple it could be mastered with little effort...

Edited February 21, 2015 by John FX

[Azimech]

You obviously didn't get it.

Some people say that mathematics is a young man's field. If you look into the past, you see that many famous mathematicians did their best work in their 20s. The picture looks quite different, if you look at the present situation. Most major contributions are made by people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Mathematicians in their 20s are still learning the basics, because there's much more "trivial" stuff to study than in the past.

The issue with procedural parts is similar. The more flexible the new parts are, the more time I have to spend learning the proper ways of using them, before I reach the part of the game where the fun really begins. I'm not as interested in fitting payloads inside fairings than pushing the limits of what can be achieved with the parts we have. That's why I don't want flexible parts that do what I need them to do. Parts that almost do what I need but are still somehow wrong lead into more interesting gameplay.

And again ... you're self-imposing a limit. Your own choice :-) You could write down a limit for fairing shape and size and play according to your own rules. Again, creating rules that limit your possibilties, that's called creativity.

[Nitrous Oxide]

And again ... you're self-imposing a limit. Your own choice :-) You could write down a limit for fairing shape and size and play according to your own rules. Again, creating rules that limit your possibilties, that's called creativity.

True that. It's really not as hard as you're making it seem... in fact I find it's easier to pick up the procedural tank and set the diameter and height than it is to flip through the part catalog to grab the bigger or smaller tanks as I need...

Procedural Parts is built to fit the stock game design. You can push a single button to get 1m increments, like the stock tanks. The diameters also have increments in 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, & 5m. The only difference, is that if you choose, you can actually go a little more freeform (suppose I want a 1.1m part). But it's not forcing you to do math or anything, you can still build a ship just as easily... if not, I certainly wouldn't use them.

Also, it's limited by tech progression. You can't build a procedural tank any bigger than the ones you have access to.

But I mean, look how much neater a low-tier rocket looks with procedurals (SRBs, nose cones and the fairing)...

Edited February 21, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[Jouni]

IMHO career is made for the experience of building craft in a limited environment and seeing what is possible and sandbox is for unlimited play with all the tools for rocket building anyone would desire.

To attempt to limit sandbox to force certain types of gameplay is to go against the reason career was implemented.

I feel that sandbox is the real game, while career mode is a diversion that you play once in a while, like scenarios in Civ V. Career mode lacks the replay value the sandbox has, because you always fly more or less the same missions.

And again ... you're self-imposing a limit. Your own choice :-) You could write down a limit for fairing shape and size and play according to your own rules. Again, creating rules that limit your possibilties, that's called creativity.

I can find new problems to solve even without KSP. The more self-imposed rules I need to find interesting challenges in KSP, the less reason there is to play the game at all.

True that. It's really not as hard as you're making it seem... in fact I find it's easier to pick up the procedural tank and set the diameter and height than it is to flip through the part catalog to grab the bigger or smaller tanks as I need...

I've been saying that the game should not have the parts I need. Something similar perhaps, but always a bit wrong.

[Azimech]

I can find new problems to solve even without KSP. The more self-imposed rules I need to find interesting challenges in KSP, the less reason there is to play the game at all.

And

I've been saying that the game should not have the parts I need. Something similar perhaps, but always a bit wrong.

Why don't you go play 0.13 and build with the 20 parts total in there. Tons of limits! Or even 0.17. But please don't try to impose your ideas of a limit on others, if it only serves your own limited ideas of reality. If you want to stay behind, your choice. We go on.

Now ... let's all grab a beer and have fun :-)

[cantab]

Why don't you go play 0.13 and build with the 20 parts total in there. Tons of limits! Or even 0.17.

Or play Science or Career mode, in which a restricted selection of parts and having to earn more ones is central to the gameplay.

[Jouni]

Why don't you go play 0.13 and build with the 20 parts total in there. Tons of limits! Or even 0.17. But please don't try to impose your ideas of a limit on others, if it only serves your own limited ideas of reality. If you want to stay behind, your choice. We go on.

You still don't get it. New parts are good, because they open new gameplay possibilties. They just shouldn't be too flexible, because having too much flexibility kills the fun in the new gameplay.

KSP is ultimately a game, where you build rockets by combining simple parts. Because you're working with a fixed set of parts, you can't usually build exactly what you want. What happens is that you start with a general design, and then iterate between trying to build it and adjusting your plans based on what you can actually build. The iterative process is what makes rocket building interesting. With procedural parts, it would become a rather tedious optimization problem, at least at the current level of abstraction.

This is probably related to why I chose computer science instead of physics. Combinatorics is just more fun than continuous mathematics.

[PikachuNL]

Procedural, pretty please. The game already struggles with high-part count craft, also, procedural wings would increase the performance and make it easier to make complex shapes.

[Nitrous Oxide]

I've been saying that the game should not have the parts I need. Something similar perhaps, but always a bit wrong.

But this is exactly the opposite of what KSP is. One of the strongest points of the game is the moddability of it and all the amazing part packs (FASA, SXT, Tantares, Nova Punch, B9, etc.) that people have worked so hard on...

Just because you don't like having lots of choices doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't have choices. Procedural parts simply make sense from a programming perspective. The point is to reduce the amount of "hard-coded" assets and let the computer generate things on the fly from algorithms to save memory and processing power. For tanks, instead of having to load 20 different scripts and models and textures, procedurals reduces that all to a grand total of 1!

Edited February 22, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[Jouni]

But this is exactly the opposite of what KSP is. One of the strongest points of the game is the moddability of it and all the amazing part packs (FASA, SXT, Tantares, Nova Punch, B9, etc.) that people have worked so hard on...

Mods are usually made, because some people want the game to become something other than it is.

If you look at KSP, you see that we don't have procedural fuel tanks, procedural engines, procedural command pods, procedural adapters, procedural hitchhiker modules, procedural batteries, procedural solar panels, or procedural parachutes. Apparently somebody at Squad doesn't like procedural parts, even though implementing them would be straightforward. The result is a game, where the parts are usually a bit too large or a bit too small for our purposes, and we have to adjust our plans based on what's available.

Just because you don't like having lots of choices doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't have choices. Procedural parts simply make sense from a programming perspective. The point is to reduce the amount of "hard-coded" assets and let the computer generate things on the fly from algorithms to save memory and processing power. For tanks, instead of having to load 20 different scripts and models and textures, procedurals reduces that all to a grand total of 1!

This is completely unrelated to the question at hand. It's entirely possible (and probably preferable) to make the implementation of the parts procedural, while still exposing a fixed set of parts to the player.

[DuoDex]

Just a reminder to keep things under control and polite here.