Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 65

Thread: Procedural Parts (The best way to improve the game experience?)

  1. #1

    Procedural Parts (The best way to improve the game experience?)

    I can see only benefics when I think in procedural parts, for that reason I want to open a discussion.
    For me is the only logic way that KSP has to improve the game limits, time to build and reduced count parts that it will traslate to better performance in frames and time to load..

    First some examples of what I am going with this.
    I guess many of you already know the mods (Procedural fairings, Procedural Wings, Stretchy Tanks and Modular Fuel System).

    Now lets start to think, how many parts we need to have all the possible fuel tanks that we maybe need? Now, you need to multiply that amount for the different kinds of fuels.
    If we have dimmensions from 1-25 to 5 and then 1 orange tank "large" to the X200-8 Tank "large" you have 16 parts without count different fuels and smaller tanks like those in RCS.

    Of course you can have an small tank and then put one over the other until you reach the amount that you want.. But how much performance and loading time are you wasting?

    Also wings, how many parts we need to make almost any shape? Even with B9 I cant make the shapes that I want sometimes. "well this guy can said something about it; but this wing structure it does not allow a future improve in the aerodinamic system."

    Procedural wings fix all that with just 2 parts. And you can improve the aerodynamic system in the future and it will be easier to adapt.

    I guess had a lot of mods just to fill the posibilities of part that we need is not healthy. This will give us hundreds of parts in the whole game.. And if we want to search one from all that it will be very difficult.

    Maybe someone can say that is more real if we had certains products between we choose. But is not the case. Becouse factories commonly had many sizes of each product they produce. Also in the space industry almost all is made just for the occasion.

    So what I am saying?
    I guess KSP must incorporate these mods to the vainilla with some changes.
    For example, stretchy tanks it does not use standard sizes. The problem with that is you are loosing the scale parameters with other parts.

    A better way to do it it will be with 3 different shapes of tanks. Cilindrical, Spherical and half spherical-cone shape.
    In cilindrical you had the width that you can alternate between (0,65 - 1.25 - 2,5 - 3.5 - 5) and large (from 2 times a orange tank to a half X200-8 Tank).
    Once you had the tank, you fill it with the fuel of your choice. In this way the cost of the fuel it will be independient from the tank. Also you can choose Liquil fuel, or LF and oxidizer, Or RCS or other kinds of fuels that the game can incorporate into the future.
    In carrer mode maybe we can have the option to choose different materials, in this case it will be notice by different textures.

    The same for girder segments, or adapters, batteries, anteenas, ladders, parachutes, gears, docking ports, control surface, winglets, solar cells, reaction wheels, decouplers, etc.
    In the case of engines maybe it can be implemented in advance mode something like Scoundrel´s suggestion, I dont know..

    But just with that, we reduce the count parts from more of hundreds to 30.
    The Fairing mod is also a perfect example. That mod is great, maybe we can have a dynamic base plate too and then we reduce even more, from 8 parts (fairing mod) to 4 parts (all posible fairings).

    And I guess if the KSP team decide in some moment make a change to all procedural, I guess they can ask help to the comunity and we will be willing to help.
    They just need to dictate the norms that they want for each part.
    About the tech tree, we can upgrade different sizes parts.

    What are you thoghts? Some cons?

    Some examples of the part selection, are explained here:

    Last edited by AngelLestat; 9th October 2013 at 18:53.

  2. #2
    Star Platinum: The Mod sumghai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Melbourne, Australia
    Blog Entries
    For me, the primary purpose of procedural parts would be to reduce part counts by having monolithic components, but I definitely agree that in real life component dimensions are standardized for ease of manufacturing. So for the most part, I agree that procedural parts in KSP should "snap" to these aforementioned standard dimensions.
    Laws of thermodynamics as applied to life: 0 - You must play the game. 1 - You can't win. 2 - You can't break even. 3 - You can't quit.

    FusTek Station Parts (X0.04-4 DEV BUILD / 5 June 2014)
    Sum Dum Heavy Industries Service Module System (V2.0 / 27 Jul 2014)

  3. #3
    Not sure about procedural engines; you could certainly have procedural mounting plates for engine nozzles though. On top of that, add in switchable textures so your procedural items don't all look the same, which would get a little boring; but no need for a complete new part for a different style texture. A procedural tank ( as an example ) could either - or all of - snap it's size to whatever it's attached to, be dragged to an arbitrary diameter at one or both ends, or be given a pre-set size from a VAB/SPH menu.

    Core code to support procedural items would be a huge step forward, I think. No point half a dozen mod devs reinventing the wheel over and over. I have some ideas for more complicated aerofoil sculpting which would need some work on mesh warping, which I doubt Squad would want to do but it'd be much easier if there was some procedural support in the API.

  4. #4
    Official HypeTrain Driver GregroxMun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gregrox Inc. Bar, Gril, and Rocketry restaurant
    Blog Entries
    I HATE OP PROCEDURAL PARTS. Stretchytanks are the go-to solution for everything. you could literally delete the other fuel tanks. That is hindering gameplay. KSP is about modular pieces. I do however support procedural fairings, as they are cleaner than KW or NPR fairings and don't replace an extremely large range of objects. A procedural Engine, for example, would replace every other engine.
    Survived the April Kraken Attack! Message to self: Forumers are people just like yourself, try not to convey an angry tone.
    Been a Kerbal since August 4th 2012, back in 0.16!
    Quote Originally Posted by XKCD What If?
    Gravity assists aren’t paradoxical magic. It’s just like bouncing a tennis ball off a passing truck. Gyroscopes, on the other hand, ARE magic.

  5. #5
    How on earth is it hindering gameplay? if I need a part a specific size and shape I can just *go and make one*. Now I've just added another part to the game though, and there is a limit to numbers of parts.

    If this really was a puzzle game about using a set number of parts to solve space problems, there'd be no mod support & no cfg editing.

  6. #6
    The thing about Stretchy Tanks is that they're expensive compared to the regular tanks. A single Stretchy Tank (KI-1000) is 2.5 times the cost of a regular TL800. Until you're using 2.5x the fuel capacity of a TL800, the KI1000 costs quite a bit more. The end-all option, the KI-9000, which can be stretched in both radial and length dimensions, has a cost of 10,000.

    But, we don't pay attention to this because we have absolutely no limits on part availability or budget constraints. The entire Kerbal race exists to service the space program, and the entire net global product of Kerbin is dedicated to it. Budget tracking and limited part availability is what would make procedural tanks work with the standard mass produced parts.

    My personal thought on the Stretchy Tanks is they should cost even more than they do now (even though it's not doing anything). A TL-800 holds 800 units of propellant and costs 1600 Kr. (Kredits? ) An "un-stretched" KI-1000 holds 300 and costs 4000. That gives us a cost to propellant ratio of 1:2 for the TL-800, and 1:13.333 for the basic KI-1000.

    I want the cost of a Stretchy tank to reflect exactly how big I made it... For example, if I expanded the KI-1000 to 800 units (which would put it at a 1:5 propellant to Kr. ratio currently, two and a half times that of the TL-800) I think it should cost about 10,667Kr (the same 1:~13.333, units:Kr.).

    An economy system would make you choose what you built with a lot more carefully.

  7. #7
    Yeah, like some of you said, Engines and pods seems to be the parts that not allow procedural mechanics. Or maybe thinking out of the box there is a way at least to reduce the count a little. But even is not, the amount of parts that we reduce using other kinds of procedural parts is amazing.
    These mods are just good examples of the things that we can acomplish. And all these guys invested time on this mods without know if the people will use them or not, but if you said to some modders "hey, we need procedural parts with these parameters to add them to the game, who helps?
    That is something totally different, if you are sure that something will be added in the game, I guess almost all the mod comunity will help.

    About the cons mentioned by VaporTrail or GregroxMun , first that is a mod, I am not saying that needs to be added just like that.. And you are misinterpreting the purpose.
    First if you had procedural parts like tanks. You dont have the normal parts like the orange tank, etc. After that you will use only procedural. And its cost it will depend on the size of your tank of course.
    And it can be compatible with older saves, you just need to make a "case code" when if your old ship had 1 orange tank, then is remplaced by a procedural tank with the same measures. So you get the same part with the new system.

    And this is not like you had a tank of miracle material that you can stretchy to the size that you want, this is more like you plain in your hangar how it will be the tank of your rocket, and then you buy it and place it. After that you fill it with your fuel choice with extra cost.

    Is like van disaster said, this is not a puzzle game.

    Right now almost everybody use different mods to make rockets or airplanes, with this you can have to almost everyone using the same parts to build werever they want.. But the steep needs to start from Squad, to encourage modders to help.

  8. #8
    Mutants Worship Me Nuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    procedural tanks would make rocket designs more realistic. you dont go get 4 tanks off the shelf and bolt em together, you fabricate a tank of the correct size for the stage.
    this space intentionally left blank

  9. #9
    If you create procedural parts most of the hard work the devs just put into the tech tree for unlocking new parts would be worthless.
    Unless you make it a part unlocked later and raise its cost like VaporTrail said.

  10. #10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts