New stock parts - thoughts?

[Robotengineer]

All of Tantares, and all of Ven Stock Revamp. RealChutes. More wheels and tracks, a la KerbalFoundries. More engine diversity, etc.

[Slam_Jones]

The Stock-alike Station Parts (I think that's what it's called) has a bunch of very nice and, yes, stock-like station parts, including more 2.5m kerbal modules, and at least one 3.75m module. Adds a fair bit of variety to stations.

[Bill Phil]

Longer 0.625 meter tanks. New 0.625 meter engines.

And SRMs of all shapes and sizes! In-line 0.625 meter SRB, non inline ones, 1.25 meter upper stage SRMs, 2.5 meter SRBs and SRMs...

[Clipperride]

I'd like to see some sort of deployable strut to allow increasing the footprint of landers once in orbit

Also a set of Oxidiser tanks for Mk1,2 & 3

Some more space station parts.

A radar altimeter for true height above ground in a couple of resolutions (say to nearest 100m for low tech one, then to nearest 10m then 1m)

That'd keep me happy (for a while! )

Edited September 19, 2015 by Clipperride

[Jr6150x]

I just want more, better looking structural beams and such

[War Eagle 1]

VTOL Jet engines

single seat MKII cockpit

propellers (for helicopters)

MKI cargo bay

KIS Mod

Parachutes for kerbals (or at least ejection seats)

[Alshain]

We need better wings for Mk3 and better landing gear. The wings are great, but aren't enough. I would have preferred an larger version of the modular wings.

The two largest landing gear are utter crap and the small gear bay could use a texture upgrade.

We need a shuttle OMS engine too, stack mounted and using monoprop.

I'd also like to see some kind of adapter or half shroud for the back of shuttles that the engines can inset. I just don't like the cross section of the Mk2 and Mk3 visible from the side, it seems awkward.

Also, stack chutes.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Alshain

[OgreMagi]

different sized nuclear engines, loved the .5 ton for space planes and the larger 2.0 3.0 meters varities.

electric props, ballones,

better raidial mounted rocket engines, a scram jet for space planes.

[SciMan]

It's my understanding that one of the reasons that they aren't adding as many parts as they used to is because of the game's RAM limitations (3.5GB).

When 64-bit support comes in (1.1 or 1.2, probably), that limit is removed (maxes out at hundreds of GB).

Note that's not an "if", it's a WHEN.

I expect that whatever version 64-bit comes out in, if it's proven stable Squad might start adding more parts again in the version after that.

I hope they also start adding in more planets (another thing that's currently not considered because it would take up lots more RAM).

Whatever happens, 64-bit will give me a really good reason to get my new computer finished (with it's 16GB of ram, more if I upgrade).

Visual mods and planet packs and ALL the parts packs, and I still won't run out of ram. It'll be GLORIOUS.

Also, right now KSP uses the same core for physics, thermal, and resource system threads.

Allowing those threads to use different cores would probably add more performance for most people than physics being truly multithreaded (2 cores cooperating on the physics of one ship).

By that, I mean it would return KSP to the performance it had in the really old days (even before docking was added).

1000-part ships built back then lagged about as much 250-300 part ships do now.

The thing that killed performance back then was looking at the water, and/or having 20-odd engines running at the same time (large amounts of particle effects still cause lag).

As far as wish-list items go:

2.5m and Mk3 RAPIER

2.5m and Mk3 Turboramjet (whiplash)

High-thrust LFO 4-thruster RCS blocks (Vernor, but useful in all 4 directions)

2.5m, 3.75m Nuclear engines.

Larger / Longer landing legs (for stages with 3.75m engines)

3.75m low-profile "lander" engine (48-7S, LV909, Poodle, where's the 3.75m one?)

Fuel tanks 1.5 and/or 2x as long as the longest tanks currently available:

One longer than the LV-T800 (1.25m).

One longer than the Jumbo-64 (2.5m).

One longer than the S3-14400 (3.75m).

2x/4x/8x long versions of the Oscar-B.

Larger versions of the Round-8 (Toroidal tanks are great because a fuel tank surrounding the engine saves height on landers).

2.5/3.75m Aerospike engines (and tweak them so they're actually more useful on Eve than a KS-25x4 Mammoth)

Now for something that's not parts, but it makes current parts much more useful.

Per-planet atmosphere heating values.

Right now the heating system (mostly) works for Kerbin. And pretty well for Laythe, too.

Everywhere else? Let's go by planet:

Duna: ...What atmospheric heating? All I felt was a gentle breeze. (no appreciable heating)

Eve: IT BURNS! IT BURRRRNS!! (slow painful melting/death)

Jool: *Signal Lost* (near instantaneous overheating of ALL components of the ship)

Being able to set how hot "X m/s" is on a per-planet basis would work well, because then you don't have to tweak all the parts to be able to survive eleventy billion degrees in order to survive Jool aerobraking.

Edited September 19, 2015 by SciMan

[Terwin]

Now for something that's not parts, but it makes current parts much more useful.

Per-planet atmosphere heating values.

Right now the heating system (mostly) works for Kerbin. And pretty well for Laythe, too.

Everywhere else? Let's go by planet:

Duna: ...What atmospheric heating? All I felt was a gentle breeze. (no appreciable heating)

Eve: IT BURNS! IT BURRRRNS!! (slow painful melting/death)

Jool: *Signal Lost* (near instantaneous overheating of ALL components of the ship)

Being able to set how hot "X m/s" is on a per-planet basis would work well, because then you don't have to tweak all the parts to be able to survive eleventy billion degrees in order to survive Jool aerobraking.

I think the exponential fall-off that was mentioned recently should address this.(I forget if it was in the squad-cast transcription of the dev notes)

The current problem is that when you enter a dense atmosphere, you transition from space to quite a lot of resistance(and heating) instantly.

When they add exponential fall-off to the atmosphere the transition should allow higher heating values over-all without killing everything that touches a dense atmosphere.

This should make aero-braking much more feasible, at least for small changes. This should also make the atmospheric transitions much 'softer' so that there are fewer magic number altitudes.

[sal_vager]

This seems to be turning into a parts wishlist rather than discussion of the parts coming in 1.1, moved to Dev discussion.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think the exponential fall-off that was mentioned recently should address this.(I forget if it was in the squad-cast transcription of the dev notes)

The current problem is that when you enter a dense atmosphere, you transition from space to quite a lot of resistance(and heating) instantly.

When they add exponential fall-off to the atmosphere the transition should allow higher heating values over-all without killing everything that touches a dense atmosphere.

This should make aero-braking much more feasible, at least for small changes. This should also make the atmospheric transitions much 'softer' so that there are fewer magic number altitudes.

It's already exponential (all KSP atmospheres use the scale height model), it's just some of the parameters need adjusting.