Any chance to see stock procedural wings in future updates?

[Vegatoxi]

Question is in the title.

Current stock wings/control surfaces not give enough freedom. And mods not always get regular and timely updates.

[Van Disaster]

Historically Squad have given a firm "no" to any suggestions about procedural anything at all.

[cantab]

The modular wing pieces work pretty well for me. I haven't worked with the bigger stuff so much.

If we do get procedural wings, then the fairings are an example of how not to do it I feel. I don't want something that I can't remake if I delete it.

[Red Iron Crown]

[Moderator] Moved this suggestion for the stock game over to Suggestions & Development Discussion. [/Moderator]

[Personal Opinion] Yes, please. I'm generally against procedurals in the stock game as I feel it detracts from the Lego-like building mechanics of KSP, but they just make too much sense for wings. We currently have 37 wing and control surface parts filling up the editor menu and there are still shapes that are difficult or impossible to make. These could be replaced by just two or three procedural parts and give us much greater design flexibility. [/Personal Opinion]

[klgraham1013]

Probably not. I'm hoping for some Mk3 modular wings. All this prefab stuff we've been getting recently is, kind of, a bummer.

[Vegetal]

I'm all for it. Would simplify the building process a lot.

[Van Disaster]

I've always been for it, maybe the fairings were the wedge to get more parts.

[Alshain]

Normally I am against procedural parts except where it would create an unnecessarily large number of parts to create new and interesting designs. For this reason, I'm torn on this. I like the modular wings, but they do create a lot of parts, and the large series of wings is simply unacceptable, all planes look like 767's or Shuttles and that isn't right, no creativity at all. Procedural Wings would certainly solve this, but I really like building modular wings.

[Van Disaster]

You still have to build modular wings even with pWings ( unless you end up with some complicated editor that lets you pinch & pull parts of a single wing - that'd involve inserting vertices into a mesh and consequent UV remapping in realtime, which is a bit more than anything we have atm - deleting edit points would be fun to do accessibly :S ), you just only have to build them outwards rather than backwards as well. One of the best things about the b9 wings is the integration of the control surfaces - and in fact procedural control surfaces themselves.

[Wjolcz]

I'm with RIC and Alshain on this one. Kind of torn. Modular wings are alright IMO, but recently I've been experimenting with B9 pWings for the BAD-T tournament and they are amazing for smooth and aerodynamic wings with control surfaces not sticking out like we have now. pWings are really amazing for that kind of thing. And with that sentence I think I just changed my mind.

Not the tanks though. I like LEGO rockets.

[NoMrBond]

Historically Squad have given a firm "no" to any suggestions about procedural anything at all.

Not quite, Maxmaps expressed interest in some procedural structural parts (trusses/girders were mentioned), and procedural fairings (which are already in game).

It just has to make sense and not trivialize gameplay

[klgraham1013]

The fairings already undermine this, but:

I think they need to choose a design philosophy and stick with it. I see merit in lego and procedural, but having both in one game just causes confusion. "Why can I make wings how every I want, but I can't stretch tanks to the length I want?" By maintaining the lego-style, a new player understands the system and what can and should be possible. The restrictions are apparent and easy to understand.

As far as the number of wing parts, that could become irrelevant with shared textures and thoughtful sorting.

[Moss]

I've got no problem with having both procedural and pre-fab wings in the game. Same goes for fuel tanks. Just make each pre-frab part a procedural part with "locked" parameters, such as it's length, nodes and internal resource, with the ability to unlock fully procedural parts later in the career tree.

[Capt Snuggler]

I used to be against it but have now completely changed my mind.

now that larger craft are more common and part count is becoming a critical issue for many players I think procedural wings would help solve many lag issues and problems with building.

despite the best efforts of Porkjet the [B]multipart wing system does not and cannot work 100% of the time[/B] but a procedural system, if done correctly, could.

[Vegatoxi]

[quote name='klgraham1013']The fairings already undermine this, but:

I think they need to choose a design philosophy and stick with it. I see merit in lego and procedural, but having both in one game just causes confusion. "Why can I make wings how every I want, but I can't stretch tanks to the length I want?" By maintaining the lego-style, a new player understands the system and what can and should be possible. The restrictions are apparent and easy to understand.

As far as the number of wing parts, that could become irrelevant with shared textures and thoughtful sorting.[/QUOTE]

Well, B9 dond free you from LEGO-style building, especially when you deal with big wings.
And B9 wing looks beautiful than bunch of stock wing plates sticked together

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='klgraham1013']As far as the number of wing parts, that could become irrelevant with shared textures and thoughtful sorting.[/QUOTE]
It's not just memory footprint (which is apparently not all that much for the stock parts anyway). It's that each part has its own inertia calcs, aero calcs, and thermal calcs. Part count of a vessel is the biggest factor in KSP performance, measures to keep it in check are very welcome.

[Alshain]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']It's not just memory footprint (which is apparently not all that much for the stock parts anyway). It's that each part has its own inertia calcs, aero calcs, and thermal calcs. Part count of a vessel is the biggest factor in KSP performance, measures to keep it in check are very welcome.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, thats why I'm torn on this. On the one hand I don't want to lose the modular wings. On the other hand, even 1.1 won't totally eliminate part count issues and wings make a lot of it. I wouldn't object to proc wings if it expanded what we can build creatively due to varying shape, sizes, and lack of part count 'restrictions'. Edited November 16, 2015 by Alshain