Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My idea would be to make as may parts as possible reshapeable.

I would love some sort of top down wing designer, where you can draw the outlines of a wing using 2d lines and it would be generated.

Reshaping, texture changeing (and in terms of tanks swapping contains) would also condense the parts menu.

Having vewer large parts (1 piece wings and tanks in contrast to multiple) would speed up the game and make crafts more durable.

optionaly i would like more tools common to 3d model programs like fusing of parts into one large (for complex fusulages).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been discussed many, many times before.

I think if we're ever going to get procedural parts we should also have something similar to Kerbal Krash Systems, where parts don't go *poof* and vanish, but instead have higher impact tolerance and deform, or simply vent fuel/get scratches and dirt marks/become unusable, or randomly fail after being reactivated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I was thinking about stock procedural parts myself for quite some time, but I can see some problems with it.

When you think about it, if you make everything procedural, you can make super duper sized fuel tanks with super duper sized nozzles. This would remove the engineering difficulty, technicality and challenge from the game, in a considerable way. I never gave that much thought until recently since I do not really submit challenges, but thinking about it, procedural parts would destroy the challenge submissions. Hence why challenges often state to only use stock parts as certain mods would give to much freedom at the cost of engineering skill.

Introducing this will ignore many submitted challenges in the challenges that are posted. Because it is often the engineering challenge with the given amount of parts, shapes, sizes of tank X and part Z that make building something a actual achievement.

I do agree about texturing though.
What I would like to see is the standard parts, exactly as they are now, with a ¨tweakscale' function that allows you to make 1.25meter parts into 2.50meter parts, and arguably with smaller increment dimensions in between 1.25, 2,50 and 3,75meter parts.

This still allows challenge rules to state to only use the stock part size of a FL-T800 for maintaining a universal construction challenge. Making it fully procedural will allow a user to cheat size a FL-T800 tank for instance with 5% more fuel capacity to score higher in a challenge. Make it fully procedural and you can make any engine into the most powerfull engine. If you want it that way, then why even have multiple engines in the game?

Why have a mammoth engine if you can procedurally increase the specifications of a LV-T30 to the same thrust without gimbal.

Having fewer large parts would fit in nicely cleaning up the vast amount of parts in the part select menu. But make sure that part resizing is done by preset increments. So that you may make a 1.25meter part into a 1.75meter part, but not into a 1,35meter part. Because then it would be impossible to see how a user has resized any of his components when he/she shares a picture. And as stated (being rhetorical here) that would impose problem in the challenges subforum, and we wouldn't want that I think.

In the end, I don't really understand all the "stock¨ requests. What's the problem with installing a mod. What is the need to want all those things in stock, when KSP is clearly a barebone sandbox game supplying necessary functions that allows full acces to anything available in the game. You want to go somewhere faster, with less parts, with nicer spacecraft armour and lasers. Then download the mod that gives it to you.
Imho anything requested for stock KSP, should be things that expand what's already in it, or to make the game easier and more fun. Procedural parts would give extra complexity to construction options, making it harder for new players to get there head around.

This^ just my opinion, yours may vary.

Edited by Vaporized Steel
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be 100% behind procedural wings for stock. About twenty stock parts could be replaced with one or two, while giving better flexibility of shape and reduced part count.

Procedural fuel tanks are fairly desirable too, for granularity of size and differing contents. Plus some part count reduction, though not as much as with wings.

I'm less keen on procedural engines. A big part of KSP's building skill is knowing which engines to use when and where, if they went procedural it would be more difficult for newbies and less challenging for veterans, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I'd be 100% behind procedural wings for stock. About twenty stock parts could be replaced with one or two, while giving better flexibility of shape and reduced part count.

Procedural fuel tanks are fairly desirable too, for granularity of size and differing contents. Plus some part count reduction, though not as much as with wings.

I'm less keen on procedural engines. A big part of KSP's building skill is knowing which engines to use when and where, if they went procedural it would be more difficult for newbies and less challenging for veterans, IMO.

^^^ What this guy said.

I would LOVE the ability to customize not only wings, but control surfaces as well. I'm not much of a (space)plane guy, but customizable fins for bulky launch vehicles... That would be awesome.

Along with all the other stuff, I really like the Procedural Fairings mod. I'm just not a fan of the stock fairings (flawed colliders, clamshell still not default, you name it). In my mind, I shouldn't need to roll my own fairings piece by piece (PF handles that automagically).

Procedural tanks are a bit "meh" for me. It does reduce part count and make size easier to fine-tune, but if there were more fuel types (like in RealFuels), then procedural tanks would probably be more useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there would be a procedual wing thing it has to have ancor/poly edit abilites and maybe even beziere curves so i can build my mad wing shapes.

IF i play KSP i only do it for like 20-30 Minutes trying out some new Wing Setup. Theyre mostly very unconventional and the two things i had the most problems with where no connection loops in parts and problems with procedual wing mods like B9 not behaving well if i e.g. have 3 sectons connected to each other (if the wing has kinks in it or winglets)

 

Regarding Tanks and such:

The stats have to scale with the part e.g. by calculating the volume and substracting space taken by insulation, inner tank shape and so on (could be a percentage).

About Engines:

Its harder to scale engines realisticly but i had the need for small ones in the past (think about Winged Drones with jetengines). It could be done by getting real world values from very small and very large engines working by the same principal ( e.g. small rc jet engines and pasenger plane ones). then map out their stats like fuel consumption, thrust and so. Interpolate them and normalizy their valy by an refference KSP engine. The result would be a fair estimate of the figures an engine of the size you wish would have.

 

About other things:

we all had problems with landing gears, wheels and structural parts not beeing available in the size we want. with more complexe parts like landing gears the has to be multiple values like tire size, gear length and so on.

 

About funny shaped parts:

I like to replicate real world planes in ksp. SOme have very organic shapes. i know theres a border where ksp would be more like a 3d editor but just imagine beeing able to manipulate poligons for tanks in ksp . you could make lifting bodys with 2-3 parts. The fusulage of a fighter plane or the nosecone that complements your rocket perfectly.

 

KSP for me boils down to: how can we wrap the power of some complex 3d editor / game asset creator into a simple enough packet so its easy to understand and fun to play with. Thats Squads job....They allready did it with physics and space flight.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I started using SSTU, I've effectively gone this way for tanks. Many parts either  don't need this treatment, or it's inappropriate (crew parts, science parts, engines, etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2016 at 5:04 AM, Vaporized Steel said:

In the end, I don't really understand all the "stock¨ requests. What's the problem with installing a mod.

It takes you away from the core gameplay of "how do I solve X problem with Y elements" and can make you ineligible for challenges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 4:04 AM, Vaporized Steel said:

 

In the end, I don't really understand all the "stock¨ requests. What's the problem with installing a mod. What is the need to want all those things in stock,

Well if it's in stock hopefully it won't be broken every time there is an update.  Some people are purists (not me) and don't want to have to go find a mod for everything (though I do try to keep the number of mods I use down).  Some are just not comfortable with having to download executables from a variety of sources.  Those are just off the top of my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I'd be 100% behind procedural wings for stock. About twenty stock parts could be replaced with one or two, while giving better flexibility of shape and reduced part count.

Procedural fuel tanks are fairly desirable too, for granularity of size and differing contents. Plus some part count reduction, though not as much as with wings.

I'm less keen on procedural engines. A big part of KSP's building skill is knowing which engines to use when and where, if they went procedural it would be more difficult for newbies and less challenging for veterans, IMO.

IF (and that is a big IF) it were to happen It would actually be adding one or two (per type), not reducing it to one or two.  You can't remove the old ones, because plenty of people (myself included) want the piece together style.  So your option is to keep what we have or have both, you can't go to exclusively procedural wings and tanks this late in the games development without angering the half of the community that enjoys it the way it is.   So, adding procedural parts will not reduce the part count, it will just increase it.

They could certainly add new parts as procedural, like they did with the fairings.  The structural parts really need a lot of help in the varying size department (girders, hubmax, structural fuselage, panels, and radial attachment point especially) , I always thought those would be the perfect candidates for a tweakscale-like procedural parts implementation.  Though I do agree with you on engines, any type of procedural parts would hurt the gameplay there.

Edited by Alshain
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Alshain said:

IF (and that is a big IF) it were to happen It would actually be adding one or two (per type), not reducing it to one or two.  You can't remove the old ones, because plenty of people (myself included) want the piece together style.

You can eliminate the conflict by replacing all the current tanks with one procedural tank that has a variety of default sizes options that may or may not be further tweaked. Ta-da!

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

You can eliminate the conflict by replacing all the current tanks with one procedural tank that has a variety of default sizes options that may or may not be further tweaked. Ta-da!

No, that wouldn't solve the problem of them all looking like the same part.  It somewhat depends on what the new upcoming textures look like, but I like having different designs, at least between the diameter sizes.  Perhaps you could do this for the tank heights, but you won't be eliminating many parts in the long run, and if they all use the same textures as non procedural parts (between diameters) then it won't affect anything anyway.

Really, this is all a moot point or hypothetical discussion anyway, all of us who have been here for a while know darn well we will never see procedural wings and tanks.  If we did get it for wings, there would be a much higher chance of it being like tweakscale, just so we could have a Mk3 sized versions of the piece together wings, but it's never going to be like PWings/Procedural Parts.  Everything we have heard from Squad says there is just no way it will happen.

Edited by Alshain
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Alshain said:

No, that wouldn't solve the problem of them all looking like the same part.  It somewhat depends on what the new upcoming textures look like, but I like having different designs, at least between the diameter sizes.  Perhaps you could do this for the tank heights, but you won't be eliminating many parts in the long run, and if they all use the same textures as non procedural parts (between diameters) then it won't affect anything anyway.

Really, this is all a moot point or hypothetical discussion anyway, all of us who have been here for a while know darn well we will never see procedural wings and tanks.  If we did get it for wings, there would be a much higher chance of it being like tweakscale, just so we could have a Mk3 sized versions of the piece together wings, but it's never going to be like PWings/Procedural Parts.  Everything we have heard from Squad says there is just no way it will happen.

Use SSTU for the tanks, and you solve this problem, they not only have multiple textures, but multiple shapes. Including the ability to add several different noses, plus numerous "mount" options (from a flat bottom, to flares for multiple engines, etc). 

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

Use SSTU for the tanks, and you solve this problem, they not only have multiple textures, but multiple shapes. Including the ability to add several different noses, plus numerous "mount" options (from a flat bottom, to flares for multiple engines, etc). 

But they aren't going to do that right after they have PorkJet re-design everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alshain You seem pretty unwilling to be satisfied. To begin you raised personal objections about why you'd rather this didn't happen (you like building blocks better than play-doh), then you redefine your objection (you only like your building blocks when they're painted with different colours/patterns), and then when that argument is also defeated you point out that Squad will probably never do this anyway. Classic goalpost moving, makes me wonder if this is just one long elaborate trolling session?

Putting aside the fact that Squad will do whatever they damn well please regardless of whatever they damn well said (especially if there's profit in it) I don't think whether they do this or not is particularly relevant. The suggestions in this forum probably give rise to far more mods than they do stock features. I'm often a little confused as to why so many in this community treat this section as an 'I demand Squad give us this feature' section instead of what it is actually labelled - Suggestions.

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

@Alshain You seem pretty unwilling to be satisfied. To begin you raised personal objections about why you'd rather this didn't happen (you like building blocks better than play-doh), then you redefine your objection (you only like your building blocks when they're painted with different colours/patterns), and then when that argument is also defeated you point out that Squad will probably never do this anyway. Classic goalpost moving, makes me wonder if this is just one long elaborate trolling session?

Putting aside the fact that Squad will do whatever they damn well please regardless of whatever they damn well said (especially if there's profit in it) I don't think whether they do this or not is particularly relevant. The suggestions in this forum probably give rise to far more mods than they do stock features. I'm often a little confused as to why so many in this community treat this section as an 'I demand Squad give us this feature' section instead of what it is actually labelled - Suggestions.

I never actually said it shouldn't happen, I said two thing

1. It most likely will not happen because Squad has always been so vehemently against it.  You can say it isn't relevant, but you know it is very relevant, and I think you also know it will likely never happen.
2. If in the incredibly unlikely scenario that it does happen it shouldn't remove the existing parts, just add new ones because people enjoy the other style.

It was you that tried to come up with reasons why both procedural and non-procedural shouldn't be implemented together and I countered those reasons as not acceptable for those of use that like non-procedural, but I never said procedural parts shouldn't be implemented, nor did I move any goalposts.  In fact I specifically stated some instances in which I would welcome procedural parts.  As to the forum,  I am often confused at why so many people treat these forums as "I want a bunch of people who agree with me to reply" instead of what it actually is - Discussion Forums.  If you post here, expect people to discuss, if you want a bunch of 'likes' I recommend Facebook.

Edited by Alshain
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt I will use the stock parts much, myself. Too little, too late. And SSTU is just... better. It also uses the stock size adjustments for career, so if that's important, you start with stubby little tanks, and they grow as they should via the tech tree. It will be nice if they ever actually make rocket parts that aren't the really, incredibly ugly stepchildren of the spaceplane parts. Someday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from my perspective this discussion its more about the how then the should. MY guess would be to do it propper squad simply hasnt got the tools (aka beeign restricted by unity). If thats the case it could change over time. I wish for this for so long that it would be like a surprise party if it ever happens. but one can surly make them aware of the wish and thjats what this thread meant to do :)

Squad has integrated mods into the game in the past. Understandable since comone else allready done the hard work and you can simply pay him to make it seamless.

I would love to hear what squads idear of ksp is. Is it about beeign flexible or more like beeing inventive with the things you have.

Edited by VITAS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Procedural tanks with size 'steps' that fit the current stock sizes with an option to go longer would work for me.  Also some structural parts like girders etc would be useful.  

Wings etc, I think, would need to work a bit like tanks, those without integral control surfaces use existing 'root' profiles then adjust length.  Anything much more complex, especially blending edges etc. and you start getting into the realms of 3D modelling and that's just way out of scope for stock IMHO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pandaman said:

Procedural tanks with size 'steps' that fit the current stock sizes with an option to go longer would work for me.  Also some structural parts like girders etc would be useful.

This. You could even be able to turn on (or off) filters for 1/2 size and 1/4 size tanks of each radius showing up in the part list, so for the user it looks exactly the same as it does now so long as you don't take advantage of all the new procedural features. And when resizing tanks, the game could (if you've enabled the option) snap the texture to look like it does now. Some of the models have slight greebling (Like the FL-T100) but even that could be enabled. If the tank is between 0 and 1/2 size, use the model FL-T100 model, stretched. If it's between 1/2 size and 1 size (including being equal to 1/2 size) use the FL-T200 model, stretched. If it's size 1 or more, use he FL-T400 model. Same for the other radii options.

Then those of us who want ease of use can have ONE FUEL TANK in the part list, and easily turn that tank in the editor into an FL-T200. And then copy and paste it and whatnot. And when we realize we actually need an FL-T400 in that center of our asparagus-staged stack, we don't have to dismantle our entire vessel to change that one part. We just drag it up to the next size. But don't worry, one-part-per-size people, you'll still be able to uncheck that option and force yourself to rebuild your ship to change one fuel tank.

As far as "removing a challenge" I don't buy it. If you really want that challenge (in your forum challenge thread), just say no fuel tanks greater than the largest snap-to size of each tank. Or even specify that you have to use the snap-to sizes of each tank if you think someone using what would effectively be an FL-T600 is getting a massive advantage over you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, VITAS said:

for me its exactly what squad has to acomplish (and did so in the past) making seemingly complex things simple to use.

I do get your point, but 3D modelling is a whole different ball game.

To include what would effectively be a trimmed down version of say Blender or Rhino would add a lot of extra complexity with very little game play benefit other than a few sleeker looking ships.  Not that sleek looking ships are a bad thing by any means, but I think the effort and added complexity would outweigh any benefits by a large margin.

KSP does a great job of simplifying space flight and rocket building.  It's not, and should not become, an entry level 3D modelling package, which it would need to be to include the (admittedly cool) features you want.

Now, a standalone KSP ship design modelling package could be interesting though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take away all the extra stuff a 3d editor contains you end up with a way to manipulate poligons.

i dont want it to be a full blown 3d editor. take wings: you draw the outline in a top down view and it extrudes it into a wing model. you then simply define the root and tip thickness and profile (see tanks) and youre done.

i wouldnt want to or need to edit more complex shapes like landing gears. for thos i would say simply scaling it with a set of parameters is enough.

in terms of tanks it would be enough to define certain params like some mods do allready: texture, diameter / part system to conform to (bottom & top), sheer , profile ( the way the top and bottom connect ( curve, straight etc.)).

in essence i imagine "afdvanced" ship design to be something like drawing a blueprint with predefined parts that you can alter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...