Moar Procedural parts.

[passinglurker]

4 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Fine let me append that; anyone who hasn't followed the KSP community indepth.

Call it a hunch but I betcha must people who don't follow in depth and aren't invested in the direction of kerbals still wouldn't mind having better/more cohesive quality art.

Edited April 17, 2017 by passinglurker

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

Call it a hunch but I betcha people who don't follow in depth and aren't invested in the direction of kerbals still wouldn't mind having better/more cohesive quality art.

My hunch says your nitpicking one part of a large statement rather than responding to the whole thing. If you don't like my wording I'm more than happy to amend it so you end up agreeing with it.

Edited April 17, 2017 by ZooNamedGames

[passinglurker]

4 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

My hunch says your nitpicking one part of a statement rather than responding to the whole thing. If you don't like my wording I'm more than happy to amend it so you end up agreeing with it.

You're whole statement honestly doesn't matter you can't create a barrier against response by just throwing up a large wall of text. The old parts are place holders as said by their creator they look bad and they perform as bad as they look. They need to be replaced. And no amount of "oh but they've been here forever it's too nostalgic now" is gonna change these facts.

Edited April 17, 2017 by passinglurker

[minepagan]

5 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

My hunch says your nitpicking one part of a large statement rather than responding to the whole thing. If you don't like my wording I'm more than happy to amend it so you end up agreeing with it.

My hunch says you resorting to petty namecalling and personal insults means @cxg2827, @regex, and @passinglurker have proven their point and utterly demolished yours, and you have no further fact-based arguments, and instead are reverting to emotional attacks rather than logical discussion.

Edited April 17, 2017 by minepagan

[Razorforce7]

We have multiple parts selection (legos) instead of a 1 procedural part per part type to serve construction complexity.
The fun in having more different parts (lego pieces) is that it enforces a universal construction challenge.
The extend of your vessels size, performance or other specifications is determined on your construction skill. Or otherwise said, how well you can puzzle with all the available parts. For some people that is reason to be annoyed and go online to ask for a easy procedural part solution.

For many people however which includes myself it would brake the challenge of construction difficulty.
Procedural parts would make that construction challenge far easier, all the way up to the point where every user created vessel will be a uniform procedurally re scaled lookalike.
Procedural parts is good for one thing and one thing only, Real solar system!
A setting where you'll likely need engines and fuel tanks larger then in any of the rocket packs available. Or it is handy to create user defined fuel tank volumes to serve maximum efficiency.
My argument is that procedural parts in stock would be damaging to gameplay, not enhance it.
If procedural parts give you more freedom to create larger and more complex vessels then it is a extension of ksp. The stock parts decides the balance.
If you don't like that balance you can get your ass of the couch and download it procedural parts as a mod, taking away as much time as a very short bathroom stop.
If the argument is part count then youtube confirms you can get everywhere in the solar system and back again for around 300-400 parts.
Unless you run ksp on a roasted potato it should handle it.
If performance does annoy you then just turn a blind eye for the first 60 seconds during launch in which you'll have to deal with 300+ parts and your framerate is stuttering.
 

[regex]

9 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Fine let me append that; anyone who hasn't followed the KSP community indepth.

Trying to undermine my argument by attacking my credibility in regards to how well I know the community, classic.

Stick to your opinion and make it, don't try to drag others down to make your opinion seem better.

[ZooNamedGames]

5 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

You're whole statement honestly doesn't matter you can't create a barrier against response by just throwing up a large wall of text. The old parts are place holders as said by their creator they look bad and they perform as bad as they look. They need to be replaced. And no amount of "oh but they've been here forever it's too nostalgic now" is gonna change these facts.

Kerbals have been in the game for a while and the devs were planning on upgrading them. Think it's time they go. Why not the planets too? People hate them. They should go. 

Just because it's bad doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in a game... based... around... traveling in space with green men who get themselves killed. 

6 minutes ago, minepagan said:

My hunch says you resorting to petty namecalling and personal insults means @cxg2827, @regex, and @passinglurker have proven their point and utterly demolished yours, and you have no further fact-based arguments, and instead are reverting to emotional attacks rather than logical discussion.

Name calling? When did I call either of them a nincomplopper?

4 minutes ago, regex said:

Trying to undermine my argument by attacking my credibility in regards to how well I know the community, classic.

Stick to your opinion and make it, don't try to drag others down to make your opinion seem better.

It's my statement; and one of many. I've offered to improve it yet you've refused. That's your choice. I've done what I can, it's on you.

Also that statement wasn't against you. Your taking it far too personally. That was a community wide comment you took as an attack on you. 

[tater]

The ultimate in procedural parts (to me) ends up being SSTU. Tanks have multiple variants within the basic tank shape (different greeble), then each tank can have a nose and a "mount" at the bottom that encompass most anything you would want or need. They also have variant textures.

I reread my post up thread from last year, and I would stick with most of it. Tanks, and wings should certainly all be procedural (I'm adding wings right now, because other people use them, even if I don't). Structural parts as well (nertea's stuff in SSTU becomes this way, which is pure awesome). Decouplers... Crew parts don't work well at all, they;re still "lego." Engines don't scale, either, but do what SSTU does, and allow clustering.

[Wjolcz]

@ZooNamedGames c'mon man. Don't do this. We already know your opinion but we also don't want this thread to be closed. I know you wouldn't mind since you don't want more coherent look but there's a certain part of the community that does. Besides, it's also more about SQUAD's workflow. Procedural parts wouldn't only make some of us happy it would also give the devs some more time to work on other parts of the game instead of wasting their precious time on revamps that never get finished. So if you don't care about our opinion you could at least think about how easier it would be for the devs to focus on implementing new stuff instead of trying to fix the old all the time.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Veeltch

[regex]

10 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

It's my statement; and one of many. I've offered to improve it yet you've refused.

Because you didn't improve it.

10 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Also that statement wasn't against you. Your taking it far too personally. That was a community wide comment you took as an attack on you. 

So you attacked the community's credibility? Do you think you're the sole authority on how KSP should look?

 

 

We both know you're not doing that so stop trying to defend it. Your opinion can stand without attacking others', try it sometime.

[ZooNamedGames]

5 minutes ago, regex said:

Because you didn't improve it.

So you attacked the community's credibility? Do you think you're the sole authority on how KSP should look?

 

 

We both know you're not doing that so stop trying to defend it. Your opinion can stand without attacking others', try it sometime.

I really don't feel it was an attack so much as a misunderstanding where someone took something personally. I made an offer to amend and you don't want it.

7 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

@ZooNamedGames c'mon man. Don't do this. We already know your opinion but we also don't want this thread to be closed. I know you wouldn't mind since you don't want more coherent look but there's a certain part of the community that does. Besides, it's also more about SQUAD's workflow. Procedural parts wouldn't only make some of us happy it would also give the devs some more time to work on other parts of the game instead of wasting their precious time on revamps that never get finished. So if you don't care about our opinion you could at least think about how easier it would be for the devs to focus on implementing new stuff instead of trying to fix the old all the time.

Issue is, new stuff brings new issues. Last I checked, the mainsail was doing fine. Spaceplane+ parts still have problems. I think we should fix the old before continuing to the new. It also be easier since they have experience with the bugs and faults these parts produce. Something new and large scale like procedural is a whole new scope of issues. 

[tater]

My install deletes most all the stock tanks in favor of excellent procedural tanks, and I have no problems whatsoever.

[Wjolcz]

20 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Spaceplane+ parts still have problems.

Can you name them?

20 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I think we should fix the old before continuing to the new.

I 100% agree. I'd love to see them ol' parts being fixed for good. And I think procparts are the best way to fix all the issues.

20 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Something new and large scale like procedural is a whole new scope of issues. 

So was docking, new planets, engines' performance, new atmosphere, heat shields and many more. But they fixed these, new at the time, elements of the game. But pParts would be an investment. If they got around making it a stable feature of the game the rest of it would be just about adding more textures instead of modelling all these new tanks and engines. I mean, they would still have to model new engines and capsules but the rest would be left for the players to play with, while the devs would be focused on doing something completely different than reading all these revamp threads and trying to nail someone else's style (because it's already in the game).

All the revamps were and will be time-consuming unless they decide to change their way of doing this. With pParts they would just make a few textures that can be applied to all of the tanks instead of creating each one of them separately and applying it to newly created mesh and then repeat the process with God knows how many of these more (the way it is now).

Edited April 17, 2017 by Veeltch

[ZooNamedGames]

12 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Can you name them?

I 100% agree. I'd love to see them ol' parts being fixed for good. And I think procparts are the best way to fix all the issues.

So was docking, new planets, engines' performance, new atmosphere, heat shields and many more. But they fixed these, new at the time, elements of the game. But pParts would be an investment. If they got around making it a stable feature of the game the rest of it would be just about adding more textures instead of modelling all these new tanks and engines. I mean, they would still have to model new engines and capsules but the rest would be left for the players to play with, while the devs would be focused on doing something completely different than reading all these revamp threads and trying to nail someone else's style (because it's already in the game).

All the revamps were and will be time-consuming unless they decide to change their way of doing this. With pParts they would just make a few textures that can be applied to all of the tanks instead of creating each one of them separately (just like it is now).

All of the swept wings from SP+ have always had an issue with angle snapping parts along the swept edge. They always jitter around and sometimes snap on off the wing entirely. Serious attachment issues.

I feel that pparts is just solving problems but dropping an atom bomb (or in today's current events, a MOAB) to hit a nail. 

Pparts for planes? Sure. I don't like it but go ahead. I'll use it. I didn't and still don't like the pfairings either as I think the classic KW fairings was better for logic. Forcing your builds to adjust to what is formable and not just build the fairing for the Payload. But that came and went, dead topic. 

Fuel tanks... just feels too RSSy.

Here's my problem with the tanks; they'll disadvantage new players. They likely won't know the impact of '1m' of height or width.

KSP was successful because you didn't need to know anything about the parts themselves other than weight and fuel type. You had everything you needed nicely prepackaged and all you needed was a snap and go play style. 

Pfuel will be a new type of confusing to new players seeing as they might not know the diameter of the part.

Its a cool idea yes, but I'd like to see how it goes after testing with people who have never played KSP or any realistic space sim and see which players prefer. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by ZooNamedGames

[Wjolcz]

@ZooNamedGames the new players argument doesn't apply. No past experience = no expectations of how the system should be like. And let's not assume that new players are somehow inferior to the experienced ones. We're all human beings, with brains, intelligent enough to grasp the concept of this game and if someone is confused he/she can always come here (the forums) and ask the seasoned ones about stuff. I guess the next step of our conversation could be something like "oh, but actually the part of the brain that perceives kerbals and is used during the flight is not the same one that is used when creating a procedural fuel tank" but we don't know because it's part of psycbology and also offtopic. And my essays here are already waaay too long.

So let's just agree to disagree and not engage in any offtop from now on, OK? If you try to argument your point of view with this kind of thing I will simply not reply. Give me a reason to be concerned about my idea instead of coming up with problems that don't even exist.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Veeltch

[ZooNamedGames]

7 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

@ZooNamedGames the new players argument doesn't apply. No past experience = no expectations of how the system should be like. And let's not assume that new players are somehow inferior to the experienced ones. We're all human beings, with brains, intelligent enough to grasp the concept of this game and if someone is confused he/she can always come here (the forums) and ask the seasoned ones about stuff. I guess the next step of our conversation could be something like "oh, but actually the part of the brain that perceives kerbals and is used during the flight is not the same one that is used when creating a procedural fuel tank" but we don't know because it's part of psycbology and also offtopic. And my essays here are already waaay too long.

So let's just agree to disagree and not engage in any offtop from now on, OK? If you try to argument your point of view with this kind of thing I will simply not reply. Give me a reason to be concerned about my idea instead of coming up with problems that don't even exist.

Procedular parts IS ontopic though. 

Lastly, we can put the test to see which is easier for new players. Gather 20 people. Give 10 stock KSP and the other 10 pparts only. See how they do. Compare results. Science!

[tater]

18 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Fuel tanks... just feels too RSSy.

All fuel tanks should be procedural. They "feel" just fine. They look better.

18 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Here's my problem with the tanks; they'll disadvantage new players. They likely won't know the impact of '1m' of height or width.

The impact of size limitations implies career. Without going into too much detail, career is so completely awful that pegging hardware options in KSP to career is a mistake. Also, procedural tanks entirely work with stock size limitations.

It would be better to reformulate career so that part count and dumb size limitations are addressed in a more realistic way. For example, and some ability to cluster engines on a stage that is tech limited (total engines that exist on a single stage). As the Soviets found out, that can have issues. This then allows tanks to be different diameters, but the engine cluster limitation drives when they are useful (huge diameter takes more engines to be useful than you can cluster). There are solutions to any perceived issues.

18 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

KSP was successful because you didn't need to know anything about the parts themselves other than weight and fuel type. You had everything you needed nicely prepackaged and all you needed was a snap and go play style. 

You tweak tank diameter and length till it does what you need. Sans dv data, it's just as goofy and "splody."

18 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Pfuel will be a new type of confusing to new players seeing as they might not know the diameter of the part.

Its a cool idea yes, but I'd like to see how it goes after testing with people who have never played KSP or any realistic space sim and see which players prefer. 

Adding fuel types is an even better thing. What makes KSP fun is design trade offs. The more real trade offs that exist, the more interesting the design choices. Minus the negatives, added fuels don't add that much. At the very least the Isp vs boil off is a good trade off for hydrolox vs kerlox (LFO), for example. We'd need failures to make hypergolics shine.

[ZooNamedGames]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

All fuel tanks should be procedural. They "feel" just fine. They look better.

The impact of size limitations implies career. Without going into too much detail, career is so completely awful that pegging hardware options in KSP to career is a mistake. Also, procedural tanks entirely work with stock size...

When I said "impact" I meant weight and its impact on TWR, etc. Not money.

[tater]

What's the problem, then? Bigger tanks should be better from a dry mass ratio pov.

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

What's the problem, then? Bigger tanks should be better from a dry mass ratio pov.

Dry mass maybe, but if I'm launching it and not as a Payload, it's going to be fueled.

[Jarin]

29 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Dry mass maybe, but if I'm launching it and not as a Payload, it's going to be fueled.

That's not what that means. It means you get more fuel weight and less tank weight.

[passinglurker]

One thing I feel I should say about procedural parts is that it's no magic shortcut. If you cut corners you will have something that is indeed functional and versatile but it will look like children of a dead earth or the old procedural parts mods so outside of a few niche's like trusses it won't solve any of kerbal's incohesive quality problems.

Alternately you could try the mesh switching techniques used by B9 or SSTU its 90% the functionality and versatility but its just as much work as the lego approach.

not to mention if you take either path you'd have to go back and rejigger even the recently overhauled space planes to fit the new system.

unfortunately if we are looking at the cheapest way to overhaul kerbal then in the end staying the course and continuing with the lego approach is in my opinion still the best option.

[W. Kerman]

Proc Solar panels are getting a lot of hate.

Here's the case for them:

Say you have an ion drive cluster.

Out at Eeloo, you have NO OPTION except to panel spam if you want to power it.

If you could resize solar panels, you could avoid the lag of panel spam.

[ZooNamedGames]

20 minutes ago, W. Kerman said:

Proc Solar panels are getting a lot of hate.

Here's the case for them:

Say you have an ion drive cluster.

Out at Eeloo, you have NO OPTION except to panel spam if you want to power it.

If you could resize solar panels, you could avoid the lag of panel spam.

Or use a different power source. Just sayin. Can name 3 other than solar power or RTG power.

[W. Kerman]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

Or use a different power source. Just sayin. Can name 3 other than solar power or RTG power.

*But then you'd be consuming tons of fuel,

also, wait 3? Fuel cell... Fuel Cell pack.... What's the 3rd one?

Oh wait- Alternator from the engine? That's back at my first point!*