Part Suggestions!  

111 members have voted

  1. 1. What would you like to see added to the game in 1.3?

    • Better FX
    • New Plane Parts
    • More Porkalike Parts
    • 1.875 m 2 Kerbal Capsule
    • Other (Please post in comment section below)


Recommended Posts

Spartwo    1767
Posted (edited)

I'm less concerned about new parts than a unified art style. But I'd like radial SAS, 1x1 and 1x2 angled structural panels, a longer .5m LFO tank, a small propeller part, bearings, and 3m upscales for the existing parts(Docking ports, cockpits, etc)

Basically integrate Ven's revamp.

Edited by Spartwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2017 at 9:11 AM, MiffedStarfish said:

This is a good idea, but you should probably remove the 1.875m cockpit option, as that's already confirmed and finished. :D

XhHKDrI.jpg

Also you might want to change the title to what parts you want to see, as the only parts they are adding in 1.3 are the asteroid day parts, which are all already made. and pretty much nothing else.

 

Yes, but what about an adapter that could expand to reveal that with a landing stage like Apollo? That would be nice.

1 hour ago, Spartwo said:

I'm less concerned about new parts than a unified art style. But I'd like radial SAS, 1x1 and 1x2 structural panels, a longer .5m LFO tank, and 3m upscales for the existing parts(Docking ports, cockpits, etc)

Basically integrate Ven's revamp.

Yes, I think Ven's stock revamp would add a good flare to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some more suggestions - 

a radial docking port you can EVA out of and an option to put a flag on launch fairings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpaceOdissey    40
Posted (edited)

I want to had better graphics! Like SVE but on stock! And raster propmonitor on stock!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!

Edited by SpaceOdissey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlamoVampire    557

id rather they put in either porkjets beauty pass or do a beauty pass themselves. what we have now, is a missmash of stuff, tank butts are ugly to be honest. We need imho to make things cohesive in terms of looks. sure, new parts are nice, but, i honestly think things should be gone over aesthetically first before new stuffs added. just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qzgy    1754

Something else - A rover dedicated capsule. None of the ones really work well. So think lander can, but with the orientation properly suited for rovers and more glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gryphorim    43

The art direction document detailing Porkjet's style looked like it was a plan to ultimately redo everything, starting with rocket parts, but ultimately also encompasing all the science, electrical, crew and other parts as well. Perhaps the delay in it's release is specifically to bring everything up to the same standard.
I typically use Ven's pack to pretty up the rocket parts, with Habtech to flesh out stations. Seeing an update to the rocket parts is a big priority for me, and hopefully seeing this new aesthetic carried over to all other parts also.

Additionally I use realplume and exhaust lighting, framerates be damned, because the stock exhaust fx just don't cut it. I honestly think improved plume fx should be high priority, second only to a new part art unification.

I also make use of EVE and Scatterer, but these don't stick around in my build, as they seem to cause crashes. I think the detailed atmospheric effects and shaders should be the third priority after the above, because after a while the perpetually clear skies on eve, kerbin and elsewhere start to unravel the immersion of the game. New atmo and weather fx, even if only a stock version of EVE and Scatterer, made stable, would be a great addition to the core game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlamoVampire    557

i would LOVE to use visual enhancement mods beyond the use of the re-entry particle effect mod, but, ive hit just about the max mods i can handle on this dinosaur of a rig :( which is why Id rather see things like a beauty pass with like porkjets beauty stuff be done from squads end, just cuts down on what my machine needs to slog thru 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I want an inline version of the O-10 Monopropellant engine. Could this be done simply by editing the confic-file?

Edited by Physics Student

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NWM    16

Airbags for lithobrake landing,

Propellers for aircrafts and ships

Remote Control Module for controlling the probes from great distance when they distant to KSP, Training Module - acquiring the training function of the lab

Signal lights

(KIS, KAS, and some kind of robotic arms... - I cannot dream of it...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John FX    1749

Variable thrust for solid boosters. I have started a suggestion thread for this just now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skylon    511
12 minutes ago, John FX said:

Variable thrust for solid boosters. I have started a suggestion thread for this just now.

I am not sure if this is possible in real life. If you can show me a real life rocket that throttles or can throttle its SRBs then please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fourfa    795

He didn't say throttle, rather variable thrust.  In stock the SRB thrust curve goes only by ISP change as it ascends, but RL SRBs can be made to have a whole range of thrust curves.  It's also possible to extinguish SRBs before the fuel burns completely - SLBM motors use this as a critical part of their targeting control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Columbia    2291

2.5m or 1.875m SRBs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skylon    511
2 hours ago, fourfa said:

He didn't say throttle, rather variable thrust.  In stock the SRB thrust curve goes only by ISP change as it ascends, but RL SRBs can be made to have a whole range of thrust curves.  It's also possible to extinguish SRBs before the fuel burns completely - SLBM motors use this as a critical part of their targeting control.

Oh, yeah thrust curve would be good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SRBs that are able to gimbal (especially the kickback needs gimbal), vacuum optimized SRBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater    5865

I voted "other." I'd like the extant rocket parts to not look awful. That might require replacing them, hence new parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a 1.25m engine with a thrust that is intermediate between the Reliant and Vector, because even though you can reduce the thrust, the Vector still costs the same amount of money. Like many people have said also, an art pass would be great as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadet_BNSF    41

Personally, I would like to see the Mk. IV parts become stock, but I doubt that would ever happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darkstar616    7

I have no idea what 'porkalike parts' are and I don't really know about 1.875m cockpits. I'd really like a bigger xenon engine and bigger solar panels to make it work since the scale mod doesn't really satisfy me and mods that capitalise on xenon go too far from stockalike parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
passinglurker    1384
Posted (edited)
On 4/24/2017 at 10:26 PM, Darkstar616 said:

I have no idea what 'porkalike parts' are and I don't really know about 1.875m cockpits. I'd really like a bigger xenon engine and bigger solar panels to make it work since the scale mod doesn't really satisfy me and mods that capitalise on xenon go too far from stockalike parts.

Porkalike is true-stockalike. You see the the aesthetic of kerbal is fractured and made up of many layers contributed to by different artists at different times. Most of these layers are merely placeholders left over from the early development phases where they were made quick and dirty to fill thier role with the intention to refine and replace later. The artist Porkjet was the first to start this refinement process when he was contracted by squad to integrate his "spaceplanes plus" mod into stock and go on to add and replace a number of other parts as well. His work remains the highest and most consistent quality of the space plane and rocket parts in the game and as a result is the standard for ksp to follow going forward.

As for bigger ion engines you'd need to get squad to look at ksp's neglected part's balance as it stands the ion engines are grossly unrealistic in order to compensate for both the lack of a long slow burn mechanic, and the arbitrary and lazily assigned poor mass fraction of the xenon tanks. If xenon tanks held more propellant for thier given dry mass ion engines could be rebalanced to be less unrealistically magical and as a result open the door to haveing larger ion engines without attracting too much attention to how silly they are balanced to make up for the lack of a long slow burn mechanic.

Anyway in the meantime might I suggest @Nertea's near future propulsion mod? He strives towards the true stockalike style, and his consultant @Streetwind is a parts balance wizard.

Edited by passinglurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a baikonur styled launch complex placed in a desert, with its giant one-open-side-smoke-out-come-thingy-me-bob

with also the iconic train tracks wich lead to the launch complex many miles away

to make it look different from the ksc, the launch complex looks a bit outdated, like a level 2 vab but with orange instead of blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just awnser Yes or No if these rockets will be in the DLC

1. SATURN I A/B 

2. SATURN V 

3. R7 Semyorka

4. Gemini/Titan

5. Mercury

6. Atlas

7. Proton

8. N-1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qzgy    1754
On 5/10/2017 at 9:19 AM, Youre_avarage_Kerbal said:

1. SATURN I A/B 

2. SATURN V 

3. R7 Semyorka

4. Gemini/Titan

5. Mercury

6. Atlas

7. Proton

8. N-1

 

In the DLC? 1 - Maybe? 2, Also a maybe, 3 - Probably yes, 4 also probably Yes, 5 you can do in stock, 6 Also stock replicable (I think) 7 - Stock replicable 8 I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joseph Kerman    207

Honestly, I think we should have a linear aerospike engine. The torodial one is nice, no doubt, but from a perspective, the point looks ugly on some plane designs. Squad should add the linear counterpart for spaceplanes and to make better designs, like the real X-33 prototype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now