Additions to The Game?

[Helmetman]

I haven't really thought this one through completely, maybe trash... let's see.
It's certainly not in the ballpark of space game only parts. But since it's only 1 part it might be simple and additive, let's see.

The Internal Combustion Engine.

I want this as a single part. Just a 'single' part, nothing more.
It works by using "LF" as propellant (I always thought LF is RP1 so it could do as regular gas)

The combustion engine is a 0.625m or 1.25m part (you choose) which is stackable and has 2 passive uses. It drives any rover wheels which are surface attached to it. The more of the engine you stack the more power you add but the more weight also. 

The other passive use is that it has a shaft. The shaft is a fast turning axel to which you can attach anything you want. Ailerons to use as rotors for propeller driven aircraft. Or maybe it will include a custom modded part for propellers specifically.

It also needs a stock radiator to be cooled properly.

The greatest gain of this would be that it's a single part and that it can solve most of the maritime and terrestrial navigation wishes.
I also wish to hear the sounds of pistons in this game, not that it need it. But if this is a good idea add some raw unadulterated sound to it.
Ofcourse this item will be useless in space. And I don't want to do recommendations for further part littering of the stock game, so oxidizer should be supplied with in game air intakes.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Helmetman

[harrisjosh2711]

I would like to be able to rip a hole in my space suit or crack my helmet open. I'm looking for a sense of fear during EVA's.

[Spricigo]

19 hours ago, Helmetman said:

The Internal Combustion Engine

The problem is not the engine itself but the lack of gearboxes, shafts and other stuff to transmit movement.

 Awhile ago I found a mod with "internal combustion engines" that produced "motrice force" and wheels and propeller that used this resource to work.  Not much different than stock wheels powered by fuel cells.

[sevenperforce]

14 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

I would like to be able to rip a hole in my space suit or crack my helmet open. I'm looking for a sense of fear during EVA's.

I could support a system where hitting something over a certain speed causes the Kerbal to take damage and have a countdown to get back into a capsule. The helmet could have a higher impact tolerance than the suit.

[Helmetman]

@Spricigo 

Is there no allowable mechanism that allows KSP to understand changes in different gears? So everything that turns in KSP can only be a rotary object to which you can apply set torque but no changes in rpm of i.e. thereby imagined cogs at work?

If this is true then it's stupid, and I'm sure you know it. This changes things. I would have to do do with just the plain electric wheels then as a chemically driven substitute would be the same gearless crap.

No problem though. I can handle stuff jk. Nothing moddable as such ^. Or completely out of the scope of the Unity Kernel? 
 

 

 

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, Helmetman said:

 

Is there no allowable mechanism that allows KSP to understand changes in different gears? So everything that turns in KSP can only be a rotary object to which you can apply set torque but no changes in rpm of i.e. thereby imagined cogs at work?

While not sure, I suppose that is possible.  However the issue I mentioned is a different one:

For reasons I don't know, we don't have the adequate parts to build gearboxes, axles,  pivots, etc. It can be done in stock with a good deal of improvisation or with a mod, but not with stock purpose built parts. 

The problem is not the engine, the problem is to link it with something else. 

 

[Helmetman]

@SpricigoSorry for making a assumption there earlier on. I haven't seen any mods even with gear mechanism so I thought that was a lack you were going on about.

But if it is as you say then my idea is toast indeed. What I suggested is a feature, or otherwise said a product of technology. That said, it is sad the KSP engine disallows such functions.
Still I have seen modules on mods that have shafts to rotate attached parts for artificial gravity simulation. Unfortunately I can't dig up the mod name down my mind but I'm sure I've seen such a thing in a video once.

All the difference would be a fast rotary shaft (instead of a slow moving one to simulate gravity in zero G)
If the shaft has 2 sides (2 nodes) larboard and starboard and depending on rotation (upright/upside down or front/back) it can drive anything really. As long as a circular object like a wheel is modeled as a wheel and is attached in the X-Axis relative to the part (combustion engine) to which it is attached it should rotate and work based on the energy produced by the new motor part.
If you want a forward rotating object like a propeller you rotate the engine part and you attach it to the Y axis or rotate the engine part upside down to attach something in the Z axis of rotation.

But if there's a barrier in the programming terms considering such a appliance then I'll put a white flag in the air and raise it up high.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Helmetman

[Spricigo]

AFAIK in most cases the parts with mobile bits don't get affected by how loaded it is. So, they would, unrealisticaly, move the same way unimpeded or with several heavy parts attached to it. IMHO not how one want an engine to work. 

The (possible) exceptions I know are:

-Winches from KAS/KIS

-Crane parts from Konstruction

-Infernal Robotics

In any case. I don't know how those mods can be usefull for your ' propelled shaft' idea. 

[James M]

On 9/21/2017 at 2:23 PM, Spricigo said:

Even before that a nice advantage would be to send materials to build ships off-world instead of relying on pre-built modules that are bulky and need to be assembled with docking ports. It may even turn out to be more expensive than launching the complete craft from Kerbin surface but have a convenience edge.

 

Sadly, I don't see that happening in stock any time soon.

Honestly, make a big enough uproar on this forum and I think it could happen in stock.

[Spricigo]

57 minutes ago, James M said:

Honestly, make a big enough uproar on this forum and I think it could happen in stock.

Maybe, but i really don't care that much to make an 'uproar'. And I thing the devs should also consider the opinions of the silent majority,  not only the vocal minorities. 

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, James M said:

Honestly, make a big enough uproar on this forum and I think it could happen in stock.

No... it is not wise to continually bug the developers, and I fear the exact opposite would happen.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Just Jim

[James M]

On 10/2/2017 at 5:52 PM, Just Jim said:

No... it is not wise to continually bug the developers, and I fear the exact opposite would happen.

I didn't say "bug the developers". I was just saying bring it to their attention that we care and they might take action. (The developers dont HAVE to read what we post either. Thats why making an "uproar" is the easiest approach. Not necessarily cause problems, but rather put our most agreed upon opinions out there so they have a better likelihood of reading what we post.)

Edited October 4, 2017 by James M

[Just Jim]

7 hours ago, James M said:

I didn't say "bug the developers". I was just saying bring it to their attention that we care and they might take action. (The developers dont HAVE to read what we post either. Thats why making an "uproar" is the easiest approach. Not necessarily cause problems, but rather put our most agreed upon opinions out there so they have a better likelihood of reading what we post.)

I'm not saying to not bring it up to them. (wait.... did that come out right?)

But trust me, if you keep posting the same thing over and over, and cause an uproar, they will feel "bugged". They are already busy working on 1.3.1 as well as the DLC... so it's best to suggest, but not over do it, is all I'm saying.

 

[James M]

On 10/4/2017 at 3:48 AM, Just Jim said:

I'm not saying to not bring it up to them. (wait.... did that come out right?)

But trust me, if you keep posting the same thing over and over, and cause an uproar, they will feel "bugged". They are already busy working on 1.3.1 as well as the DLC... so it's best to suggest, but not over do it, is all I'm saying.

 

I get you.