New Stock Parts

[RAJ JAR]

36 minutes ago, Hay said:

Yes it is. Hypothetical technologies have no place in a game based on current spaceflight. 

Most of the propulsion technologies which I have posted are not hypothetical. Please do some research. So no it is not a good enough reason. 

1 hour ago, RatchetinSpace said:

Personally I think larger landing legs and grid fins. Grid fins are used all over in rocketry, on the Soyuz launch escape system and the Falcon 9. I think larger landing legs would be good because the current static landing legs constantly break when landing large 3.75m craft.

Maybe an electric propeller as well. NASA is thinking about sending a helicopter to Mars with the 2020 rover so it is relevant, plus they could be useful for initial Eve ascent. 

I agree. Introducing larger landing legs and heat resistant grid fins of different sizes would be beneficial. 

[Hay]

12 hours ago, RAJ JAR said:

Most of the propulsion technologies which I have posted are not hypothetical. Please do some research. So no it is not a good enough reason. 

I call a technology which hasn't even been proven to work yet hypothetical. And again, technologies that are at least decades away have no place in a game focused on past and modern air and spaceflight. 

[RAJ JAR]

9 hours ago, Hay said:

I call a technology which hasn't even been proven to work yet hypothetical. And again, technologies that are at least decades away have no place in a game focused on past and modern air and spaceflight. 

That is your opinion. 

Back on topic. More advanced sensors could be added into the game. Also have the ability to build and deploy space telescopes and laser communications. Plus add more mk2 to mk3 parts. I think this is lacking.    

Squad could add the linear aerospike engines that were going to be used on the X-33 and Venturestar. Also add the X-33, Venturestar and other types of lifting body vehicles. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by RAJ JAR

[RAJ JAR]

On 21/10/2017 at 10:02 PM, [insert_name_here] said:

Well, 1.4 is confirmed and I really hope it will include actual parts. Also, the making history expansion will include plenty of new parts.

 

What parts do I want?

 

 

One more nuclear and one more ion engine. Both are fun concepts of engines but we need more variety. For the nuclear engine - a 2.5m large nuclear engine that overheats a lot faster than the Nerv and has slightly less Isp (500-700 instead of 800) but is at least 5 times more powerful.

 

Bigger fuel tanks and bigger engines to go with them. They don't have to be crazy insanely big - I would be fine if they just added 5m tanks, engines and other parts as a direct size upgrade to the 3.75m ones. Also, to go with the new 5m sized parts, we'll need Mk 4 aeroplane parts.

Do you know what Squad will put in 1.4 patch? I agree more nuclear engines would be great plus i electric propulsion such as ion drives, plasma propulsion such as VASIMR and Hall effect thrusters. 

I agree bigger fuel tanks with engines. Also I want and need cryogenic fuel tanks which can be used with any engines or add specific engines. As they are more fuel efficient and hopefully lighter. Plus, add metallic hydrogen fuel tanks which can be used any engine or introduce specific engines. 

Add more mark 2 and 3 parts. 

[DAL59]

There needs to be a LES for 1.25 meter parts.  

[Lord Aurelius]

So here's a list of some holes in the stock parts catalog:

1. Lifter engine between the Terrier and Swivel with a max thrust of 75 or 80 kN. Could be used as an early game lifter/sustainer engine and an upper stage engine for smaller payloads.
2. 2-Kerbal Gemini-style command pod
3. Longer 0.625 tanks so we don't have to stack absurd numbers of Oscar-B tanks.
4. 0.625m and 2.5m SRBs
5. 1.875m parts (engine(s), adapters, fuel tanks, fairing)
6. Finish 3.75m parts (SAS, nosecone, probe core, service bay, command pod, engine clustering adapters)
7. 5m parts (engine(s), adapters, fuel tanks, fairing)
8. Large RTG/nuclear reactor
9. More RCS parts (larger and smaller, 5 way thrusters)
10. Smaller radial and/or inline parachutes
11. Larger ion, nuclear and rapier engines
12. Electric propeller (not the physics hacks we have now)
13. More lights (large searchlight, low-profile self-illumination lights, compact lights for small rovers)
14. Larger landing legs
15. Surface sampling device (so unmanned probes can take surface samples)
16. Medium-large rover wheels between the TR-2L and the XL3, and medium-small rover wheels between the S2 and the M1.

Any and all of those parts would be welcome in future updates.

[Dafni]

Dont forget an Mk2 style nosecone

[Cassel]

1. Maglev tracks and "wheels"
2. Radar and sonar like in bdarmory (for finding crafts that depleted all power, those crafts should be hidden from player unless he uses radar, once multiplayer is here it could be used to pick what other people are doing)
3. Submarine ballast tanks
4. Ballon and airship part, Jeb must beat Felix Baumgartner record
 

[XrayLima]

As @regex says, I'm pretty much sure we've had all we are going to get for nothing in Stock KSP.  The wish list by @Lord Aurelius & others above is exactly that, wishful.  We might get lucky and devs will see some of these lists and start making DLC packs with them in as a way of generating revenue, but as for in Stock, the boat has sailed.  Not necessarily a bad thing, paying for DLC packs would pay for continued development of the core program (performance, improved memory usage, updates to Unity, etc) as well as parts going forward.  Only thing I think is really missing is art pass on the oldest stock items and a look at the sound, both of which are very outdated and let down the product a bit.

I would love to be proven wrong, but at some point wages need to be paid or everyone turns off the lights and goes home.

[DAL59]

11 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

Longer 0.625 tanks so we don't have to stack absurd numbers of Oscar-B tanks.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/97541-12213-fuel-tanks-plus-1121-2017-04-09/&

BTW, if you just want larger parts, you can just copy paste the config file and use @rescale

 

[Lord Aurelius]

21 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/97541-12213-fuel-tanks-plus-1121-2017-04-09/&

BTW, if you just want larger parts, you can just copy paste the config file and use @rescale

 

I've used mods and configs in the past to fill these holes. The problem is that after a certain point, it gets to be a hassle to keep all the mods updated, plus I can't easily share the craft files or even use them on another install unless I duplicate the entire setup.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lord Aurelius

[MartialSplash]

I just hope that they fix some stock pats that are broken. Is it just my game or does everyone else have some original pre beta parts?

[kerbalfreak]

Sure, would be great that many features and parts were stock, but now other people already did all the work. I think mods add almost all the parts we want, some with textures, models and overall quality better than the stock parts. See the work of Nertea or Nils277 for a great example.

I think updating the game at this point will cause many compatibility issues with the mods, only to add things that mods already cover very well. Sorry, but I don't see much point in doing that, or waiting for updates that adds things that are available for years. Plus, everyone gets to choose what they think should and shouldn't be in their game-play.

[ImmaStegosaurus!]

-Shorter versions of LY-35, 60 and 99. Current landing gear need to be clipped absurdly deep into the aircraft to make planes look sensible instead of ostriches on rollerskates.

-Side folding landing gear. Real landing gear are heavy and most aircraft fold them sideways into the aircraft, not along longitudinal axis to keep the CoM from shifting. Only aircraft I can think of which has KSP landing gear is A-10.

-Rhino is good engine, but there are times when even it is bit lacking. Since we're getting 5m parts soon, wouldn't it be nice to get 5m Sea Dragon engine too? 

-On subject of Sea Dragon, boats and ships and water stuff like that, could we get some ballast tank bits? 

[RAJ JAR]

Would be great if Squad added the linear aerospike into the stock parts. Similar or same to the one that was going to be used for the X-33 and Venturestar. 

Also add parts to build the X-33 and Venturestar. 

More station parts would be great. That are also light on mass. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by RAJ JAR

[snkiz]

On 20/10/2017 at 12:04 PM, NSEP said:

I think they will add new parts and continue updating the game after the DLC is finished (they are working hard on it!). I don't know what to expect for new parts in base game.

I think they should add more station parts and revamp the 2,5m decoupler, (in my opinion the 2,5m decoupler is the most ugly and unfitting thing in the game) but im sure that won't happend.

The dcoupler is great!, fits a couple batteries and flight stuff in it.

[0something0]

Long 1.25m , 2.5m, and 3.75m cargo bays, crew cabins, and other aircraft parts for the "rocket" cross sections

[tater]

On 10/27/2017 at 5:33 AM, RAJ JAR said:

That is your opinion. 

No, it's actually a statement of fact.

 

[NSEP]

I know if an EmDrive would really work in KSP. From what i know the EmDrive produces very little thrust (IF it produces thrust). If its too low of thrust nobody is willing to use it. and if its too much thrust it is too overpowered. It would have to be balanced in some way to make it less overpowered/underpowered. I Remember using an EmDrive mod that balanced it a little by making the thrust 'decay' over time because of heating. And that it would need to cool down to go full power again.

[qzgy]

On 12/1/2017 at 9:02 PM, snkiz said:

The dcoupler is great!, fits a couple batteries and flight stuff in it.

And butt ugly as well....

[Cheif Operations Director]

Read my post Improvement of Kerbin

[JacobJHC]

They need a 2.5 and 3.75 meter xenon tanks. I have big missions that could have used them.

On 11/22/2017 at 3:48 PM, MartialSplash said:

I just hope that they fix some stock pats that are broken. Is it just my game or does everyone else have some original pre beta parts?

Could you please post a screenshot of this?

[HeliosPh0enix]

I definitely agree with finishing the 3.75 m parts and adding in 5 m parts.  On the other hand, I don't really know what else they could realistically add to the game.  I know that Squad is very supportive of the modding community, and I don't think they would do anything that would massively step on modders' toes, such as making large and popular mods obsolete by adding similar parts into the stock game.  I am torn, because there are many things that feel like they should be left as mods, but I also think having those parts in the base game would be great, allowing for more options in stock-only challenges and giving more options to those that (for whatever reason) do not have mods.  I guess this is kind of a ramble, but when I think of things that should be added to the base game, I think of parts from mods I like, and then I feel like adding those parts to the base game would be unoriginal on Squad's part, but, then again, there is only so much you can add, and nearly everything I can think of has been added in a mod of some sort.  In order for KSP to grow, Squad would need to impinge on some mod creators, which on one hand is great for the game, but on the other is not great for the modders.  I don't really know.

Wow.  This is a mess.  I just wanted to share my thoughts on the matter, and I think some of you may be thinking along similar lines, albeit probably in a less ramble-y way than me.

[Corona688]

On 10/25/2017 at 11:17 AM, RAJ JAR said:

Tests show there is thrust produced and  it is still being researched.

You can generate tiny amounts of thrust just by powering up a big magnetic field.  It pushes against the Earth's own field.  These EMdrives are driven by a magnetron, which requires - you guessed it - a big magnetic field.

So there's good reason for skepticism here.  At the tiny thrust being measured, it could be this effect or many other small-level effects, interference in sensors - magnetrons are notoriously noisy - or just plain experimental error.

[Pthigrivi]

On 12/12/2017 at 10:15 AM, qzgy said:

And butt ugly as well....

All of the 2.5m parts are bad, but the decoupler is really, really horrifying.

I'd also love to get a compliment of low-profile adapters, 2.5 to 3.75, 2.5 to MK3, and this thing: 

needs to hold fuel.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Pthigrivi