Stock props, please :)

[g00bd0g]

It seems it would be fairly easy to add stock props/engines to the game. Small/Medium/Large, piston/turbine/electric... I would pay for this DLC. Yes I know there are mods with these parts, and I love them, it just seems like such a trivial/easy thing to add to the game that it should be stock...

[luizopiloto]

Stock propeller?

[GrouchyDevotee]

I would love to see a couple different propellers added to the console version.

 

[Greenfire32]

On 4/26/2018 at 4:40 PM, g00bd0g said:

It seems it would be fairly easy to add stock props/engines to the game.....it just seems like such a trivial/easy thing to add to the game that it should be stock...

Pro tip: it ain't easy.

[g00bd0g]

34 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

Pro tip: it ain't easy.

Actually it is. I can make one myself by just copy/pasting/editing existing engine parts with a new 3d model. And there are dozens (100's?) of decent props available in various mods.

[Greenfire32]

11 minutes ago, g00bd0g said:

I can make one myself by just copy/pasting/editing existing engine parts

yeah, but someone had to make those parts. As in from scratch. From coding to modelling to implementation.
And that ain't easy.

It's easy to just copy/paste someone else's work and say "look what I made!" It's not so easy to actually make something from the ground up.
Especially in game design.

But hey, if you're so convinced, just keep using them mods. I'm sure you could update them yourself every time a new version update breaks them. Should be easy, right?

[g00bd0g]

43 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

yeah, but someone had to make those parts. As in from scratch. From coding to modelling to implementation.
And that ain't easy.

It's easy to just copy/paste someone else's work and say "look what I made!" It's not so easy to actually make something from the ground up.
Especially in game design.

But hey, if you're so convinced, just keep using them mods. I'm sure you could update them yourself every time a new version update breaks them. Should be easy, right?

Oh please stop with the reactionary uninformed FUD. You do realize all current engines share a common "template" and are just slightly different from each other right? I think if you actually poked around in the part .cfg files you might realize it is a lot simpler (to squads credit!) than you think. As long as there is no new resources or other fancy features implemented, it should be as easy easy as tweaking a couple of the jet engine variables and making a new cad model. Shouldn't take more than a few hours per .cfg file and maybe a week per CAD model, depending on details/animations.

Edited April 30, 2018 by g00bd0g

[Cadet_BNSF]

20 minutes ago, g00bd0g said:

Oh please stop with the reactionary uninformed FUD. You do realize all current engines share a common "template" and are just slightly different from each other right? I think if you actually poked around in the part .cfg files you might realize it is a lot simpler (to squads credit!) than you think. As long as there is no new resources or other fancy features implemented, it should be as easy easy as tweaking a couple of the jet engine variables and making a new cad model. Shouldn't take more than a few hours per .cfg file and maybe a week per CAD model, depending on details/animations.

Don't know if you realize, but that is a lot of work for one part. As a disclaimer, I don't mod, but I know that my free time is valuable, and I don't appreciate more of it being taken up by something I only slightly enjoy. SOOO, unless you really enjoy making parts, like @CobaltWolf or @Angel-125, who each have made hundreds of parts in their mods, this is not something that is worth it for @SQUAD.

[Greenfire32]

2 hours ago, g00bd0g said:

Oh please stop with the reactionary uninformed FUD. You do realize all current engines share a common "template" and are just slightly different from each other right? I think if you actually poked around in the part .cfg files you might realize it is a lot simpler (to squads credit!) than you think. As long as there is no new resources or other fancy features implemented, it should be as easy easy as tweaking a couple of the jet engine variables and making a new cad model. Shouldn't take more than a few hours per .cfg file and maybe a week per CAD model, depending on details/animations.

Then. Do. It.

It's so easy!

[pandaman]

Yes please.

For me electric props would be a nice addition. Some for underwater and some to enable flight on Eve and Duna in particular.  Apart from aesthetics LF powered props would be no different functionally to the jets.

Difficult to do?  I don't actually know, but I guess it would be not much more difficult than a new type of jet or rocket engine, the model would need to animate like wheels do, but the actual 'Prop' doesn't need to really work it, just needs to turn and look like it does.

[NSEP]

I tried making rocket engines, and although editing the configs is easy, making a model an texture isn't, especially not an animated propellor.

I would like to see props being added in the game. Maybe electric props would come in handy for Jool/Eve exploration from above.

[Lego_Prodigy]

Its really not easy to code anything like that. Take it from me. I am in my high school's coding club, but I will need to take the coding class to actually be able to use code successfully. And here you are claiming that it is easy to code something as complex as a MOVING engine, which is WAY harder than the static models of the current jet engines.

[JadeOfMaar]

On 4/26/2018 at 6:40 PM, g00bd0g said:

it just seems like such a trivial/easy thing to add to the game that it should be stock...

All these threads popping up asking for mod things to be added into stock. No one seems to consider (and I don't mean to offend, just being matter-of-fact here) ...

1. Whether their request has already been made. Every day someone new asks about stock multiplayer and the run-around debates go on. Squad never gave a clear answer in words, but the fact that it's still not here speaks volumes.
    
2. It's not about whether it's easy to do. It's about whether it's relevant to Kerbal Space Program. Any engine concepts I've seen concerning aerospace are generally chemical rockets and ion drives. Any engine concept that seeks to exploit foreign atmosphere will very likely be a chemical rocket and I've never seen ideas for off-world fan engines... If any real space agency launches something with a fan engine in it, that launch is not going to be in our lifetime.
    
3. If it's in a mod already, it has much less chance of becoming stock (in my opinion). Anyone who knows mods well should be aware by now that Squad will do a weak, halfway and bugged out version if they make a mod thing into stock. Once a mod doesn't break easily with KSP updates, and meets people's needs, they ought to download it, keep it around, and add it to their standards for share-worthy craft files.
   For example, Tantares  by @Beale puts the parts portion of Making History to shame.
   Spoiler

   

   
   KerbinSide Remastered by @Eskandare wipes out the stock launch sites.
   Spoiler

   

4. Multiplayer, prop fans, more planets, life support, weather... We've asked Squad for years for these things and several if not most have not been delivered. (Several existing mods have become stock...but all we really have to stand on is whatever and whenever Squad randomly decides to surprise us with in the next KSP release.

Edited April 30, 2018 by JadeOfMaar

[g00bd0g]

This entire forum section is for "suggestions". It's not called "suggestion bashing". I am entitled to make any suggestions I want. You are not entitled to tell me what I want is wrong, it is my opinion. If I want to make electric aircraft for duna, or helicopters on laythe, or submarines for eve, that is my personal preference. I understand if you don't want/need props in your game, but that is no reason to poo all over my suggestion thread. Squad is entitle to accept/ignore my suggestions. The rest of the negative attitudes here are very misplaced...

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

All these threads popping up asking for mod things to be added into stock. No one seems to consider (and I don't mean to offend, just being matter-of-fact here) ...

1. Whether their request has already been made. Every day someone new asks about stock multiplayer and the run-around debates go on. Squad never gave a clear answer in words, but the fact that it's still not here speaks volumes.
    
2. It's not about whether it's easy to do. It's about whether it's relevant to Kerbal Space Program. Any engine concepts I've seen concerning aerospace are generally chemical rockets and ion drives. Any engine concept that seeks to exploit foreign atmosphere will very likely be a chemical rocket and I've never seen ideas for off-world fan engines... If any real space agency launches something with a fan engine in it, that launch is not going to be in our lifetime.
    
3. If it's in a mod already, it has much less chance of becoming stock (in my opinion). Anyone who knows mods well should be aware by now that Squad will do a weak, halfway and bugged out version if they make a mod thing into stock. Once a mod doesn't break easily with KSP updates, and meets people's needs, they ought to download it, keep it around, and add it to their standards for share-worthy craft files.
   For example, Tantares  by @Beale puts the parts portion of Making History to shame.
     Reveal hidden contents

   

   
   KerbinSide Remastered by @Eskandare wipes out the stock launch sites.
     Reveal hidden contents

   

4. Multiplayer, prop fans, more planets, life support, weather... We've asked Squad for years for these things and several if not most have not been delivered. (Several existing mods have become stock...but all we really have to stand on is whatever and whenever Squad randomly decides to surprise us with in the next KSP release.

Thanks for a mature response, seems rare around here.

In regards to #2, they already have jet engines, so obviously SQUAD considers atmospheric powered aircraft to be part of the game. Propeller driven aircraft are not much of a stretch from Jet powered...

Edited April 30, 2018 by g00bd0g

[Gargamel]

On 4/30/2018 at 7:17 PM, g00bd0g said:

Propeller driven aircraft are not much of a stretch from Jet powered...

As emphasized above by @JadeOfMaar, it's Kerbal SPACE Program.  Most of the engines are included to facilitate the building towards space planes.   Show me a prop powered spaceplane, and you'll have my backing.  The vast majority of the stock game is geared towards space flight, and that is the design model Squad seems to be working under. 

[Mark Kerbin]

6 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

As emphasized above by @JadeOfMaar, it's Kerbal SPACE Program.  Most of the engines are included to facilitate the building towards space planes.   Show me a prop powered spaceplane, and you'll have my backing.  The vast majority of the stock game is geared towards space flight, and that is the design model Squad seems to be working under. 

*Puts on flame retardant suit* 

Yes its kerbal SPACE program. But.... lets be honest. The community wants and enjoys aircraft and atmospheric flight. We have plane parts already.

I personally would love a DLC with a  couple stock props + other plane/ atmosphere stuff. That DLC should also add in more stuff to make surface exploration more interesting. 

[Capt. Hunt]

Also, the physics of propellers aren't exactly the same as jet engines, it's not as simple as copy/pasting the code from an existing jet part.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Capt. Hunt

[pandaman]

51 minutes ago, Capt. Hunt said:

Also, the physics of propellers aren't exactly the same as jet engines, it's not as simple as copy/pasting the code from an existing jet part.

That is a fair point.  But i guess, for game purposes, it needs to behave about right rather than be fully accurate.

The model is in itself not a huge issue other than taking the time to do it, which i accept may not be trivial, but doesn't impact whether or how they work or not 

I am just bouncing thoughts here, but currently jets take in fuel and atmospheric air and give thrust relative to the throttle setting. They also have spool up time and various other details that give the different engines their charactaristics.

So 'i guess' that by fiddling with the data settings it could be feasible to get a sensibly accurate representation of a standard prop engine.  Electrics could possibly be a bit easier.

[Serenity]

Kraken tech is not stock propeller, its an exploitation, that is not stock, its like modding ingame.

Stock will always work, will never break, will never have magical arms holding it together and it will never achieve unrealistic thrust/lift.

I agree that is fun and pushes creativity to the edge, especially since we dont have the stock parts to do all the stuff the engine can handle.

But its not stock and its not something that can replace the need for such parts in Kerbal.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Boyster

[0something0]

On 4/30/2018 at 7:16 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

All these threads popping up asking for mod things to be added into stock. No one seems to consider (and I don't mean to offend, just being matter-of-fact here) ...

1. Whether their request has already been made. Every day someone new asks about stock multiplayer and the run-around debates go on. Squad never gave a clear answer in words, but the fact that it's still not here speaks volumes.
    
2. It's not about whether it's easy to do. It's about whether it's relevant to Kerbal Space Program. Any engine concepts I've seen concerning aerospace are generally chemical rockets and ion drives. Any engine concept that seeks to exploit foreign atmosphere will very likely be a chemical rocket and I've never seen ideas for off-world fan engines... If any real space agency launches something with a fan engine in it, that launch is not going to be in our lifetime.
    
3. If it's in a mod already, it has much less chance of becoming stock (in my opinion). Anyone who knows mods well should be aware by now that Squad will do a weak, halfway and bugged out version if they make a mod thing into stock. Once a mod doesn't break easily with KSP updates, and meets people's needs, they ought to download it, keep it around, and add it to their standards for share-worthy craft files.
   For example, Tantares  by @Beale puts the parts portion of Making History to shame.
     Reveal hidden contents

   

   
   KerbinSide Remastered by @Eskandare wipes out the stock launch sites.
     Reveal hidden contents

   

4. Multiplayer, prop fans, more planets, life support, weather... We've asked Squad for years for these things and several if not most have not been delivered. (Several existing mods have become stock...but all we really have to stand on is whatever and whenever Squad randomly decides to surprise us with in the next KSP release.

4

Unlike many other features (cough Multiplayer cough), propellors would be relatively easy to implement, not have a lot of impact on the performance, and would not detract from other people's playstyles unlike some features such as life support.  This is something simple. Just a new engine. Besides, this would open up new possibilities for new missions and NASA has considered multiple drone concepts for near-future missions: adding a drone to the Mars 2020 rover and a drone to Titan in its early stages, which sound just as plausible then ISRU, SABRE engines, or Asteroid Redirect. Its mostly political science rather than rocket science.  As for the supposedly poor quality-control, an argument could be made that SQUAD should cease ALL development, DLC or otherwise altogether. Besides, it's nice to have that "stock gold status" for the purists and the console players. 

tl;dr: Unlike other suggested features, it's not that hard to make, there are serious near-future proposals for extraterrestrial prop engines, and the argument of poor-quality releases can apply for ANY feature.