KSP Aircraft Standardization Effort [READ WHOLE OP] [WIP]

[FahmiRBLX]

[WIP]

What I'm doing here is not to simply execute a roleplay here, but to standardize things out. Ever became sick of non-standardized stuff around the uploaded planes?

Anyways, this only applies to planes, feel free to call whatever for your rockets.

Important : Model Prefixes are open for discussions.

VERY IMPORTANT : Before anyone complain, read this whole post. This standardization isn't mandatory, but tail number prefix is a bit prioritized.

Number One

Aircraft Tail Number

Some might came with the idea on applying tail numbers of their planes in Mission Reports, but the prefixes aren't exactly the same. So now, 

I petition that the tail number prefix of the whole Kerbin is 10K-*.

Case closed.

Number Two

Model Prefix

So what we have around here? Airliners, freighters, helicopters, bombers, ground attack, gunship, SSTO, submersiles, lighter-than-air, sea-based, Green propulsion, etc?

Bear in mind this have similarities with the standard United States aircraft designations. If the aircraft serves for more than one role, the aircraft shall have both alhabets representing its roles. Example, a ground attack aircraft and bomber has AB-* or it is also a fighter, hence ABF-*. Or it's an experimental fighter VTOL SSTO, hence XVSF-*. Numbers, letters or words before and after this is up to you. Example : Frontinco-North American YF-86M Venom Sabre, Royal Aerospace P-Box II, GAI P-K38/52, etc.

Alphabet	Role
A	Ground Attack
B	Bomber
C	Freighter
D*	Lighter-Than-Air (Airships) (e.g Heisenberg Mod)
E	Reconnaissance
F	Fighter
G	Gyrocopters & rotary-wing aircraft with separate engine for forward propulsion.
H	Helicopter
I	Ornihopter
J	Gunship (Must use with prefix A-, such as AJ-*) (Applies to heavily-armed ground attack aircraft, in other words, buff planes)
K	Other body-optimised (Planes you make to fly in atmospheres other than Kerbin or didn't perform good enough (Or efficient enough) on Kerbin but good on Duna, Eve, etc.) (Only for planes optimised for atmospheres unable to support Jet Engine operations)
L	Rocket-propelled aircraft
M
N
O	Glider
P	Airliner
Q	Unmanned
R	Conversion
S*	SSTO
T	Trainer
U*	Utility (General Aviation or No purpose)
V	VTOL
W	Research (Planes that fly to take experiments from a body)
X	Experimental (Let's say you're making your first Breaking Grounds electric plane, but you're still tweaking it around to get things right, a lot)
Y	Almost-final version (The one, let's say, you're making a Duna SSTO, but the 'final' design isn't used for the real deal)
Z	Electric propulsion (Xenon or Electric Propeller)

 

Note

• This will apply to future planes. Don't hesitate to not to go to KerbalX only to change your airplane naming but you may change it as you wish to follow this standard or not.
• Letters with no 'explanation text' in the above list means no roles designated to the alphabets.
• Letters in the above list, marked with Asterisk (*) means they're less encouraged, but still encouraged at a 'lower' level.
• You may choose to not to use this, but I encourage the usage of this guideline.
• The whole guideline isn't mandatory, but again, encouraged.
• Don't hesitate to reply if you have suggestions or thoughts.

Edited June 24, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[The Aziz]

I'd rather read a description than decipher the code.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

*Old hippy voice*

You can't like...just put my aircraft in a box and like...define them man...they gotta be free to fly!

You can't keep us down man, the government doesn't like..own the sky man, you can't like..own clouds man!

[Loskene]

This is what happens when you log too many hours in flight sims

[Rocket In My Pocket]

5 minutes ago, Loskene said:

This is what happens when you log too many hours in flight sims

Pffftt..I've flown planes in real life and even I can't be bothered to care this much. 

[FahmiRBLX]

51 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

You can't keep us down man, the government doesn't like..own the sky man, you can't like..own clouds man!

Well at least it's not that mandatory, but at least we could have the not-so-mandatory tail number prefix going on. Letters and numbers after 10K- is up to builders.

[Gargamel]

Moved to Spacecraft Exchange. 

And if we couldn't get the modders to agree on a tagging system for the mod release threads, I highly doubt this is going to catch on. 

[FahmiRBLX]

 

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

And if we couldn't get the modders to agree on a tagging system for the mod release threads, I highly doubt this is going to catch on. 

This applies for the whole aircraft, not individual parts.

Edited June 23, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian
Duplicate Kraken is here. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER lol

[Raptor9]

Yeeeaaahhh, I will not be doing this. Thats like the U.S. telling the Russians to adopt the same designation system for all their aircraft. Neeeever gonna happen.

[linuxgurugamer]

8 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

What I'm doing here is not to simply execute a roleplay here, but to standardize things out. Ever became sick of non-standardized stuff around the uploaded planes?

The wonderful thing about standards  is that there are so many to choose from

[RealKerbal3x]

@FahmiRBLXian The small number of aircraft that I build from time to time have their own designation scheme - for example, my Heisenberg airships have their own registry system which is relatively easy to grasp. On the contrary, your system is essentially a code, which looks rather difficult to decipher.

It’s going to be near-impossible to get everyone on these forums to agree on a standardised aircraft naming system. Since SQUAD hasn’t produced anything approaching a backstory for KSP, everyone in the community has differing headcanon for it - some people’s don’t even have aircraft. Additionally, everyone has their own mod preferences and building styles, meaning that trying to force your system on them is only going to suppress the brilliant individuality that is indigenous to this game and this forum. Craft designation can be creative in its own way.

Typing this on my phone was torture

[Pds314]

No code for gyrocopters or similar?

No code for ornithopters?

Or just basic gliders?

Edited June 23, 2019 by Pds314

[Daniel Prates]

I use a system like that to label my planes heheheh... I thought I was the only one. Names like "gull", "firebird" etc do not do it for me.

I use numbers in decens. Like 10, 20, 30 and so on. Numbers inbetween I use for versions of a same fuselage, say, when the same plane gets a better engine it goes from 10 to 11 and so on.

Letters I use like this:

F - fighter

B - bomber

R - recon

H - hidroplanes

PP - passenger

C - cargo

S - service or utility.

X - experimental

R - rocketplanes 

 

[FahmiRBLX]

5 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Some people’s don’t even have aircraft. 

Additionally, everyone has their own mod preferences and building styles, meaning that trying to force your system on them is only going to suppress the brilliant individuality that is indigenous to this game and this forum. Craft designation can be creative in its own way.

I know that, hence the word aircraft in the OP, which means only applies for aircrafts. For rocket buffs, they don't need to build their own plane for.

EDIT : OP has been updated.

Edited June 23, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[Gargamel]

8 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

The wonderful thing about standards  is that there are so many to choose from

 

[FahmiRBLX]

25 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

 

Well all of us could discuss on letters for different aircraft roles that all of us agrees, and hence the reason I put this on KSP Discussion at the first place.

And hence turning the '15 Standards Problem' situation by unifying them as one, hence we got a single standard we all agree.

Though when you said that you moved the thread to Spacecraft Exchange I

thought I posted the thread in the wrong subforum.

Edited June 24, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian
Typo

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Well all of us could discuss on letters for different aircraft roles that all of us agrees, and hence the reason I put this on KSP Discussion at the first place.

And hence turning the '15 Standards Problem' situation by unifying them as one, hence we got a single standard we all agree.

Though when you said that you moved the thread to Spacecraft Exchange I

thought I posted the thread in the wrong subforum.

Normally, we frown upon discussing moderation in public, but this move might need a little explanation, and there might be more than you wondering why I did that.  Having a rigid designation system for types of craft really only applies to those who are willing to share those crafts with others, so they can easily see what type of craft they are dealing with, and since all traffic relating to sharing crafts goes into Spacecraft Exchange, that's where I put this.   This cannot apply to other types of users, as this is a single player game, and since there's no way I'm going to name my ships the way somebody else tells me to, I cannot expect it to apply to others as well.  If you'd like to discuss it further, by all means, drop me a PM and we can talk. 

If you can get the community behind you in using a designated naming system for craft, more power to you.  But I know the mods will not police this, as mentioned, it is a single player game, and we cannot expect everybody, especially new people, to adhere to an arbitrary classification system.  It's a noble effort, and I applaud you for trying.  But with my experience in trying to get the modding community to just tag their threads from a set list of categories, I know this won't get much traction.  It seems like a decent system, but getting everybody to adhere to it when there is little benefit to majority of players, is a lofty goal.  I personally don't usually number my craft, I give them odd names, so a year later, I have no idea what the craft is intended to do.  Perhaps I should use a system like this, but I'm not, because that's not how I enjoy playing the game. 

[FahmiRBLX]

55 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Normally, we frown upon discussing moderation in public, but this move might need a little explanation, and there might be more than you wondering why I did that.  Having a rigid designation system for types of craft really only applies to those who are willing to share those crafts with others, so they can easily see what type of craft they are dealing with, and since all traffic relating to sharing crafts goes into Spacecraft Exchange, that's where I put this.   This cannot apply to other types of users, as this is a single player game, and since there's no way I'm going to name my ships the way somebody else tells me to, I cannot expect it to apply to others as well.  If you'd like to discuss it further, by all means, drop me a PM and we can talk. 

If you can get the community behind you in using a designated naming system for craft, more power to you.  But I know the mods will not police this, as mentioned, it is a single player game, and we cannot expect everybody, especially new people, to adhere to an arbitrary classification system.  It's a noble effort, and I applaud you for trying.  But with my experience in trying to get the modding community to just tag their threads from a set list of categories, I know this won't get much traction.  It seems like a decent system, but getting everybody to adhere to it when there is little benefit to majority of players, is a lofty goal.  I personally don't usually number my craft, I give them odd names, so a year later, I have no idea what the craft is intended to do.  Perhaps I should use a system like this, but I'm not, because that's not how I enjoy playing the game. 

Just one question : Any ideas on what's the relationship between mods (I mean game mods, not Moderators) and the designation? I meant this standardization to apply on a whole craft, not a single mod. And crafts might comprise of several different mods.

[Gargamel]

5 minutes ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Just one question : Any ideas on what's the relationship between mods (I mean game mods, not Moderators) and the designation? I meant this standardization to apply on a whole craft, not a single mod. And crafts might comprise of several different mods.

I don't understand your question.  

When I mentioned getting the modders to adopt a tagging system, it was a completely unrelated endeavor.  We were trying to standardize the way the threads were tagged in the mod release forums so it would make searching for them easier, and people like the idea, but nobody really followed through on it, and we couldn't enforce it even if they had.    I see a similar situation with this idea.   It's a good system, but getting everybody to follow it, even people who don't even know about it, will be a fruitless task.   

[Commander Zoom]

Not gonna happen, man.  I'd be surprised if you got even 10 other people (besides yourself) to go with your arbitrary craft-numbering scheme, let alone "everyone".

Let it go.

[FahmiRBLX]

4 hours ago, Commander Zoom said:

I'd be surprised if you got even 10 other people (besides yourself) to go with your arbitrary craft-numbering scheme, let alone "everyone".

1. First of all, I'm trying to get most of us discussing for a more appropriate designation for every role. Like some people may prefer the designation 'X-Wing' instead of just the letter 'F' for fighters. Take note that it's still WIP.
2. Model numbers and namings are up to users. As long as (What I'm hoping for) the designation letters are at the beginning or end of the model name.

4 hours ago, Commander Zoom said:

... Let alone "everyone".

3. Read the Notes section carefully. It's not mandatory.

Edited June 24, 2019 by FahmiRBLXian

[Loskene]

13 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

And hence turning the '15 Standards Problem' situation by unifying them as one, hence we got a single standard we all agree.

Situation: There are now 16 competing standards.