Procedural Parts? At the very least, unify the part sizes and variants?

[Bej Kerman]

It's becoming increasingly difficult to make my rocket designs come true when my parts list is cluttered with 50 different sizes of parts, and when there's 3 SAS module sizes but 8 part size/cross sections. There's only 2 flat adapters, 1 N1 decoupler in the 1.5m scale, 4 sizes of inline RCS tank that are each too thick to fit on anything that's not unreasonably large for, say, a trip to the Mun, only 3 inline battery sizes, there's only cargo bays for the Mk3 parts, only 2 engines for the 1.8m series, etc. Part variants are also lacking. The wings don't have a soviet style, the S4 series doesn't have any variants beyond the boring NASA-style colours, etc. Did I mention that there's no soviet style parts except for, maybe, 5 I found laying around?

Can't we get Procedural parts for every type of part - rockets, boosters, wings, hitchhiker containment modules, etc. implemented for us who can't run mods very well? Like the mod, this would also allow us to make rockets with unified colours, and the parts list wouldn't feel like an explosion at the VAB. Will this happen or will SQUAD just keep doing LEGO-style parts until the list is too long for Unity to handle?

Edited November 18, 2019 by Bej Kerman

[Snark]

Moving to Suggestions.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Can't we get Procedural parts for every type of part - rockets, boosters, wings, hitchhiker containment modules, etc. implemented for us who can't run mods very well? Like the mod, this would also allow us to make rockets with unified colours, and the parts list wouldn't feel like an explosion at the VAB. Will this happen or will SQUAD just keep doing LEGO-style parts until the list is too long for Unity to handle?

It's a difficult problem, from a game-design perspective.  Certainly there are people such as yourself who would like to have them-- but it's not a slam dunk, and there are plenty of people (myself included) who strongly prefer not to have procedural parts and prefer the Lego-style approach.

So from the game developer's perspective, it's a hard call, given that not all players want the same thing.  And changing this aspect would be a pretty expensive change to make, so I would imagine it would need a pretty strong impetus (e.g. overwhelming player demand) to make something like that happen.

Given that KSP has been out for quite some time and there hasn't been overwhelming player demand, my guess would be that this is fairly unlikely to happen, at least in the original KSP-- especially given that they're not in primary development mode anymore, it's mainly "keep the lights on" with occasional DLCs.

If there's anywhere this might be a feasible suggestion, I'd guess it would be KSP 2, though even there I'm guessing it'll be Lego-style.  (Though they will have much better handling of colors, i.e. you'll be able to customize the main and trim colors on just about every part, so at least they should have you reasonably well covered in that one specific aspect.)  Perhaps you might want to go and post some ideas over in the KSP 2 forum?

[Bej Kerman]

21 minutes ago, Snark said:

It's a difficult problem, from a game-design perspective.  Certainly there are people such as yourself who would like to have them-- but it's not a slam dunk, and there are plenty of people (myself included) who strongly prefer not to have procedural parts and prefer the Lego-style approach.

You never explain any of your standpoints, and YOUR preferences are NOT an excuse to hinder creativity.

21 minutes ago, Snark said:

So from the game developer's perspective, it's a hard call, given that not all players want the same thing.  And changing this aspect would be a pretty expensive change to make, so I would imagine it would need a pretty strong impetus (e.g. overwhelming player demand) to make something like that happen.

Again, explain. And prove that not all players want to be able to reduce lag by using one proc part instead of stacking multiple lego-parts to get the right length.

21 minutes ago, Snark said:

Given that KSP has been out for quite some time and there hasn't been overwhelming player demand, my guess would be that this is fairly unlikely to happen, at least in the original KSP-- especially given that they're not in primary development mode anymore, it's mainly "keep the lights on" with occasional DLCs.

Prove it.

21 minutes ago, Snark said:

If there's anywhere this might be a feasible suggestion, I'd guess it would be KSP 2, though even there I'm guessing it'll be Lego-style.  (Though they will have much better handling of colors, i.e. you'll be able to customize the main and trim colors on just about every part, so at least they should have you reasonably well covered in that one specific aspect.)  Perhaps you might want to go and post some ideas over in the KSP 2 forum?

Given the sheer scale of the rockets in KSP 2, why would they not want to use proc parts? And why would you not want proc parts in KSP 1?

Edited November 18, 2019 by Bej Kerman

[Snark]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

You never explain any of your standpoints, and YOUR preferences are NOT an excuse to hinder creativity.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble following, here.  "Hinder creativity"?  What?

To be clear, I wasn't even slightly criticizing your idea or calling it "wrong" in any way-- merely observing that not everyone wants the same thing.  Different people are different, yes?

So, not sure what your concern is, could you explain a bit more?

 

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, explain. And prove that not all players want to be able to reduce lag by using one proc part instead of stacking multiple lego-parts to get the right length.

"Procedural parts" isn't the same thing as "reduce lag".  It's just a different design philosophy, that's all.  Some people like it (that's why there have been "procedural parts" mods, TweakScale, etc.) and others don't.

I, for example, really like the aesthetic and gameplay consequences of having Lego-style construction.  That doesn't mean I'm "right", obviously, or that I'm asserting it would be "right" for everyone-- just that I, personally, like it that way.

I'm happy to explain more, but you quoted a statement of mine without saying specifically what you wanted to explain, i.e. what aspect, or what about my statement seemed unclear, etc.  I'm happy to go on at more length, but it would help if I knew exactly what your concern was.  Could you clarify?

 

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Prove it.

Prove... what, exactly?  About player demand, or about what Squad has (and hasn't) been doing with KSP in recent years, or what?  Would help if I had a better idea of what your specific question is.
 

49 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Given the sheer scale of the rockets in KSP 2, why would they not want to use proc parts?

Scale doesn't have anything to do with procedural parts per se.  You can have big rockets with Lego-style or procedural parts, and you can have small rockets with Lego-style or procedural parts.

A reason to use Lego-style parts would be if that's what most people want and/or are used to, for example.

50 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

And why would you not want proc parts in KSP 1?

Because I, 1. don't need them, and 2. don't want them.

Don't need 'em because I can build the rockets I want the way I want to build them.

Don't want 'em because I really, really don't like them.  I like the fact that Lego-style parts provide a constraint for me to use my creativity to work around.  I like the fact that every individual part has a well-defined set of stats.  I like that each individual part is individually hand-crafted by an artist with its own unique look and feel, both for the model and for the texture.  My experience with procedural stuff is that it ends up with a certain homogeneous "sameness" about it that, for me, gives the rockets much less "character" and it all just feels kinda blah to me.

It's the same reason why I like having a solar system with individually hand-designed planets, rather than some procedurally generated thing like No Man's Sky did:  because to me, procedural = lack of personality.  I just happen to like individually crafted artwork, that's all.

I'm a little concerned that you seem to be getting sorta worked up about this, as if I'm somehow criticizing you, or asserting that my way is "right" or that your suggestion is "wrong".  If I've mis-read that, my apologies.  However, do please understand that I'm not in any way criticizing your idea or saying that one way is better than another-- just saying that I happen to like what I like, just as you like what you like.  Doesn't mean either one of us is "right" or "wrong", objectively speaking.  It's just that different people like different things, that's all.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

because to me, procedural = lack of personality.

What?

[paul23]

There is the saying "limitations breeds creativity". This holds very much true to lego-like games; being limited in the amount of parts will give design constraints you have to work with either aesthetically or physically.

 

In reality you also don't have just "any form and shape" of tank, always at hand, there also plumbing etc limits how tanks look.

 

I do agree that the options for the "offsize" rockets are just an annoyance, and I never understood why the extra diameter rockets were added.

[razark]

Procedural parts are antithetical to KSP's philosophy, and should not be.

Everything in the game is found by the roadside, or comes from a junkyard, or some other idiotic origin.  Kerbals can't simply call up the junkyard and say "I need a fuel tank X meters long, Y meters in diameter, holding Z units of fuel." and expect it to be there.  They can't write a specification for wings of certain dimensions, stick it in the nearest ditch, and wait till a the wing they want pops up.  Kerbals have always been depicted a using what they have available to do what they want.  That's where exercising creativity comes into the game.

Creativity in KSP is "I built a rover, now I have to get it to the Mun.", not "I want magic spacewheels so I can drive to the Mun."

[klgraham1013]

On 11/18/2019 at 5:24 PM, razark said:

Everything in the game is found by the roadside, or comes from a junkyard, or some other idiotic origin.

I think that's more of a joke on a few part descriptions.  I don't think  Squad ever put that much thought into actual Kerbal lore.

[Dirkidirk]

mods

Spoiler

yes past me, mods.

now I'm just talking to myself.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Dirkidirk
stupid nostalgia

[klgraham1013]

4 hours ago, Dirkidirk said:

mods

This is the Suggestions and Development sub-forum for suggestions and discussion of the games development.  We all are well aware of the glouriousness of KSPs modding community.

[razark]

47 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

This is the Suggestions and Development sub-forum for suggestions and discussion of the games development.  We all are well aware of the glouriousness of KSPs modding community.

Mods also tend not to address one of the major complaints about the parts: too much clutter making individual parts hard to find.

[klgraham1013]

On 11/20/2019 at 11:21 AM, razark said:

Mods also tend not to address one of the major complaints about the parts: too much clutter making individual parts hard to find.

This could also be solved with better organization and UI as opposed to procedural parts.  Both ideas have merrit, but, as KSP has already chosen non-procedural, I think Squad taking another look at simplifying clutter would be the best solution.   I don't actually think that will happen though.

Edited November 22, 2019 by klgraham1013

[DoctorDavinci]

Just now, razark said:

Mods also tend not to address one of the major complaints about the parts: too much clutter making individual parts hard to find.

I don't think that is specifically an issue with mods per se but rather the unwillingness of many mod creators to add some simple code to their project that makes an editor category that they can put their parts in

Actually, this is a proven fact come to think of it ... over a year ago there was a change in BD Armory Continued that made it so mods that had parts in them that were using the BDA category in the editor no longer showed up in that category (I put the code in there for this) and over 2 months before the implementation of this code, myself and the rest of the BDAc team made an announcement of the coming change and also provided offers of assistance (and code) to those who wanted a custom editor category

Long story short, most didn't take us up on the offer of assistance and proceeded to complain about the change after it was made (this change being made about 2 months after the announcement that the change would be occurring) ... So those complaints you mention are the result of the mod author(s) inaction

Just my two cents on that subject

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by DoctorDavinci

[paul23]

Well categories are annoying of itself: it's just as hard to find something there. ("hmm is this part under containers or utility, or did this mod add an even more obscure category").

 

What could be done is much better "selection", for (say) tanks you select a tank, then when you have it selected you can select the adapter size (1.25m 2.5 etc) and finally the height. Not quite procedural as there are only a limited amount of sizes and adapters available. But you don't have to look into the items and guess which tank is which size.

[razark]

1 hour ago, DoctorDavinci said:

I don't think that is specifically an issue with mods per se but rather the unwillingness of many mod creators to add some simple code to their project that makes an editor category that they can put their parts in

I was referring to the complaints I've seen that there are too many stock parts to easily find the part a user is looking for.  Procedural part mods don't do that, while replacing the stock parts with fewer procedural ones would.

[pandaman]

For me the main issue is not the variety of parts, but that the parts list just needs much better organisation.

Simplify the way it looks by using something like one 'folder' or 'tab' for each cross section of fuel tank is the most obvious example that springs to mind.

[klgraham1013]

On 11/20/2019 at 12:25 PM, paul23 said:

Well categories are annoying of itself: it's just as hard to find something there. ("hmm is this part under containers or utility, or did this mod add an even more obscure category").

This is a problem with implementation more so than categorization in and of itself.

6 hours ago, pandaman said:

For me the main issue is not the variety of parts, but that the parts list just needs much better organisation.

Simplify the way it looks by using something like one 'folder' or 'tab' for each cross section of fuel tank is the most obvious example that springs to mind.

That's basically exactly what I've thought as well for the past however many years.  I'd like to think someone at Squad must of thought of it as well.

[paul23]

Categorization as a menas to organize things is something that is never truly scalable. Once you grow past the 200 or so parts it's getting a mess anyways with parts looking quite similar from thumbnails.

 

In that case tiered selection is better "I place a tank, select which of the 5 radii, select one of the n sizes", and can quickly change later. Basically able to "switch parts" without removing and replacing.

[klgraham1013]

9 hours ago, paul23 said:

Categorization as a menas to organize things is something that is never truly scalable. Once you grow past the 200 or so parts it's getting a mess anyways

As someone who has hundreds of parts in his shop, I'll politely disagree.  Implementation is everything.

As an example of what should be:  Click on the Tanks tab.  A list of bulkheads should come up.  There are 7 in the game currently.  Select one.  Next, select the tank length.  Let's say there are 5.  Clean and simple just by adding one more click.  Look at Tracking Station Evolved.  A great example of what a little thought can do when designing something.

[paul23]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

As someone who has hundreds of parts in his shop, I'll politely disagree.  Implementation is everything.

As an example of what should be:  Click on the Tanks tab.  A list of bulkheads should come up.  There are 7 in the game currently.  Select one.  Next, select the tank length.  Let's say there are 5.  Clean and simple just by adding one more click.  Look at Tracking Station Evolved.  A great example of what a little thought can do when designing something.

And then you have a "docking port" from kis which isn't under "kis" tab, but rather under a "construction tab", a personal tab. - Even while the docking ports normally are under docking/connection.. And all squad construction items are under "utility". And worse: that tab icon just falls off the page so I often forget it is there.

 

Or look at the cyrogenic tanks: the model for the 2.5m version looks almost equal to the 1.25m, in the part selector the item cannot be made apart, other than hovering and reading text, or knowing which button is which.

[Fraston]

On 11/18/2019 at 1:38 PM, Bej Kerman said:

You never explain any of your standpoints, and YOUR preferences are NOT an excuse to hinder creativity.

I want to like just this part of your post! It’s perfect! I love negative overreaction to moderator posts!

I do not agree with procedural parts though. You can make any shape out of stock parts and it is more creative than just like 3 parts or something. It feels like a lot more of an accomplishment, and besides, we would be straying into *cough* Si-*wheeze*mpler-*cough*ocke-*hack*ts 2-*groan* territory, curse its name.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Fraston

[Lapis]

On 11/20/2019 at 9:55 AM, klgraham1013 said:

This could also be solved with better organization and UI as opposed to procedural parts.  Both ideas have merrit, but, as KSP has already chosen non-procedural, I think Squad taking another look at simplifying clutter would be the best solution.   I don't actually think that will happen though.

I think a ui redesign would solve the problem of "parts overload" I came back to the game after a hiatus and was overwhelmed(not complaining more parts the better) maybe have categories within  categories.  for example you go to the engines tab, then the 3.5 meter tab. or a filter(there could be one already that i have no idea about but everyone else knows about) for part sizes when activated only shows those part sizes in all the categories.

[Bej Kerman]

18 hours ago, Lapis said:

I think a ui redesign would solve the problem of "parts overload" I came back to the game after a hiatus and was overwhelmed(not complaining more parts the better) maybe have categories within  categories.  for example you go to the engines tab, then the 3.5 meter tab. or a filter(there could be one already that i have no idea about but everyone else knows about) for part sizes when activated only shows those part sizes in all the categories.

There's also a great lack of engines for 1.875 and 0.625m cross sections, which I think proc engines would fix. Or Squad unifying everything with 1 update instead of only adding boosters.

[betaking]

there should be a combination of things.

Procedural parts that have "sweet spots" or are optimal at certain size-ranges in terms of "weight", "structural strength". "cost", etc.

more importantly I'd like to see procedural parts for stuff like landing gear as there's a lot of ground clearance issues one encounters building planes. Procedural wings would also work here, and you could have a meaningful variety of wings with different surface-qualities, different geometries, and different structures/ribbing, rather than 5 different "wing connectors" who's only difference is their geometry.

overall getting some kind of full-scale part-touch-up process would just be nice to see.

 

 

[Fraston]

I was never all that into procedural parts, as that takes all the fun out of finding the right engine.