Jump to content

Will there be procedural parts in ksp 2? Should there be?


Should there be procedural parts in ksp 2?  

121 members have voted

  1. 1. Procedural parts?

    • Yes, totally!
    • Maybe.
    • No no no no no no no!
    • What are procedural parts?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Ok, there will be procedural wings, because creating wings with Lego-like parts suck. But the idea of procedural tanks is either never going to happen or be very limited in scope. The problem with procedural tanks is the wide variety of diameters involved in the game. With a diameter range of 0.6m to 15+m, having procedural widths doesn't make sense. Adjustable lengths does make sense, but more than likely, it will be limited if the devs go that direction. Nate has said that they want to keep the Lego-like feel for the game. That would mean you will still have to stack tanks.

To add to this, all the problems with the lego-like parts comes down to bad organization as well as an incomplete set of tanks. 

I think this could be mitigated by sorting tanks in a slightly straightforward way that could seem semi-procedural where we get the best of both worlds. When selecting a tank the player could select what shape/size they want the 1st connector(0.625m, 2.5m, Mk II, etc.. ), then the length from several preset lengths (1m, 2m, 4m, 8m), then the shape/size of the second connector, and finally the contents of the tank. A premade tank for all combinations of this would preserve the games lego-like building mechanic, fill in the gaps many of us see as glaring or obvious, and part selection easy and intuitive streamlining the creative process a bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As stated before, extended tweakables that allow single parts to be tweaked meeting a limited set of options  would be great.

  • Fuel tanks with a discrete range of diameters and heights (as well as fuel storage types)
  • Nose cones with a discrete range of diameters
  • Beams and girders

The construction tubes and exhaust plates already show this is possible and it would greatly reduce the number of parts in the designer,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disapprove of a "procedural everything" paradigm for KSP, but I approve of procedural wings! LEGO wings are one of the reasons I completely gave up on planes.

Having said that, in the early days of KSP I was desperate for procedural tanks: LEGO tanks made of just a few smaller tanks were food for the Spaghetti monster (a distant relative of the Kraken), and having rockets bending to banana-like shapes as they ascended was no fun whatsoever! Not that this has been a problem for quite some time, and looks like being even less of a problem with KSP 2's even better physics.

I am hoping that KSP 2 will have plenty of engines which have variants for ground level and vacuum, with realistic changes in expansion nozzle size, along the lines of SpaceX's Merlin engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be procedural solar panels,w or at least more options, I find it very lacking there isn't a rotating solar panel fitting for small probes, for instance, the 1x6 could have 1x1, 1x2,1x3, 1x4 and 1x5 variants

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what is procedural and what is not should be guided by both real-life and in-game engineering considerations. Definitely fully procedural wings, control surfaces,  fairings, struts, and ducts. Tanks, inter-stage adapters, and girders should also be broadly adjustable in terms of both their length and the proportion of LF/Ox they can hold, but should only come in a limited number of standard diameters.  These are all things that are easy to do from an engineering standpoint IRL and won't make designing spacecraft excessively difficult. Batteries, solar panels, and reaction wheels I'm on the fence about, but I wouldn't mind if you could adjust them to some extent.  Freely adjusting tank diameters is out I think, because then you'd also have to be able scale every other part that has to interface with them. Engines in particular I don't think should be procedural at all beyond the tweakable mounting plates we already have, because IRL designing a new rocket engine is a big deal that is not readily amenable to rescaling. That's why we're still using the RS-25 on the SLS! One exception might be the ability to change the number of segments on a SRB. Pretty much everything else I think wouldn't even particularly benefit from scalability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Parts should be procedural in some cases;

as far as fuel tanks themselves are concerned I think that there should be different fuel tanks but with different "sweet spots" for internal-volume/mass/structural strength/etc. ratios, and some simply shouldn't be compatible with either certain flight regimes/environments or certain fuel configurations.

 

More importantly:

-Landing Gear/Wheels

-Wings/Control surfaces

-Ladders

these things do really need to be procedural as they play far more significance in the design of various vehicles.

Edited by betaking
fixing a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2021 at 9:10 PM, betaking said:

More importantly:

-Landing Gear/Wheels

-Wings/Control surfaces

-Ladders

these things do really need to be procedural as they play far more significance in the design of various vehicles.

Completely agree with you. Ladders should be procedural because they almost always clip into the ground, or are way above it when I deploy them. Wings should be procedural, but there should still be fixed size wing parts for those who want to customize their crafts a bit more (like those that we have in original KSP). Landing gear too. I don't wanna clip my aircraft wheels so they are on the same height as the ones in the back. It would be nice if those things became procedural (or toggleable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have something very important to suggest:Procedural structural parts. Why? Because making rovers specifically is a pain. Yeah, we have the nice rovemat thing, but that only works for smaller rovers. You'll need to somehow cobble a rover together if you want a bigger one, and that can be obscenely difficult. Having procedural structural parts would make such a task far easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 2:58 AM, eekee said:

I grew up with LEGO. I absolutely think KSP should have procedural wings, fuel tanks and cargo bays.

i feel the same. when im building a vtol bomber or something, i sometimes have to clip fuel tanks together to get it to look right.  then i have that weird problem where stuff shares pixels, and its disgusting. nd why not add a mk2 and mk3 fairing in the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Procedural wings I can live with- they’re probably better than awkwardly stapling a bunch of individual wing parts together into something resembling the shape you want- but the UI will be key: I don’t like the procedural wings mod because the UI is far too fiddly and also far too small to see what I’m doing most of the time. Having fuel tanks with fixed diameters but different lengths a la MH structural tubes and engine plates would also be a good compromise, making it easier to adjust your designs without having to pull all the side boosters etc. off and replace the tanks by hand, but that’s about as far as I’d be prepared to go on the procedural front.

I prefer the stock fairings to the mod procedural fairings- that auto-snap to fit the payload has cost me a few solar panels when it made the fairing too small, or in some cases odd part shapes have made the fairing too big, and adjusting them is a faff compared to just clicking a few times to shape the fairing yourself- plus procedural fairings don’t close on to other parts in the same way stock fairings do, or have the ability to stack several things on multiple nodes like stock fairings can.

Some of my anti-procedural attitude is probably because the procedural stuff I’ve used is just too fiddly- endless adjustments using sliders that don’t allow you to type the numbers in like in the stock UI system, tweaking so many different parameters that are in some cases pretty opaque as to their purpose and often using UI elements that don’t rescale with the stock UI scale making them really hard to see. A better, more user friendly implementation might help with that, but I doubt I’ll ever prefer procedural over the original Lego-esque concept, sticking parts of fixed dimensions together to make wildly diverse contraptions; fixed parts also makes direct comparisons easier and no doubt helps with game balance too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...