Add Option for Skin to Structural Frame Parts

[Davidian1024]

The new structural frame parts are great.  But I often find myself wishing I had a way to wrap a skin around them without having to painstakingly coat them in panels, and then suffer the massive frame rate cost that results.

I think this could apply to everything in the hub, truss, truss adapter and truss resizer sections.

I think this could be presented to the player as a simple toggle switch.  Skin or no skin in the options of the part.

Bonus Idea: Fuel tanks as internal inventory sub options.  They could simply be empty shells, or they could contain any or all of the fuel tank types that are in the game.  The limit being based on the internal volume of the part, minus some amount of volume for internal structural support.

Bonus Bonus Idea: Other functional things as internal inventory sub options.  Crew cabins, command control stations, probe cores, cargo bays, batteries, generators.  Basically anything that doesn't need to be visually represented.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Davidian1024
terminology

[Bej Kerman]

Like an interstage fairing?

[Davidian1024]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Like an interstage fairing?

Similar in a sense, I guess.  But I think the core difference would be in having more control over the look and shape of the craft.  Inter stage fairings really wouldn't work for what I have in mind, but these structural frame parts would.

The main thing I want out of "fuselaged" structural frame parts would be the ability to create larger crafts of varying shapes.  Without them having the be just a bunch of wire frames.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Davidian1024
providing clarification

[Davidian1024]

Maybe fuselage is the wrong word.  Looking at aircraft terminology I'm starting to think skin is actually what I have in mind.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Davidian1024 said:

Similar in a sense, I guess.  But I think the core difference would be in having more control over the look and shape of the craft.  Inter stage fairings really wouldn't work for what I have in mind, but these structural frame parts would.

The main thing I want out of "fuselaged" structural frame parts would be the ability to create larger crafts of varying shapes.  Without them having the be just a bunch of wire frames.

I don't have a clue what you're on about. Maybe doodle something? Because I really have no idea how structural frames would give you any more control than fairings or tubes would - I just have trouble parsing specifically what "having more control over the look and shape of the craft" is supposed to mean. Are you just wanting fairings? Fairings give you control over their cross section in a way the frames don't.

[Davidian1024]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

I don't have a clue what you're on about. Maybe doodle something? Because I really have no idea how structural frames would give you any more control than fairings or tubes would - I just have trouble parsing specifically what "having more control over the look and shape of the craft" is supposed to mean. Are you just wanting fairings? Fairings give you control over their cross section in a way the frames don't.

I think fairing might also be a term that would be correct in terms of language.  But it already has a fairly specific meaning in KSP.  There are fairing parts.  And those are great, when I need them, but they're not what I'm after here.

I think the simplest example I can give is this.  Compare an XL methalox fuel tank (S4-51200) and an XL circular truss (CT-XL-4).  I basically want to be able to put a skin (or fairing?) on the truss so that it basically looks like the fuel tank.  And behaves aerodynamically like the fuel tank.

I want this for all of the structural frame type parts.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Davidian1024 said:

I think the simplest example I can give is this.  Compare an XL methalox fuel tank (S4-51200) and an XL circular truss (CT-XL-4).  I basically want to be able to put a skin (or fairing?) on the truss so that it basically looks like the fuel tank.  And behaves aerodynamically like the fuel tank.

Oh, now I get you.

Don't tubes and fairings do basically that?

[Davidian1024]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Oh, now I get you.

Don't tubes and fairings do basically that?

Yeah, they kinda do.  But what I really like about the frame parts is how they can be connected together.  And how things can be attached to them.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Davidian1024 said:

Yeah, they kinda do.  But what I really like about the frame parts is how they can be connected together.  And how things can be attached to them.

Tubes and fairings can be linked, no? You can't attach stuff to fairings, but you can attach stuff to fairing roots then offset them onto the fairing itself.

[Davidian1024]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Tubes and fairings can be linked, no? You can't attach stuff to fairings, but you can attach stuff to fairing roots then offset them onto the fairing itself.

Yeah, they can.  But the bit about not being able to attach stuff to the sides has always left me wanting.  And attaching parts to the root and then offsetting them to where you want them to be visually has some pretty serious limitations.

You can do basically everything I want with the various frame parts.  And in ways that allow you to make some really structurally strong crafts.

If they only had an outer skin to make them look like the body of a ship.  I really think some great possibilities could be more easily realized with them.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Davidian1024 said:

Yeah, they can.  But the bit about not being able to attach stuff to the sides has always left me wanting.  And attaching parts to the root and then offsetting them to where you want them to be visually has some pretty serious limitations.

You can do basically everything I want with the various frame parts.  And in ways that allow you to make some really structurally strong crafts.

If they only had an outer skin to make them look like the body of a ship.  I really think some great possibilities could be more easily realized with them.

Would "ability to attach objects to fairings and tubes" be better?

[Davidian1024]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Would "ability to attach objects to fairings and tubes" be better?

In general no, I really don't think so.  Definitely not with the fairings.  I think that gets at the specific meaning of what the term fairing has in KSP.  Basically because the fairing part of them is meant to be detached.

Now, having the ability to attach objects to the sides of the toobs would probably overlap somewhat with what I have in mind for the circular trusses.  But as I sit here and play with the two, I can see how the toobs aren't able to be attached to other parts with the same level of flexibility.  So it's more than just not being able to attach to their sides.

Then there's all the square frame parts.  Sometimes I want a squarish look.

[Bej Kerman]

7 minutes ago, Davidian1024 said:

Then there's all the square frame parts.  Sometimes I want a squarish look.

Then maybe we could have square tubes - even better, a proper advanced editor for fairings so we can customise the cross section and make advanced shapes.

Other than that, I'm not seeing much reason to add a fuselage tweakable to all those structural parts instead of just a few tubes and fairings - I think it'd be more benefit to just do that and let you stick parts on procedural bits, like you can already do that with wings.

[GalileOh-No]

I'm only trying to clarify what I think Davidian is proposing: an option to toggle a skin on/off each side of the cube's faces. Basically putting a panel over whatever sides you want while leaving the others as wireframe to fit design needs.

[Davidian1024]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then maybe we could have square tubes - even better, a proper advanced editor for fairings so we can customise the cross section and make advanced shapes.

Other than that, I'm not seeing much reason to add a fuselage tweakable to all those structural parts instead of just a few tubes and fairings - I think it'd be more benefit to just do that and let you stick parts on procedural bits, like you can already do that with wings.

I get the impression you want procedural editions of these same things I'm asking for.  That sounds very tantalizing to me.  I was actually considering asking for something along those lines initially, but then I backed off from that.  Mainly because I get the impression that procedural is hard.

The procedural wings and toobs are both bugged.  Especially the toobs.

2 minutes ago, GalileOh-No said:

I'm only trying to clarify what I think Davidian is proposing: an option to toggle a skin on/off each side of the cube's faces. Basically putting a panel over whatever sides you want while leaving the others as wireframe to fit design needs.

Yeah, that's basically it.  I mean, I was really only asking to be able to toggle a skin on/off for all the outer sides all together.  But if it wouldn't be to difficult, the individual sides would be even nicer.

That's something I decided to hold off on because I think just being able to skin the whole part would be good enough most of the time.

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Davidian1024 said:

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then maybe we could have square tubes - even better, a proper advanced editor for fairings so we can customise the cross section and make advanced shapes.

Other than that, I'm not seeing much reason to add a fuselage tweakable to all those structural parts instead of just a few tubes and fairings - I think it'd be more benefit to just do that and let you stick parts on procedural bits, like you can already do that with wings.

I get the impression you want procedural editions of these same things I'm asking for.  That sounds very tantalizing to me.  I was actually considering asking for something along those lines initially, but then I backed off from that.  Mainly because I get the impression that procedural is hard.

The procedural wings and toobs are both bugged.  Especially the toobs.

8 minutes ago, GalileOh-No said:

I'm only trying to clarify what I think Davidian is proposing: an option to toggle a skin on/off each side of the cube's faces. Basically putting a panel over whatever sides you want while leaving the others as wireframe to fit design needs.

Yeah, that's basically it.  I mean, I was really only asking to be able to toggle a skin on/off for all the outer sides all together.  But if it wouldn't be to difficult, the individual sides would be even nicer.

That's something I decided to hold off on because I think just being able to skin the whole part would be good enough most of the time.

I just figured applying these ideas to tubes and fairings would be better because instead of applying a quick and cheap solution to what I'd guess is at least 100 parts just to achieve one goal, tubes and fairings would become much more powerful tools which can achieve the same thing and more. It'd be a challenge but a worthwhile one if done right. I just don't believe in temporary solutions

[GalileOh-No]

Yeah, I wouldn't consider that an urgent issue and maybe better suited to a mod if we're being realistic but I'd definitely use the structural stuff more if it didn't look so... I don't know what I want to say.  A while back I made a vertical launchpad for a Laythe mission. I thought it all looked pretty cool, except for the structural stuff. Granted, I didn't try very hard to hide it either but like, I want to use the structural parts for structural stuff. And I want it to look cool.

Edited May 1, 2023 by GalileOh-No
Updated picture

[Davidian1024]

Just now, GalileOh-No said:

Yeah, I wouldn't consider that an urgent issue and maybe better suited to a mod if we're being realistic but I'd definitely use the structural stuff more if it didn't look so... I don't know what I want to say.  A while back I made a vertical launchpad for a Laythe mission. I thought it all looked pretty cool, except for the structural stuff. Granted, I didn't try very hard to hide it either but like, I want to use the structural parts for structural stuff. And I want it to look cool.

That's more or less exactly what I'm getting at.  I find it really easy to get things how I want both structurally and visually with the wireframe parts.  But then it ends up looking... hollow?  just plain ugly?

[GalileOh-No]

Just now, Davidian1024 said:

But then it ends up looking... hollow?  just plain ugly?

[Bej Kerman]

11 hours ago, GalileOh-No said:

Yeah, I wouldn't consider that an urgent issue and maybe better suited to a mod if we're being realistic but I'd definitely use the structural stuff more if it didn't look so... I don't know what I want to say.  A while back I made a vertical launchpad for a Laythe mission. I thought it all looked pretty cool, except for the structural stuff. Granted, I didn't try very hard to hide it either but like, I want to use the structural parts for structural stuff. And I want it to look cool.

Tip for future shots, you copied the URL of the thumbnail, not the actual screenshot

12 hours ago, Davidian1024 said:

That's more or less exactly what I'm getting at.  I find it really easy to get things how I want both structurally and visually with the wireframe parts.  But then it ends up looking... hollow?  just plain ugly?

I'd say these parts do a fine job of what they were made to do!

Here I used a Truss (pretty much the same thing) to make an XL encasing for an RTG so the cross section remains XL through the drive section. I'd wager these parts weren't really meant for when you need solid metal bits in your builds.

[GalileOh-No]

Very clean look, @Bej Kerman@ I may have to "take inspiration"

[Davidian1024]

6 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'd say these parts do a fine job of what they were made to do!

Here I used a Truss (pretty much the same thing) to make an XL encasing for an RTG so the cross section remains XL through the drive section. I'd wager these parts weren't really meant for when you need solid metal bits in your builds.

First, I want to say.  I really didn't intend to get into an argument here.  I hope I haven't come off as abrasive or negative or anything.

So yeah, I agree these parts are already pretty great.

It's just that they seem really close to being able to be so much more.  I'd just like to be able to wrap a skin around them in a simple straightforward way.  And not have to suffer a major performance penalty.

Beyond that, I feel like what I'm suggesting would be relatively simple to implement, and maintain.  I see what you're saying about this amounting to alot of work modelling all the individual parts.  But I gotta think they could automate most of that.  Things would be procedural on the devs end.  They'd have a few template models, and all the individual parts could be generated from those.  We'd get a limited collection of static models.

I also really don't see this as the quick and cheap solution.  I think it's more realistic.

I would love to have procedural everything.  But I can't help but notice that the procedural parts are all the buggiest parts.  I seem to remember Nate Simpson talking about how much iteration they had to do to get the procedural wing parts to the point they're at now.  And they're still buggy.  And I see people asking for even more procedural-ness.  Multiple ailerons/elevons etc.  There's no end to what can be imagined with procedural parts.

Now, all that said, I'm totally open to different ideas.

[cocoscacao]

37 minutes ago, Davidian1024 said:

I would love to have procedural everything

Not necessarily procedural, but at least... somewhat procedural? I don't see a reason to have same fuel tank with 3 different lengths, when I can have one fuel tank and a slider from 1 to 3 (or whatever). It would do great for reducing part count, and better consistency among parts. Check hydrogen tanks for example. SM size has only one very long variant. Why? 

[Davidian1024]

52 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

...better consistency among parts...

Yeah... this point definitely resonates with me.  There are alot of "missing" parts across the parts bin.

I do have to say, I'm a bit worried that we need to calibrate our expectations when it comes to the procedural stuff.  There's a part of me that wonders if they had never attempted to implement anything in procedural form, then things would be further along and less buggy.

And what you're saying here about tanks gets at part of where my thinking was with this.  If they were to commit to the task of procedural fuel tanks, a huge swath of the parts bin becomes obsoletes before the game even gets to version 1.0.

This is actually a major part of what led me to request what I requested.  I was trying to build upon what they've already provided.  Trying to avoid making a request that would undermine a large amount of work they've already put in.

I don't want to come across as the anti-procedural guy.  Trust me, I want them very badly.  But, I can't help but see what they've given us, and come to the conclusion that some decisions were made.  Quite awhile ago at this point.  I don't think it's likely that we'll see any procedural parts that would make existing part types obsolete.