What do you feel is missing from the STOCK game as far as parts goes ?

[adsii1970]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']OK now I'm confused. My whole position in this thread is that electric props are undesirable while fueled ones are more desirable. Designing for it and flying it are the problems. Is this a semantic thing?[/QUOTE]

In this context, the word [I][B]problem[/B][/I] is synonymous with [B][I]challenge[/I][/B]. The problem can be reduced to the simplest question,[I] how do we circumnavigate around Kerbin?[/I] Once we know the question, then we seek an answer, which is where the challenge, or problem, comes to play. From this point, there are an infinite - as much as the game will allow - number of solutions to the circumnavigation problem. Depending on the player and the level of creativity, there are a variety of solutions to the challenge, especially if we restrict it to certain parameters, such as no flight above 30k, no rockets, etc...

Right now, as I wait for 1.1 to come out, I have a self-imposed problem, circumnavigating Kerbin in an amphibious vehicle. It cannot leave the ground or surface of the ocean, cannot submerge, and must be able to handle most terrains it comes across, with the exceptions of the impassible mountain peaks.

In the past, I have done an all-solar powered dirigible crossing, a reactor/electric powered plane crossing using the electric powered rotors, powered flight (rocket and jet engines). Again, it is about the challenge and hat-tip to Jules Vern's [I]Around the World in 80 Days[/I].

[quote name='Majorjim']Circumnavigating Kerbin is not a 'problem' it is an activity. [SIZE=1][COLOR="#A9A9A9"]--edited for relevant content--[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Once the craft is designed and launched it is still a mission with a challenge, or in your words, an activity - within the parameters of the English language.

[Darnok]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Carrying any significant payload. Have a look at some of the real world electric prop-powered planes, especially the solar ones.[/QUOTE]

But in real life we don't have SSTO (because it is hard)? Yet in KSP SSTOs are very common, we could get electric engines (for low alts) and changed jets to balance things.

I would also like parts with some new game features:
- hinges
- balloons (should work under water :) )

(space station and planetary base parts)
- inflatable crew sections
- landing legs
- wind turbine
- larger radial batteries
- radiation shielding
- rover crew cabin, we have pretty new mk1 crew part, but no front section

(other)
- cargo/storage parts, current 2.5m cargo part needs larger version
- 0.625m and 2.5m SRBs,
- 2 and 4 crew capsule
- larger panels m-4x4, m-4x2 and larger beams
- caterpillar tracks
- water ski (not only for kerbals ;) )

[Majorjim!]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']If it works for a very small payload, it will also work for large payloads via spamming. Like the old overpowered 48-7S, it was a small, weak engine meant for probes, but you could just spam enough of them to make overpowered lifters. Balancing via part count is undesirable on its face, IMO.[/QUOTE]

There is no easy way around that. It is a sandbox game and if you want to do that you should be able to. If they are very underpowered it would provide a kind of 'reasonableness filter'. Yes you can just spam a ton of them but it looks like crap, and would be laggy.

Perhaps you could scale the power usage with the number of props used.

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Majorjim']There is no easy way around that. It is a sandbox game and if you want to do that you should be able to. If they are very underpowered it would provide a kind of 'reasonableness filter'. Yes you can just spam a ton of them but it looks like crap, and would be laggy.[/quote]
The easy way around it is not to include the part in the stock lineup. :P More seriously, balancing via part count is a bad idea because it doesn't affect everyone the same way. Some people have better computers than others, some people tolerate lag better than others, etc.

[quote]Perhaps you could scale the power usage with the number of props used.[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean worse than linear scaling, and yes that could work. It would be a new mechanic, though.

[Capt Snuggler]

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Rovers are balanced by low speed and terrain restrictions. If they were faster and one could safely set a course with them and crank up the timewarp they would be overpowered in gameplay terms, there would be little reason to fly anywhere once arriving on a planet's surface.[/QUOTE]
ok that's fair

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']We are to believe that the challenges for electric-powered flight are just as difficult for kerbals as they are for humans. :)[/QUOTE] but there are millions of electric drones flying around and also [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft"]full size electric aircraft[/URL] limited mainly by battery capacity. what you are suggesting with LF dependency is arbitrarily going beyond the difficulty we have IRL.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']That's an approach to balancing them that I haven't thought about, that might work.[/QUOTE] one of the most common failures on electric RC planes is cooked electronics from motors operating over speed and drawing too much. electric props in KSP could/should have the same limitation. this effect would be amplified in high temp environments like Eve or thin atmospheres like Duna.

the energy draw would also need to be sufficient that large cumbersome solar arrays would be needed to maintain charge.

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='Capt Snuggler']but there are millions of electric drones flying around and also [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft"]full size electric aircraft[/URL] limited mainly by battery capacity. what you are suggesting with LF dependency is arbitrarily going beyond the difficulty we have IRL.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law"]The square cube law[/URL]. A big factor IRL, barely relevant in KSP. You might also note that the larger pure electric planes have either very limited payload or very limited range (or both!). The more powerful ones are almost all fuel-cell powered, so they effectively run on LF+O.

[Dr. Acula]

At least one 2.5m LF Fueltank.

In my opinion, such a thing should be in game since they changed the LV-N to use liquid fuel only.

[Wjolcz]

[quote name='Dr. Acula']At least one 2.5m LF Fueltank.

In my opinion, such a thing should be in game since they changed the LV-N to use liquid fuel only.[/QUOTE]

Fuel tweakable to choose the type of fuel they carry would be better.

[Nothalogh]

[quote name='parameciumkid']- 2.5m Liquid Fuel tank(s)
- 2.5m LV-N (seems everyone wants this)
- 2.5m cockpit for those planes that use the 2.5m jet inline
- Giant landing gear to match the giant wheels
- Tiny winglets maybe
- Perhaps a propeller? For boats and aircraft, i.e. it only uses ElectricCharge but only works in atmospheres (regardless of oxygen) and perhaps has a speed limit

Oh, and also bigger wings for Mk3 planes. Perhaps simply make the Big-S spaceplane wing bigger so it fits proportionally on Space Shuttle replicas.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, currently Big-S are best fit on Mk2 fuselages, not Mk3, we need real Big-S, not medium S

[MartGonzo]

[quote name='Francois424']Not speaking of mods that adds stuff (such as KAS, life support, and so on) but rather without modifying the stock game, what parts you feel are missing ?
Try and keep the list short, I'm going to try and do the same thing.

Let's see :
- Bigger fixed solar panels (say 2x2 or 3x3... that would correctly attach on wings) and the huge ones from FutureSolar.
- Electric Propellers (I'd say 3 sizes: 0.625, 1.25 and 2.5 to fit existing fuel tanks)
- Bigger Nukes (at least a 250 Kn 2.5m)
- Bigger Ions (again, a 1.25/2.5m of maybe 25/100 Kn)
- Bigger RTG ( say an inline 1.25m RTG instead of 4-8+ RTGs on crafts or carrying fuel tank(s) + generator )
- a Nuclear Reactor. That works on Plutonium (only obtainable from KSC so at launch) with very long operating time on a full Plutonium load (Reactor holds maybe 4k PL units and could supply a lot of electricity for very long).
- A 2 man V-shaped 1.25m capsule.
- Maybe a big spherical tank for LF only (Something about 3.5m wide across both vertical/horizontal, with 6 attachment points (N-S-E-W-Up-Down)... More practical (space-wise) than stacking bricks of 10k LF from plane parts.
\--> Don't know how to do maths and calculate how much LF they would hold, but I would use them lots.

So 2+3+1+2+1+1+1+1 = 12 new parts.
Not bad and it kinda takes care of everything I am missing in stock game and constantly need to mod for when a new clean version comes up.

What are your essentials ?

[Edit]
On google I found a site that could calculate how many liters a 3.75m sphere could hold... It's 27'611. Considering the 3.75m cylindrical tank (10m height?) only holds 14'400 I feel this is too much for KSP.
Oh well.[/QUOTE]

or for those of us that are already hitting the memory limit, Tweakscale implementation
far more part diversity without having to make the game constantly crash from the memory limit.

[Myslius]

Hinges,
Vector SRBs,
Sheet of glass,
Procedular parts,
Elastic rope,
Boat engines,
Robotics parts,
Car-like pod and IVA,
Bigger RTGs (10x),
Bigger vernors (10x)
Fuel Switching for tanks between LFO and LF Edited November 22, 2015 by Myslius

[Spartwo]

Rotors

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Another SSTO engine, suitable for Mk3 fuselages.

[Frozen_Heart]

Rocket part overhaul
Space Station / Base parts (Porkjets mod)
5m parts (Saturn First / second stage)
more complete 3.75m lineup
VTOL jets + electric props and heli rotors
2.5m / 3.75m nukes (porkjet has a mod for some of this)
Reactors (roverdude has a good mod for this)
1.875m Linup (Soyuz / Shuttle SRB, Falcon 9)
Robot arm
Large lego style wings rather than the prefab ones we have atm
aerodynamic landing legs

[Sanic]

For now, I'll say Soyuz like parts.
And of course, a lot more SRBs. The SRBs we have are pitiful.

[tater]

It would require adding functionality and some gameplay design in addition to the parts, but the game really need cameras for spacecraft.

[Rithsom]

I would like winches or hoses that can be attached between two craft on EVA. It would give EVA Kerbals more of a purpose, and it would be an easier (though weaker) alternative to docking ports.

[RocketPilot573]

Hinges. Please.

[cantab]

On electric propeller balance, I just don't think it will be much of a problem.

On Kerbin and Laythe it's going to be weak and slow, meaning you'd usually prefer jets. The electric prop could however be suited to high-altitude flight - look at NASA's Helios - which would give it a niche. As for circumnavigations, well sure the electric prop makes it "easy", if you [I]want[/I] to fly for hours and hours.

On the other atmo bodies, sure, it's "unbalanced" compared to all the alternatives currently, but that's because the current options for flight without oxygen are [I]rubbish[/I]. If an LF+O prop was also added it's likely that would outperform the electric in all respects but range.

As far as electric propeller vs rover wheels goes, roving will be better for short journeys and accurate positioning. Indeed there are already the survey contracts that focus on that.

And at the end of the day, for all the fun planes and boats are, KSP is a space game. Who gives a monkeys if the electric prop lets you knock up a plane to go round Kerbin a dozen times, that still ain't helping you get to the Mun.

[CitizenAerospace]

- [B]Procedural Tanks[/B], with a full suite of textures. Doing this would quite literally remove the need for all the fuel tanks. This is undesirable to most people, so I suggest a counter; make [I]set procedurally generated tanks.[/I] As in, all the tanks we can currently choose from still exist, but are all just procedural tanks we pre-applied lengths and textures. You save memory and make everyone happy.
- [B]Fuel Switch[/B]. Then you can get rid of the RCS tanks and LF tanks. Keep the textures and incorporate it into the procedural tanks system (Perhaps make preset tanks for each fuel though?)

The above two would decrease memory footprint by a lot, I think. It would also allow for a large variety.

- [B]More In-Space Parts. [/B]We have lots of parts for building launches, and a few parts for in-space stuff, but not nearly enough. We need some proper habitation modules, larger NTR's, reactors, big solar panels, stuff like that. 8 more parts would cover that:
1. 0.625m NTR
2. 2.5m NTR
3. 50kW 2.5m reactor
4. 100kW 3.75m reactor
5. 1.25m Ion engine
6. Small Habitation Module
7. Large Habitation Module
8. Huge solar panels

- [B]More Planet Stuff.[/B] Ground modules, rover cabins, ground-purposed docking mechanics, Kerbin EVA activities. Probably 5 more parts would cover that:
1. 1.25m crew tube
2. 2.5m Inflatable Hab
3. 2.5m Activities Module (With multiple airlocks/ connectors)
4. 1.25m Rover Cabin
5. 2.5m Rover Cabin

- [B]Life Support Systems.[/B]A basic one though. I like the idea of two resources - Snacks and Electricity. You would only need 4 more parts to cover that, possibly more or less:
1. 1.25m Snacks Storage
2. 2.5m Snacks Storage
3. 3.75m Snacks Storage
4. 2.5m Snacks Maker (Maybe a 3.75m one two?)
[B]
And we need a 1.25m 2 Kerbal Pod and a 3.75m Kerbal Pod!!
[/B]In total, you add 19 more parts (the ARM patch added, IRC, 8 parts), but you would also be slashing the memory of several dozen parts (fuel tanks) out. If all these parts were in the game (Perhaps alongside a few smaller, nice-to-haves) I would see the game as complete part wise.


[I]What do you guys think about this? I would be interested to know. [/I]

[KerbMav]

- 1,25m pod and/or lander can for two kerbonauts (why is the 2-man can so big??)
- 3,75m cockpit for our exporation dreadnoughts
- rover cockpits (no more climbing on top of the rover as if it were a tank)
- electric atmospheric/underwater propulsion (propellors/rotors)

Not having read the whole thread:

[quote name='Majorjim'] Perhaps you could scale the power usage with the number of props used.[/QUOTE]

Just have the propellors/engines have enough drag/mass (whichever is more reasonable) that spamming them would asymptotically diminish the net gain of doing so - like the nukes for example.

In regards to tweaking existing parts:

- flexible fuel tanks (LF/OX for rockets, LF only for planes/NUKEs - maybe even seperate plane fuel?)
- adding a switch in the editor to make engine fairings depend on a. engine size, b. size of next part under the engine

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='KerbMav']Just have the propellors/engines have enough drag/mass (whichever is more reasonable) that spamming them would asymptotically diminish the net gain of doing so - like the nukes for example.[/QUOTE]
Not possible, unless you somehow have propellers after the first one have more mass or more drag than the first. Craft scale linearly in KSP, if you build one with double the number of the same components it has the same capabilities with twice the payload.

[KerbMav]

Then why do we have regular discussions about the maximum reasonable number of nuke engines?

[Red Iron Crown]

[quote name='KerbMav']Then why do we have regular discussions about the maximum reasonable number of nuke engines?[/QUOTE]
I am unaware of such discussions. I've personally made craft with >20 LV-Ns, and I know others have gone even higher.

[More Boosters]

After the Vector I kinda want to see a standalone radially attached KR-1 Engine.