Very easy to implement features and parts that would add a lot to the game

[g00bd0g]

Here are some features and parts that would be trivial to add and would add a lot of functionality and playability to the game. Yes I know I can make/mod my own parts, or install other mods, but I like playing "stock" and these should be stock.

2.5m Liquid fuel tanks - Literally a 5 minute job, more if you want to re-skin/re-model these tanks.

Rover command capsules and chassis parts - Especially with the new wheel physics OTW, it would be awesome to have some dedicated manned rover capsules and chassis parts.

Habitat Modules - Perhaps a bit more involved for design, but no new mechanics to figure out. We are really missing parts to make cool looking "bases" and "colonies" on other bodies.

Indicated Airspeed Instrument - Literally the most important instrument in an aircraft, should be very easy to implement, makes flying on Duna/Jool/Laythe just as easy as on Kerbin (at least knowing correct airspeeds). Also provides a consistent reference for safe deployment of chutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator

 

[drtricky]

What about procedurally sized and shaped parts? Would remove the headache of having to create a new part for everything that is a different size or shape. 

[Commander Zoom]

The existence of these parts in mods should not be taken as evidence that they would be "very easy" or quick to add to stock, unless you assume that:

* Those mods, which you can now download in finished form, took little time or effort to make and reach their current state of development;

* Putting them into the stock distribution is merely a matter of copying the existing mod as-is, perhaps filing the numbers off or changing some textures.

 

"Literally a 5 minute job" - every non-programmer, artist, etc etc ever.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Commander Zoom

[einzelgaenger]

17 minutes ago, Commander Zoom said:

"Literally a 5 minute job" - every non-programmer, artist, etc etc ever.

This, a million times. Funny how people who don't do software development think it must be a trivial job to design and make something in code.

[Superfluous J]

I'm with drtricky on procedural parts. I think there should be a grand total of about 5 inline tanks, one for each size. You can drag them up and down (limited by tech level maybe) and select if they hold LF, O, LFO, Monoprop, or Xenon. Selecting the fuel type, radius, and vertical size should automatically skin the tanks in a way such that they are instantly recognizable as to what they hold, be as varied and interesting as they are now (or more), and fit together aesthetically as well as they do now (or better). This is a much taller order than "easy to implement features" but hey. I don't want any more tanks. We've got tanks coming out our ears.

I like the rover command chassis idea, and the ground base idea. Hitchhikers make poor ground habitats.

We have an airspeed indicator. It's the "Surface" reading on the navball. Air does not move in the game.

[g00bd0g]

2 hours ago, einzelgaenger said:

This, a million times. Funny how people who don't do software development think it must be a trivial job to design and make something in code.

Um, except I actually can make a liquid fuel only tank from an existing LFO tank in less than 5 minutes. As is said "more if you want to re-skin/re-model these tanks". And even this modeling/skinning is about the easiest of any part in the game. No funky geometry, no animations, etc... I could make a re-skinned LF tank in a few hours, tops. It is actually "trivial".

The other items are definitely harder, but are not introducing any new mechanics or gameplay, so no harder to make than any other existing part.

3 hours ago, drtricky said:

What about procedurally sized and shaped parts? Would remove the headache of having to create a new part for everything that is a different size or shape. 

Procedural stuff is cool, just not in the current "theme" of the stock parts, and I have no idea how hard it is to code and implement.

Edited December 23, 2015 by g00bd0g

[g00bd0g]

2 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

We have an airspeed indicator. It's the "Surface" reading on the navball. Air does not move in the game.

Negative, this is Ground Speed, not Indicated Air Speed   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator

When you understand what IAS actually is you will realise why it is the most important instrument in aviation and why it should be added.

For example, an airplane will stall at the same IAS on kerbal, duna, jool, or laythe. Parts will suffer structural failures, parachutes will rip off, etc... all at the same IAS regardless of the body, ground speed or air density. This is why it's so useful.

Edited December 23, 2015 by g00bd0g

[Superfluous J]

10 minutes ago, g00bd0g said:

Negative, this is Ground Speed, not Indicated Air Speed   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator

When you understand what IAS actually is you will realise why it is the most important instrument in aviation and why it should be added.

For example, an airplane will stall at the same IAS on kerbal, duna, jool, or laythe. Parts will suffer structural failures, parachutes will rip off, etc... all at the same IAS regardless of the body, ground speed or air density. This is why it's so useful.

Oh my bad. I thought airspeed was speed through the air. I see now like so many things with simple names, it's not.

[einzelgaenger]

30 minutes ago, g00bd0g said:

Um, except I actually can make a liquid fuel only tank from an existing LFO tank in less than 5 minutes. As is said "more if you want to re-skin/re-model these tanks". And even this modeling/skinning is about the easiest of any part in the game. No funky geometry, no animations, etc... I could make a re-skinned LF tank in a few hours, tops. It is actually "trivial".

The other items are definitely harder, but are not introducing any new mechanics or gameplay, so no harder to make than any other existing part.

Well, if you think it's trivial, nothing's stopping you from creating a mod with the parts you suggest as a proof-of-concept to show off to the Squad folks. Easy, right?

[r4pt0r]

5 hours ago, einzelgaenger said:

Well, if you think it's trivial, nothing's stopping you from creating a mod with the parts you suggest as a proof-of-concept to show off to the Squad folks. Easy, right?

Pretty sure it's just  copy-pasting and renaming the part in the ksp file folder, then editing a section of that parts text file from "liquid fuel: 180, oxidizer: 180" to "liquid fuel: 360" for example.

 

I may have the details off, but that is literally it. He did stipulate that a new texture would be more time.

[g00bd0g]

28 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:

Pretty sure it's just  copy-pasting and renaming the part in the ksp file folder, then editing a section of that parts text file from "liquid fuel: 180, oxidizer: 180" to "liquid fuel: 360" for example.

 

I may have the details off, but that is literally it. He did stipulate that a new texture would be more time.

I'm glad someone get's it, I really didn't want this thread to get dragged any further into the weeds...

[Sirad]

12 hours ago, g00bd0g said:

2.5m Liquid fuel tanks - Literally a 5 minute job, more if you want to re-skin/re-model these tanks.

 

Making a copy of a given Tank, setting the RGB's of the Texture to another Position to let it look a different colour, setting the specs to LF only and implementing this will literally take 3-4 months (if you have a smart team of 5-7 people) and afterwards you need maybe 1-2 months for debugging and testing.

the truth is somewhere inbetween.

 

[KerikBalm]

Your understanding or airspeed was technically correct.

However, you are talking about True AirSpeed(TAS), vs Indicated AirSpeed (IAS)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed

 

Yea... I already suggested submarine parts: electric propulsion, and ballast tanks. I didn't even give the electric propulsion a built in intake (instead used a set of seperate intake parts).

All I did was copy and paste and text edit:

A re-skin would be nice, but adding the actual parts... super easy. Adding a 2.5m LF tank? super easy. Copy the 1.25m LFpart, set rescale factor to 2x, adjust the mass, cost, and LF amount (maybe tech node if you want)... done!

Note in the above mod, I sort of avoid the re-skin issue by using old part models and textures. The electric fans use the old basic jet model (in that screen shot its the 0.18 model, but I changed it to the pre-1.05 model shortly after 1.05 came out, but after I made that initial mod). The ducted fan nacelles use the old engine nacelle model (its only slightly different, it still has the little pylon like the goliath has), additionally I use the old radial and circular intake texture/models as other intake options.

The ballast tanks are what really need the re-texture... so they don't look like ore tanks. In my little mod, they can jettison contents like an ore tank, but you can also turn on a ballast generator, and thus control the buoyancy of the craft. Ideally the ballast generator would only work when in water/liquid... but I don't know how to do that, and its not like increasing mass in space is desireable... I see very limited potential for abuse.

More electric propulsion shots... adding parts when you don't need to make the model or texture really is quite easy... especially if you also don't need to do any part balancing (like all 2.5m tanks, give it a 9:1 mass ratio and be done)... for my electric fans, I have done quite a bit trying to balance them... both so that they provide usable sub thrust, and remain usable on duna... duna's atmosphere changed in 1.05 and I changed them too... I think they are a bit OP now... I cruise around at 200 m/s, when previously I was only reaching 80-100... and it can just barely clear fly above duna's highlands, while it couldn't before.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2015 by KerikBalm
derped on your/you're

[Francois424]

Beside the obvious parts you guys requested, and excluding any mods that do any suggested parts :

 - 2,5m Nerva (Same ISP, 250 thrust)... Why? It replaces 4 regular Nervas.

 - 1,25m Ion Engine (25 thrust), 2,5m Ion Engine (100 thrust), both with their usual 4200 ISP. (Replaces spamming ion engines)

 - 1,25m RTG (Replaces 4-8 small RTG's ?)

 - 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 "stick it on" Solar Panels.  Only look to KerikBalm's plane to realize how much parts count he'd save... I think that thing has 78 small solar panels.  With 4 4x4 solar panels, he'd save 60 parts count (nice plane btw).  Not to mention the performance improvement he'd gain from reducing that part's count.

 - Electrical Propeller (At the very least a 1,25m one) them reaching 100-125m/s when not pulling/pushing an overloaded craft is PERFECT !

 - Nuclear Generator working on "Kerbanium" to generate electricity for a very long time... Think 10 Kerban years running continuously at 100%.  "Kerbanium" should only be able to obtained from designing ships in the VAB (so resupply missions should be required to far outposts and motherships).  To prevent abuse of "free energy" the generator should be Extremely expensive and somewhat heavy.  Think about a mission to Eeloo, Tekto or Urlum ?  Perfect !

 - A 1,25m (maybe a 2,5m 4-man equivalent as well), 2-man cockpit like this would be super nice too : 

 

- Having that Pump mod 5th Horseman has been using for the last year would help tremendously with managing ships and docking with refuelers.  For those that have no idea what I am talking about, imagine you could set a number to your fuel tanks from 0 thru 9. By defalt they are all at 0.  But if you set another craft's fuel tanks to 1  then when you dock the fuel transfer starts immediately between your refueler and you ship.  No need to select different tanks, find the ones you clipped inside your ships to make beautiful and all of that.  BOOM done. It works for anything like Xenon, Ore, LFO... Amazing little mod I will install in KSP1.1.   It needs to be stock IMHO.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2015 by Francois424
Formating, and more ideas

[NathanKell]

Pretty sure you want EAS not IAS. IAS is very funky in compressible flow.

[g00bd0g]

Excellent parts suggestions folks, I hope Squad will look at this.

Regarding TAS and EAS, most subsonic aircraft use an IAS because it provides the most consistent reference for aircraft performance speeds. (i.e v-speeds). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds

IAS will always provide accurate speeds for stall, best climb, vmax, etc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator

TAS is used for navigation, and was mainly used before GPS, because with TAS and good wind speed measurements you could navigate very accurately. TAS is the real speed through the airmass, but it is worse for performance estimation because the v-speeds will vary based on temp and baro pressure, which determine altitude density. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed

EAS is better for supersonic compressed flow conditions, and does factor in air density, so I agree EAS is actually probably better in many/most KSP situations. However, I'm not sure it would really matter because I don't think KSP models compressibility and shock effects, so I'm not sure the additional/more accurate data really does anything for us anyways. But I can see no downside to using EAS over IAS so why not  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed

I do find this conversation fascinating, and implementing some or all of these instruments would provide lots of new information and EDUCATION, which is what I love about KSP

Edited December 24, 2015 by g00bd0g

[KerikBalm]

5 hours ago, Francois424 said:

Beside the obvious parts you guys requested, and excluding any mods that do any suggested parts :

 - 2,5m Nerva (Same ISP, 250 thrust)... Why? It replaces 4 regular Nervas.

 - 1,25m Ion Engine (25 thrust), 2,5m Ion Engine (100 thrust), both with their usual 4200 ISP. (Replaces spamming ion engines)

 - 1,25m RTG (Replaces 4-8 small RTG's ?)

 - 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 "stick it on" Solar Panels.  Only look to KerikBalm's plane to realize how much parts count he'd save... I think that thing has 78 small solar panels.  With 4 4x4 solar panels, he'd save 60 parts count (nice plane btw).  Not to mention the performance improvement he'd gain from reducing that part's count.

 - Electrical Propeller (At the very least a 1,25m one) them reaching 100-125m/s when not pulling/pushing an overloaded craft is PERFECT !

I think a bigger nerva would be nice... bu 4x nervas wouldd be 240 thrust, not 250... not a big deal. I'd like to see the bigger version get gimbal...

I'd also love to see a LANTR version (like porkjet's version, but a bit more powerful in both modes)

4x 1.25m ion engines would be 8 thrust, not 25, and thus I think the 1.25m should have 8 thrust, and the 2,5m version should have 32 kN thrust. I would also like to see a VASIMR style Isp /thrust switching capability. 8 thrust at 4,200 Isp, or 16 thrust at 2,100 Isp for example (this also is a very simple change to make, doable through text editing alone. The larger size ions can easily be done via rescaling the ion engine - text editing only (but thats not really the game style... the KR-2L, skipper, lvt-45, spark, etc aren't just the same models rescaled over and over).

I don't want a bigger RTG, i want a nuclear reactor if we make something bigger. -That sub I posted pictures of above had RTGs spammed inside the 2.5m service bay, and they didn't produce nearly enough power to cruise around at a decent speed. Meanwhile, with only half the wing covered on the duna plane, once it got up to speed(and thrust and thus energy consumption dropped off), at noon, on duna, near the equator, the net energy drain became quite low, and it had great range. The sub which cares little about mass could do with a heavy but powerful energy source. It would also be good for ion powered craft in the outer solar system.

As to the bigger solar panels, I have since then downloaded the asteroid day mod, which has a fixed 2x8 solar panel (1 of those =16 of the old ox-stats), and I've made a second plane using those. I'm thinking of replacing my duna plane with the new fewer part plane through methods some would consider "cheating" (hyperedit my old plane back ot runway and recover, launch the new one and hyper edit to where the old one was on duna... only problem is the bonus for recoverin a vessel from the surface of duna, which I haven't done yet[orbital rendevous in duna and kerbin orbit with re-usable crew transfer/lander/transfer stages, means that what I recover on kerbin with the crew and science never went beyond LKO), but is in progress...

As for the electric propellor... that's basically what I made in those screenshots, although its a little too powerful now - it was a little underpowered when duna's atmospheric pressure was 20% of kerbins, and my tweaks after they made it ~6.7% made it a bit too powerful. I don't want a seperate sub part, so I'll need to play with the thrust curves (and add an Isp curve too perhaps?) a bit more

Edited December 24, 2015 by KerikBalm

[Francois424]

@KerikBalm As long as the designer provide the parts, both you and I can adjust their settings to our liking. 

But it would help make the game a better place.

[A35K]

3 hours ago, g00bd0g said:

Excellent parts suggestions folks, I hope Squad will look at this.

Regarding TAS and EAS, most subsonic aircraft use an IAS because it provides the most consistent reference for aircraft performance speeds. (i.e v-speeds). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds

IAS will always provide accurate speeds for stall, best climb, vmax, etc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_indicator

TAS is used for navigation, and was mainly used before GPS, because with TAS and good wind speed measurements you could navigate very accurately. TAS is the real speed through the airmass, but it is worse for performance estimation because the v-speeds will vary based on temp and baro pressure, which determine altitude density. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed

EAS is better for supersonic compressed flow conditions, and does factor in air density, so I agree EAS is actually probably better in many/most KSP situations. However, I'm not sure it would really matter because I don't think KSP models compressibility and shock effects, so I'm not sure the additional/more accurate data really does anything for us anyways. But I can see no downside to using EAS over IAS so why not  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_airspeed

I do find this conversation fascinating, and implementing some or all of these instruments would provide lots of new information and EDUCATION, which is what I love about KSP

Yes, IAS is the one that the airspeed indicators on almost all modern aircraft show, precisely because it is so important. Trust me, I play Flight Sim X. Another cool thing would be to add a 'knot' option to this airspeed indicator, since it is the unit used in real aviation. However it should be toggle-able, since it might confuse some as everything else is in m/s. Maybe the altimeter on aircraft should be toggle-able to feet as well, since that is what is used in real navigation... but that is probably unnecessary (and I'm no fan of the Imperial system anyway)!

Edited December 24, 2015 by A35K

[322997am]

On December 22, 2015 at 5:57 PM, einzelgaenger said:

This, a million times. Funny how people who don't do software development think it must be a trivial job to design and make something in code.

I will say that that might be a valid comment. But taking the file of one fuel tank and CLICKING CONTROL+C CONTROL+V and renaming it and changing 3 lines is a five minute job.

Btw it took me 7 minutes on a laggy pc to do this I just tested it

Edited December 24, 2015 by 322997am
Changed pic to pc.

[Pthigrivi]

Man I'm a lot more patient than most here. I'd much rather they take the time to do something right than to rush model anything. For tanks I'd rather see a series of low weight, relatively fragile spherical tanks for long range vacuum travel, and then make fuel tweakable for all tanks. It not only could you consolidate a bunch of plane tanks but you'd open up a lot of design flexibility. 

I also hear people asking all the time for "base parts", by which I assume they mean habitation modules. Not only is that a lot of modeling, but habitation really needs a game mechanic attached to it so they actually have a function and aren't just scenery. If they aren't integrated into the game and they don't carry any advantage they aren't really worth much. 

I do like that cockpit though, Francois. 

 

Edited December 25, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Francois424]

 

@Pthigrivi Thanks, I found it looking for KSP related stuff...

Someone was asking for something like this on Reddit and I would love it too.  
There is one that 'kinda' looks like it in FireSpitter mod, but it's not as clean/beautiful. 
It would also bring a stock 2-man 1,25 pod, which is missing at the moment.

If any modder reading this thread and want to do it in the meantime, be my guess.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Quote

It would also bring a stock 2-man 1,25 pod, which is missing at the moment.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/94581-104-k2-command-pod-two-kerbal-stock-alike-pod-v133/&page=1

works (mostly) in 1.05- it sinks like a rock in the new water. Other than that, a definite must-have (if you want just the pod only)

Edited December 25, 2015 by Waxing_Kibbous

[The Optimist]

On December 24, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Francois424 said:

Beside the obvious parts you guys requested, and excluding any mods that do any suggested parts :

 - 2,5m Nerva (Same ISP, 250 thrust)... Why? It replaces 4 regular Nervas.

 - 1,25m Ion Engine (25 thrust), 2,5m Ion Engine (100 thrust), both with their usual 4200 ISP. (Replaces spamming ion engines)

 - 1,25m RTG (Replaces 4-8 small RTG's ?)

 - 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 "stick it on" Solar Panels.  Only look to KerikBalm's plane to realize how much parts count he'd save... I think that thing has 78 small solar panels.  With 4 4x4 solar panels, he'd save 60 parts count (nice plane btw).  Not to mention the performance improvement he'd gain from reducing that part's count.

 - Electrical Propeller (At the very least a 1,25m one) them reaching 100-125m/s when not pulling/pushing an overloaded craft is PERFECT !

 - Nuclear Generator working on "Kerbanium" to generate electricity for a very long time... Think 10 Kerban years running continuously at 100%.  "Kerbanium" should only be able to obtained from designing ships in the VAB (so resupply missions should be required to far outposts and motherships).  To prevent abuse of "free energy" the generator should be Extremely expensive and somewhat heavy.  Think about a mission to Eeloo, Tekto or Urlum ?  Perfect !

 - A 1,25m (maybe a 2,5m 4-man equivalent as well), 2-man cockpit like this would be super nice too : 

 

- Having that Pump mod 5th Horseman has been using for the last year would help tremendously with managing ships and docking with refuelers.  For those that have no idea what I am talking about, imagine you could set a number to your fuel tanks from 0 thru 9. By defalt they are all at 0.  But if you set another craft's fuel tanks to 1  then when you dock the fuel transfer starts immediately between your refueler and you ship.  No need to select different tanks, find the ones you clipped inside your ships to make beautiful and all of that.  BOOM done. It works for anything like Xenon, Ore, LFO... Amazing little mod I will install in KSP1.1.   It needs to be stock IMHO.

 

 

Do you actually think a 100 thrust ion engine is a good idea? Please say no, please say no...

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah you have to think about what these engines are for. A 2.5m Nerva would be best for moving asteroids and as a main engine for mothership transfer stages. I think I would tweak it to 250 thrust with 950 isp, but have it come in at 12.5t and 60,000f. With lower TWR you wouldn't want to land it anywhere larger than Vall, but if you're pushing something big it would be better than using more than 4 LV-Ns. 

A 1.25m ion could keep the same isp, but should have a thrust of 10. It could weigh 1.2t, cost 40,000f, and draw 38 e/s. At that it's really the solution if you're using more than 4 Dawns. 

For nuclear reactors you're really talking about powering bases and mining operations. I'd go whole-hog at 100 e/s and 4t with a form-factor similar to a 2.5m cargo bay. That's enough to run the big converter and 4 drills simultaneously. I guess you could also do an intermediate reactor for 40 e/s at 1.8t and 1.25m. Both should be crazy expensive (60,000f and 120,000f respectively even) and generate a huge amount of continuous heat. You should just really have to think about whether the extra mass and cost are worth it. 

Edited December 26, 2015 by Pthigrivi