1.875m parts

[John FX]

22 minutes ago, John JACK said:

TweakScale may be okay as a mod, to allow people do whatever they want for their own goals and funs. But that mechanic is totally unsuitable to stock game due to being at same time unrealistic, unKerbal and unbalanced.

Then just have 1.875m parts in a mod, myself I would call them cheating and against the lego style of the game if the lego style is your aim, you should use the lego parts you are given instead of trying to think of a part and cheat it into existence by writing the code or getting others to

There is no logical difference between wanting size 1½ and using tweakscale. They are both a way to satisfy your desire for a finer grading of parts between the largest and the smallest.

If you are having size 1.5, why not 0.75 and if those then why not 2.25 and 3.125 and so on and so on. There is not a point where anyone can rationalise adding the previous parts but not adding a finer gradient apart from eventually it would be all Squad were doing. Followed to it`s logical conclusion you end up with tweakscale.

Things like ISP, thrust etc can all be changed using curves so your points about scaling issues are moot.

[Frozen_Heart]

I don't agree with the procedural parts. Just having a scaled stat copy of other parts kills variety, and if you are capable of making 3 part spacecraft as its all scalable it heavily reduces damage your craft can take, which is part of the fun in game.

Quote

If you are having size 1.5, why not 0.75 and if those then why not 2.25 and 3.125 and so on and so on. There is not a point where anyone can rationalise adding the previous parts but not adding a finer gradient apart from eventually it would be all Squad were doing. Followed to it`s logical conclusion you end up with tweakscale.

The reason why this size is so important is due to it matching what a huge number of rockets would be if moved to KSP, and so is more likely to be useful than both 1.25m and 2.5m parts.

imo the only real argument against this is how much of the devs time it would take up, as it could be put to use on other things. But if porkjet is redoing the rocket parts anyway like he did the spaceplane parts now would be the perfect time.

 

[John JACK]

12 hours ago, John FX said:

There is no logical difference between wanting size 1½ and using tweakscale. They are both a way to satisfy your desire for a finer grading of parts between the largest and the smallest.

No there is. One is a cheat to get parts of exactly sone size you need them to be. Other is more different parts to toy with. Think as buying box of new shiny blocks vs sculpting in plasticine. I do not want same old LV-909 or Reliant all over again just bigger, I want something new. Mods are good, but Squad approved is better.

12 hours ago, John FX said:

There is not a point where anyone can rationalise adding the previous parts but not adding a finer gradient apart from eventually it would be all Squad were doing.

Reductio ad absurdum duly noted.

I explained a point in previous posts. With MATH! Blame Squad for adding 3.75 m size, not us. Difference between 1.25 and 2.5 m sizes is too big, and that sizes are most common in kerballed spaceflight.

On 10.04.2016 at 11:24 PM, KerikBalm said:

Of course, you could make yourself a 4 kerbal reentry pod by stacking 2 lander cans behind a heat shield. Maybe the mk1 lander can needs a rework to be more cylindrical, and not stick outside the standard 1.25m radius as much.

Well, that's not a cheat, but surely not proper use of parts as it was intended. Mk1 lander can need rework, not to be used as reentry pod, but NOT to be used as reentry pod. I.e., "full crumple body" tin can should have next to none temp tolerance. And pods should have more crash tolerance.

There is a need for 2-kerbal pod, more than any. Single seater is good only for footprints-and-flag missions. Two-seater can house pilot with scientist, or pilot with rescue. Rescue missions are very common, and in stock they need either pod with drone core, or a heaviest 3-seat pod.

[KerikBalm]

28 minutes ago, John JACK said:

One is a cheat

...

Well, that's not a cheat, but surely not proper use of parts as it was intended.

*Sigh*... cheating, really? its a mod that basically generates procedural parts. Procedural fairings are cheats now? any mod is a "cheat" I think we're all tired of hearing about what someone considers cheating.

second, who is to say its not propoer use of parts?

A heat shield is exactly for that purpose... to protect from heat. I use heat shields to protect all manner of parts from heat... not just 2000K limit parts, not just 1200k limit parts, but even the tiny basic fins with 934k heat tolerance.

Heat vulnerable part+ heat shield= heat tolerant part (from one direction at least). A hitchhiker can with a heat shield and parachute is a perfectly valid re-entry device in KSP, and you won't be able to find a developer that will tell me that I'm using the parts wrong if I do that.

[Kosmognome]

The game already has about 230 parts, and they fill all roles quite well.

if you added 1.825m parts, you would need at least 4 fuel tanks (for consitency with other stack sizes), 1 capsule (2-seats?), 1 lander can (how many seats?), at least two size adapters (to 1.25m and to 2.5m), one parachute, an inline battery, one inline monoprop tank tank, one inline reaction wheel, a heat shield, and at least 2-3 probe cores as well as 2-3 nose cones and 2-3 engines and 2-3 SRBs. Thats 21-25 parts extra at minimum for such a stack size to make sense at all. if you don#t include all those parts, then there will always be someone suggesting to fill the gaps that are left in that stack size, and rightfully so.

 

I think at some point there is not much to gain by bloating the game with additional parts. The part list will get some overhauls, but it still could use some more overhauls. Even with the changes in 1.1, its not exactly well structured.

I agree that having a two-kerbal capsule and some bigger SRBs (no, 2.5m would be too big) would be nice. But before adding a whole new stack size with all those parts, please let them add better filters in the part list.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Kosmognome

[MaxL_1023]

I would like to see 1.875m parts myself - 1.25m stacks get slightly sketchy if you want to put more than 2-3 tons in orbit, while you need to be near 10 tons to really justify a 2.5m stack. 

[Wahgineer]

On the issue of parts, I think a moderator ran a test and found that, technically, KSP can handle 2-3 THOUSAND extra parts in the editor before crashing. And that's now, BEFORE 1.1.

So 20-30 extra parts won't hurt a bit.

[The Great Potato]

4 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

The game already has about 230 parts, and they fill all roles quite well.

if you added 1.825m parts, you would need at least 4 fuel tanks (for consitency with other stack sizes), 1 capsule (2-seats?), 1 lander can (how many seats?), at least two size adapters (to 1.25m and to 2.5m), one parachute, an inline battery, one inline monoprop tank tank, one inline reaction wheel, a heat shield, and at least 2-3 probe cores as well as 2-3 nose cones and 2-3 engines and 2-3 SRBs. Thats 21-25 parts extra at minimum for such a stack size to make sense at all. if you don#t include all those parts, then there will always be someone suggesting to fill the gaps that are left in that stack size, and rightfully so.

 

I think at some point there is not much to gain by bloating the game with additional parts. The part list will get some overhauls, but it still could use some more overhauls. Even with the changes in 1.1, its not exactly well structured.

I agree that having a two-kerbal capsule and some bigger SRBs (no, 2.5m would be too big) would be nice. But before adding a whole new stack size with all those parts, please let them add better filters in the part list.

What about the roles of "lower stage for a size 1 pod" and "payload for a size 2 lifter"?

Size 1 is too puny to take even size 1 payloads much further than LKO. However, I don't think they should be buffed - size 1 works well as starting equipment. You start off struggling to even get LKO with them, which is good. Remember when you could get to the mun with 35 science and a handful of funds? I don't want to see that return.

In addition, size 2 payloads are often too heavy-duty for the task. Any size 2 payload requires a large-ish and expensive rocket, even if you just want to get more than one Kerbal to orbit and back.

Size 2 is the go-to option for a ton of stuff; not because its efficient at those things, but because it is the only choice. As it stands, career mode goes from "struggling to do much more than orbit" to "finished the apollo program" in the space of a single tech tier. The existence of a size 1.5 would filter some of those possibilities down the tech tree.

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by The Great Potato

[John FX]

6 hours ago, John JACK said:

No there is. One is a cheat

This is where I disagree. I do not agree that there can be cheating if the parts obey mass ratio and physics. If you stop using that word the discussion will proceed in a much better fashion.

5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

*Sigh*... cheating, really? its a mod that basically generates procedural parts. Procedural fairings are cheats now? any mod is a "cheat" I think we're all tired of hearing about what someone considers cheating.

I also thought we had this discussion finished years ago but here it is again.

EDIT :

Also, this is on the list which was formerly known as "What not to suggest"

On 05/01/2016 at 1:13 PM, sal_vager said:

So this thread exists as a repository for subjects that are so common that there's no need for yet another thread on it, before you post your suggestion take a look here, there may already be a thread covering it and you can join in the discussion

 

On 05/01/2016 at 1:13 PM, sal_vager said:

A new, unique idea or an old idea from a new angle is much preferred to suggestions for more of something already in the game, such as more parts (we have loads of parts now), some things just get suggested too many times.

 

On 05/01/2016 at 1:13 PM, sal_vager said:

New Parts

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by John FX

[SSgt Baloo]

Accusations that using mods constitutes cheating aren't about the game, but establishing dominance in the social group.

[John FX]

5 minutes ago, SSgt Baloo said:

Accusations that using mods constitutes cheating aren't about the game, but establishing dominance in the social group.

Interesting view, I had not considered that one before.

EDIT :

6 hours ago, John JACK said:

There is a need for a 2-kerbal pod

There is a 2 kerbal pod, the Mk2 Lander Can.

That`s a pod which holds 2 kerbals and can be used for rescue missions without needing a probe core or a three kerbal pod, exactly what you are wanting. It`s a lego part which does what you want but which may be slightly the wrong size so you will have to have `fun` using it...

That *is* your preferred playing style, right?

Edited April 13, 2016 by John FX

[GoSlash27]

19 hours ago, John FX said:

Then just have 1.875m parts in a mod, myself I would call them cheating and against the lego style of the game if the lego style is your aim, you should use the lego parts you are given instead of trying to think of a part and cheat it into existence by writing the code or getting others to

John FX,

 In most cases I'd agree with you, but...

PorkJet went to the trouble of giving us realistic "lego blocks" we need to construct a STS replica. The only thing we're missing is a properly sized SRB and big orange tank to go with it. It seems a shame to me that we don't have those parts.

^ Undersized SRBs, apollo-style tank, and overpowered LF engines.

Besides... The SLS architecture is heavily- based on the shuttle hardware. If we're going to model that, we'll need the right SRBs.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

[John FX]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

John FX,

 In most cases I'd agree with you, but...

PorkJet went to the trouble of giving us realistic "lego blocks" we need to construct a STS replica. The only thing we're missing is a properly sized SRB and big orange tank to go with it. It seems a shame to me that we don't have those parts.

^ Undersized SRBs, apollo-style tank, and overpowered LF engines.

Besides... The SLS architecture is heavily- based on the shuttle hardware. If we're going to model that, we'll need the right SRBs.

Best,
-Slashy

 

 

The first part of the post you quoted was a low form of wit in response to the cheating comment designed to show it was illogical and not meant to actually be my viewpoint.

I think KSP needs more of a range of tanks n stuff, I just think procedural solves many of the problems without cluttering up an already cluttered parts list. If the fuel tanks and solid engines were procedural for instance you could just scale up the existing orange tank and SRB to be the right size.

Edited April 13, 2016 by John FX
accuracy

[GoSlash27]

5 minutes ago, John FX said:

The first part of the post you quoted was a low form of wit in response to the cheating comment designed to show it was illogical and not meant to actually be my viewpoint.

Oh, my apologies then...

6 minutes ago, John FX said:

I think KSP needs more of a range of tanks n stuff, I just think procedural solves many of the problems without cluttering up an already cluttered parts list. If the fuel tanks and solid engines were procedural for instance you could just scale up the existing orange tank and SRB to be the right size.

I'm sure, but it appears to me that Squad is adamantly against implementing procedural parts, while they're not averse to adding new parts.

If the stock game implements procedural parts, I'll happily use them with a vengeance

-Slashy

[John FX]

6 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Oh, my apologies then...

No worries at all. It is not easy to convey or read the tone something is said in when printed as text. When I type all is clear in my mind and when people reply I see the other ways it could be read, hehe.

4 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

it appears to me that Squad is adamantly against implementing procedural parts, while they're not averse to adding new parts.

It does indeed seem to be the case. They have changed their minds on things they were equally opposed to in the past though so I am not without hope.

In the mean time, once 1.1 drops there will be no reason to limit mods (for me anyway) so `there`s a mod for that` becomes a much more realistic solution (couldn`t run more mods if I wanted). I can`t wait to see RSS with the nice textures...

[mattinoz]

22 hours ago, John FX said:

Then just have 1.875m parts in a mod, myself I would call them cheating and against the lego style of the game if the lego style is your aim, you should use the lego parts you are given instead of trying to think of a part and cheat it into existence by writing the code or getting others to

Lego pieces come in standard sizes they don't come with procedural parts. Well until they made octopi and bicycles. A lego person can sit on 2 dots wide and in 4 dots. A Kerbal can sit on 0.625 and in 1.25 So to me the comparison to lego vs KSP sizes would be roughly :-

• 1 dot - not stock 0.3125
• 2 dot - 0.625
• 4 dot - 1.25
• 6 dot - not stock 1.875
• 8 dot - 2.5
• 10 dot - 3.75
• 12 dot  - not stock 5

I think any lego-style argument of cheating* vs not cheating should fall on the side of a 1,6 & 12 dot parts size being not-cheating be they mods as current or hopefully stock in the future. Noting that the 6 dot size in lego is often used for two people vehicles like trucks and trains.

*what does cheating really mean in the context of single player game.

[Rath]

12 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

I agree that having a two-kerbal capsule and some bigger SRBs (no, 2.5m would be too big) would be nice. But before adding a whole new stack size with all those parts, please let them add better filters in the part list.

Which are literally coming in ~two weeks

[Rath]

About part bloat and confusing new players:

When I began playing (.23.5) I looked at the part list, grabbed a capsule, kept on sticking tanks underneath until I found one that fit.  I then saw that the shiny white tanks were all the size I wanted.  Then I found that the dark grey and yellow styling engines were also the size I wanted.  This was how I began.

I was 12 at the time.  I'm not sure KSP part bloat is as big of a problem for people.

[Frozen_Heart]

Quote

I agree that having a two-kerbal capsule and some bigger SRBs (no, 2.5m would be too big) would be nice. But before adding a whole new stack size with all those parts, please let them add better filters in the part list.

The new part sorting system really helps with that. You can just type something like 'fuel tank' and see all the fuel tanks rather than having to trawl through all the parts.

[KerikBalm]

13 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

PorkJet went to the trouble of giving us realistic "lego blocks" we need to construct a STS replica. The only thing we're missing is a properly sized SRB and big orange tank to go with it. It seems a shame to me that we don't have those parts.

Does it really have tp be an exact STS replica? While I wouldn't mind 1.875m SRBs with a 1.25m node on the top...

If you need bigger SRBs, just use another pair.

I was happy with my STS replica even before the vector came.

And the 2x SRBs isn't so bad if you're trying for a Buran replica instead, or a shuttle-buran hybrid

 

 

I don't see a problem with 2x stacked oranges... or a big white tank... the STS uses a white tank initially (the first two flights, then they stopped painting it to save mass)

 

[GoSlash27]

40 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Does it really have tp be an exact STS replica? While I wouldn't mind 1.875m SRBs with a 1.25m node on the top...

If you need bigger SRBs, just use another pair

 Actually, yeah... I think it does. As long as we have a shuttle cockpit, shuttle cargo bay, shuttle wings, shuttle tail, etc. etc. we oughtta have the parts to build a shuttle stack that looks like a shuttle stack.

 Trust me... we are all aware that we *could* build a STS with an undersized tank, 4 undersized SRBs, and a Rhino in the back if that's what we wanted to do. That's not really the point.

 Best,
-Slashy

Edited April 14, 2016 by GoSlash27

[John FX]

48 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 Actually, yeah... I think it does. As long as we have a shuttle cockpit, shuttle cargo bay, shuttle wings, shuttle tail, etc. etc. we oughtta have the parts to build a shuttle stack that looks like a shuttle stack.

 Trust me... we are all aware that we *could* build a STS with an undersized tank, 4 undersized SRBs, and a Rhino in the back if that's what we wanted to do. That's not really the point.

 Best,
-Slashy

Personally I`ve been wanting landing legs for the LM since forever.

 

11 hours ago, mattinoz said:

what does cheating really mean in the context of single player game.

Absolutely nothing which was what that part of my post was meant to convey as it was a response to procedural parts being called cheating.

[KerikBalm]

Slash- the shuttle and Buran being so similar... I can't really say that those are shuttle wings and a tail rather than Buran wings and a tail, or that the cargobay is specifically from the STS. the cockit does resemble the STS more than Buran... but who cares?

I can't build an exact saturn V replica either... I'm just happy we got bigger plane parts. Parts inspired by the STS... but it doesn't have to be the STS  - indeed, to make "shuttle wings" you need to use two parts, the main wing, and a wing strake.

That said, I don't like two SRBs right next to each other because they clip a little... and I hate clipping. I would like bigger SRBs, but I don't think its a high priority, or justifies an entire new line of parts.

That's why I'd make the 1.875m SRB like the LFB/mammoth with no rear attachment node, and a 1.25m node at the top. I might also suggest making them the only SRBs with gimbal.

Though I wouldn't want them to be relatively expensive... as KSP physics (without a mod that merges saves)means that one can't recover the SRBs like IRL... so I design my STSs to instead recover the external tank to get more reusability out of the system... 700 funds per ton isn't bad... better than any fully disposable system that I've seen.

[GoSlash27]

20 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Slash- the shuttle and Buran being so similar... I can't really say that those are shuttle wings and a tail rather than Buran wings and a tail, or that the cargobay is specifically from the STS. the cockit does resemble the STS more than Buran... but who cares?

The Buran doesn't use SRBs. We're talking about SRBs...

20 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

700 funds per ton isn't bad... better than any fully disposable system that I've seen.

Completely off- topic, but there's lots of fully disposable lifters under $700/ tonne here:

 

[KerikBalm]

We weren't just talking SRBs,

"we have a shuttle cockpit, shuttle cargo bay, shuttle wings, shuttle tail, etc. etc. we oughtta have the parts to build a shuttle stack that looks like a shuttle stack.

 Trust me... we are all aware that we *could* build a STS with an undersized tank, 4 undersized SRBs,"

You were talking about the parts we have as being shuttle specific, and asking not only for bigger SRBs, but a new tank too.

"Completely off- topic, but there's lots of fully disposable lifters under $700/ tonne here"

Hmmm, as low as 645/ton, I'll have to go back and calculate exactly how much under 700 I was getting. I'll also note that in that challenge, they didn't have to drop the payload off in orbit, just close to orbit (80km x 1m).. which changes things a bit...

But even in KSP... it seems STSs don't make economic sense