Does KSP need 1.875 meter parts?

[Panel]

On other threads, 1.875 meter parts have had mixed thoughts. I think they're needed, but I wanted to see what the majority wants. 

I think they are, since going from 1.25 to 2.5 doubles the diameter, while 3.75 is only 150% larger. This makes any rockets with two sizes look very strange. Also, 1.25 meter rockets can only put small payloads into orbit on its own, while 2.5 meter is overkill for anything smaller than 10 tons or so. 

 

[Snark]

I'm perfectly fine with just 1.25m and 2.5m parts, myself.  I'm worried about spamming the parts list, and honestly I never find myself wishing for anything between those two.

What would be nice would be 5m parts, a la SpaceY.

[legoclone09]

I'd say yes, for heavier 1.25m payloads, and it matches the 2.5m to 3.75m curve.

[Andem]

Yes!!! And here's why:

A) Perfect for a decent 2 kerb pod

B) Build better looking rockets

C) Might as well, the rocket part revamp could use a new diameter

D) Better incorperation of large part packs

E) Read the OP mate.

[regex]

Nope.

What it needs is a procedural tank.

[mattinoz]

13 minutes ago, regex said:

Nope.

What it needs is a procedural tank.

Wouldn't that mean there are parts that 'can' be 1.85 parts?

[regex]

9 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

Wouldn't that mean there are parts that 'can' be 1.85 parts?

Yes, but adding 1.875m parts wouldn't be preferable to me since it would just crap up the VAB with duplicate parts.  There is no reason why a single tank that can be sized as needed can't handle pretty much every cylinder we have now.  You could even clamp the dimensions to tech tree progression.  One part, many uses, fits everyone's needs, doesn't crap up the VAB.

[Andem]

37 minutes ago, regex said:

Nope.

What it needs is a procedural tank.

Um, that's kind of counter intuitive to the way KSP has been designed so far.

 

12 minutes ago, regex said:

Yes, but adding 1.875m parts wouldn't be preferable to me since it would just crap up the VAB with duplicate parts.  There is no reason why a single tank that can be sized as needed can't handle pretty much every cylinder we have now.  You could even clamp the dimensions to tech tree progression.  One part, many uses, fits everyone's needs, doesn't crap up the VAB.

As someone, I don't remember who, said very recently:

Quote

Imagine if you had a lego set, where instead of building a castle, you operated a 3D printer that would build a big hunk of plastic shaped like a castle.

Now, I personally despise the idea of using PP in my games. If SQAUD went full PP I would stop playing. There would be no more design challenge or tinkering, which is where most of the fun of KSP is for me. As for "crapping up" the VAB... there isn't that many parts in stock KSP. Now, if you want to see a crapped up VAB talk to @CobaltWolf. 

[CobaltWolf]

<- #rekt

Edited June 8, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Nope.

What it needs is a procedural tank.

Agreed. I don't want one more fuel tank in the list until there is either (usable) filtering or procedural tanks. Or both.

Edited June 8, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[regex]

28 minutes ago, Andem said:

There would be no more design challenge or tinkering

[citation needed]

I mean, if you had a procedural tank that could make any tank already in the game, plus 1.875m tanks, clamped to the tech tree progression, how exactly would that differ from how things are now?

You'd have one tank, not forty.  That's how.

28 minutes ago, Andem said:

Now, if you want to see a crapped up VAB talk to @CobaltWolf.

CobaltWolf ain't got nothing on a full-blown RO install.

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, regex said:

CobaltWolf ain't got nothing on a full-blown RO install.

Working on it...

[regex]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

Working on it...

Hey, good for you!

[Superfluous J]

52 minutes ago, Andem said:

Imagine if you had a lego set, where instead of building a castle, you operated a 3D printer that would build a big hunk of plastic shaped like a castle.

Wait in this analogy is the Lego set the entire rocket? Because in that case I don't think you get what procedural tanks are.

Or is the Lego set just a fuel tank? That's a pretty boring Lego set.

[Andem]

36 minutes ago, regex said:

[citation needed]

I concede, that is a matter of opinion. IMO it would remove all of the fun of tinkering builds to find the best parts for the job.

38 minutes ago, regex said:

I mean, if you had a procedural tank that could make any tank already in the game, plus 1.875m tanks, clamped to the tech tree progression, how exactly would that differ from how things are now?

You'd have one tank, not forty.  That's how.

 

18 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Wait in this analogy is the Lego set the entire rocket? Because in that case I don't think you get what procedural tanks are.

Or is the Lego set just a fuel tank? That's a pretty boring Lego set.

The point I'm trying to make here is that KSP is a lot like Lego. I think that Lego would be a lot less rewarding if you didn't have to work around restrictions. It's all just a matter of opinion, I guess, but I think we should stick with the system that's already here.

47 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Working on it...

Exciting!!!

[Superfluous J]

9 minutes ago, Andem said:

The point I'm trying to make here is that KSP is a lot like Lego. I think that Lego would be a lot less rewarding if you didn't have to work around restrictions. It's all just a matter of opinion, I guess, but I think we should stick with the system that's already here.

I understand your point, and even agree with it in part. I don't agree, though, that having one tank instead of 40 (or however many there are) will so unshackle you from restriction as to make the game unplayably boring. I also don't agree that "I want to be restricted to a set of parts" and "we need a whole new subset of parts because I'm too restricted" go together very well in the same opinion set.

What if the procedural tanks would only snap to sizes you could have made with the current tanks? So you could make (for example) an FL-T600 tank once you had access to the FL-T400 and FL-T200 tanks. The tech tree could be reworked so you started with access to the 800, then got the 400, and finally the 200. Is it logical or reasonable? No less than the current tech tree.

Edited June 8, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[AlamoVampire]

yes. in a word yes.

[Panel]

2 hours ago, Andem said:

As someone, I don't remember who, said very recently

That was actually me!

Edited June 8, 2016 by Panel

[mattinoz]

3 hours ago, Andem said:

The point I'm trying to make here is that KSP is a lot like Lego. I think that Lego would be a lot less rewarding if you didn't have to work around restrictions. It's all just a matter of opinion, I guess, but I think we should stick with the system that's already here.

To me a Procedural tank could be considered lego-like.

I mean in Lego I define the shape with one or more pieces then stack multiples of the shape as high as structure or the toy box allows. (Well at least I did in my misspent youth.) Isn't that what we are talking about in principle. Grab tank pick profile, pick length or contents in brick sized units.

[pandaman]

No, I don't think they are needed at all (but of course I'd use them if they were there).

At most, a couple of adapter/fuel tank type parts to help with some of the aesthetic issues raised and 'just maybe' a 2 man capsule, but I certainly don't think there is a 'need', or that they would add enough to the game to be of any real benefit.

[Navy2k]

9 hours ago, Andem said:

I concede, that is a matter of opinion. IMO it would remove all of the fun of tinkering builds to find the best parts for the job.

I think your are talking about different things. regex didn't mean full fetched PP but a Cylindrical tank part that can be rescaled in 1,25m diameter steps and in 0,5m 1m 2m 4m 8m length just like the tanks now but with only one item in the VAB list. There you could easily fit in a 1,875m part too.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Navy2k

[cami]

Just a small note on the snapping idea. I'm one of the players embracing restricitions and one of the toughest restricitions early game is part count. Availability if only small tanks creates a tradeoff constraint between launcher size and payload complexity. If you have a single part snapping to various sizes that aspect is lost. Also progression in the tech tree has less effect on your reach and more effect on your efficiency, if the longer tanks are available before the shorter ones (you can like or dislike this change, personally I prefer the smaller tanks first).

 

[Panel]

3 minutes ago, cami said:

Just a small note on the snapping idea. I'm one of the players embracing restricitions and one of the toughest restricitions early game is part count. Availability if only small tanks creates a tradeoff constraint between launcher size and payload complexity. If you have a single part snapping to various sizes that aspect is lost. Also progression in the tech tree has less effect on your reach and more effect on your efficiency, if the longer tanks are available before the shorter ones (you can like or dislike this change, personally I prefer the smaller tanks first).

 

I believe that those in favor of procedural parts suggested that they be restricted in size based on tech tree progression.

[cantab]

I don't really want that size myself. I find the existing part sizes fine for most purposes and think adding 1.9 m parts would be too "fiddly".

Now if KSP moves to a more flexible model, then maybe that increment would come in naturally. But I fear KSP is too far developed now to switch, even though "procedural" parts would be far better in almost all respects IMHO.

[cami]

46 minutes ago, Panel said:

I believe that those in favor of procedural parts suggested that they be restricted in size based on tech tree progression.

Im stressing the differences between such a restriction by technological progress and the status quo. One part with 1000u is not the same as five parts with 200u.