Does KSP need 1.875 meter parts?

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, cami said:

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.

Exactly, and if you had procedural tanks limited in size by tech nodes nothing would change regarding the status quo except for the number of parts in the list.  Adding in the 1.875m form factor, either in the current status quo or in our hypothetical procedural model, would require the same sort of balancing.

[Gojira1000]

What Regex said - and it you're playing with the existing procedural parts mod in career/science mode you will have already experienced tank size locks by tech tree progression.

And it's brilliant and should, IMO, be stock

Fewer parts, better flexibility, range limited by tech advancement, less junk in the VAB (plus add IFS and have texture changes if you like). 

[John FX]

I voted no because the people who want extra parts to more accurately fit the design of rocket they want to build have exactly the same desire as the people who want procedural parts (more options) and for exactly the same reason (more fun and more parts for different sizes of rocket) yet claim that appeasing that desire would ruin the fun of the game.

I would not be able to agree that 1.875m parts were needed without also agreeing that all the other parts were needed which would utterly clutter the parts list unless the parts were procedural. One note, to those who think procedural means different each play or for each player, Mun has a procedural surface...

I do not want stock filled up with extra parts just because someone else now wants 1.25m parts and then someone wants 0.625m parts (yes I know we already have those) and they all have the same argument, an argument as valid for 1.875m parts as it would be for every gradient of parts ad nauseum.

Even if we got procedural parts, there would be some calling for squad to unlock the parts for 1.25m, 0.3m, 5m, 10m and so on so and their argument would be just as valid as the one that calls now for 1.875m parts.

Therefore IMO limiting the possible sizes of procedural parts would not make sense for sandbox but it would in a career game and then only for gameplay reasons. For career it makes sense to duplicate the current set of parts as procedural parts, it would save memory and space in the parts list while not changing function. For sandbox it makes more sense to not limit the possible sizes and to have full procedural parts.

And as I have said in other threads, if you like playing with a limited playset, you still can but I bet you don`t because you find it more fun not to...

 

And obviously the standard caveat applies. all of this could be adjustable in the settings so for those people who want no change they could play with no perceptible change to the game which invalidates any counter argument except "I don`t want you to play differently to me".

[b0ss]

15 hours ago, Snark said:

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

Try this!

[blorgon]

15 hours ago, Andem said:

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

D) Better incorperation of large part packs

13 hours ago, Andem said:

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

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.

12 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.

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.

Dude! Get your story straight! 

I know we butted heads a little in that recent thread you quoted, but come on. In one post, you're talking about how you'd like better incorporation of large part packs (which, you know, add parts, and by extension, versatility to the game), then you complain that procedural parts would kill design challenge and tinkering (which I really think you're blowing out of proportion, there's just as much design challenge and tinkering to be had with a more mission-design-oriented approach).

What others have mentioned about tech-tree-progression limiting procedural diameters is a great idea. I also think that procedurally generated parts should be somewhat limited in range and interval anyway. Something I really want is geometric tank shapes for better probe and lander options.

Anyway, it feels like you're summarily rejecting something you seem to have not tried much, if at all. I firmly believe there's still a lot of design challenge to be had when using procedural parts, while simultaneously opening up a lot of possibility. Imagine if NASA had been similarly constrained.

[Andem]

2 hours ago, blorgon said:

Dude! Get your story straight! 

I know we butted heads a little in that recent thread you quoted, but come on. In one post, you're talking about how you'd like better incorporation of large part packs (which, you know, add parts, and by extension, versatility to the game), then you complain that procedural parts would kill design challenge and tinkering (which I really think you're blowing out of proportion, there's just as much design challenge and tinkering to be had with a more mission-design-oriented approach).

What others have mentioned about tech-tree-progression limiting procedural diameters is a great idea. I also think that procedurally generated parts should be somewhat limited in range and interval anyway. Something I really want is geometric tank shapes for better probe and lander options.

Anyway, it feels like you're summarily rejecting something you seem to have not tried much, if at all. I firmly believe there's still a lot of design challenge to be had when using procedural parts, while simultaneously opening up a lot of possibility. Imagine if NASA had been similarly constrained.

Well, the difference, at least to me, is using existing parts in interesting ways to get a certain look or effect, vs having parts tailored to whatever need. I don't see that as tinkering, and IMO that isn't fun. I would welcome geometric tanks, it would really round out (I'm sorry) the types of designs you can create. It's the exact same reason I refuse to install Tweakscale, it just feels weird to me. 

Since I know that my opinion isn't really going to change right now, and I don't think there is anything I could really say to convince all of you, I think the best course of action is to agree to disagree at this point.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Andem
Used "at this point" twice...

[pandaman]

I know procedural parts are a bit off topic for this thread, but as they've been mentioned...

I would be in favour of incrementally procedural fuel tanks (select the diameter based on stock sizes and then select the length in 'steps' based on the current smallest length).  But I don't really like the idea for most other parts.

[blorgon]

47 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I know procedural parts are a bit off topic for this thread, but as they've been mentioned...

I would be in favour of incrementally procedural fuel tanks (select the diameter based on stock sizes and then select the length in 'steps' based on the current smallest length).  But I don't really like the idea for most other parts.

I wouldn't say it's off topic. The argument we're making is that it's more practical to do tanks procedurally than to add more parts to the game which clutters the VAB. Having a single procedural tank would clear out like 20 items in the fuel tanks tab, and make building a lot easier, by opening up opportunities that aren't otherwise present.

To address your concern about procedural other things, I argue that it'd be amazing for structural parts, fairings, batteries, solar panels, and wings, too. Engines would probably be taking it too far, but I think that could be interesting too, if implemented well (which is much more difficult to do where it concerns balance, which is why I'm not particularly arguing that point). Basically anything that isn't a science experiment, sensor, flight computer, command module, docking port, or engine would massively benefit from being procedural. I think it'd make craft exchanges a lot more interesting too. Players would have a lot more freedom to approach design problems their way, and it'd open up a lot more discussion on general spacecraft design.

Something else I'd really love to see is procedurally generated radial decouplers (not a part you select from the list and place, but one that is generated on the fly). The way I imagine it working is that you'd directly attach (radially) a booster or droptank to your main craft body, and the game would automatically generate explosive bolts along the attachment proportionally spaced to the length of the shared surface area of the two parts. It'd be better looking, provide a more stable attachment, look nicer, cut down on part count by replacing decoupler parts and struts, and work better by detaching the object in such a way that it would be less prone to flip around and crash into your rocket before you can get out of the way.

Edited June 8, 2016 by blorgon

[cami]

The idea of making FLT-100, FLT-200 and FLT-400 a single sizeable part is not without changes to gameplay, even if restrictions by tech level apply. If I have a single sizeable part I can reduce part count on early career vessels a lot (because i dont need to stack a dozen tiny tanks), which removes the need for an early VAB upgrade. I also can make much bigger rockets after only one launchpad upgrade for the same reason.

 

[Panel]

Procedural parts is a discussion fir another thread. What those people are saying is that they would like another stock part size, just not all the parts to go with it. That is fine, I would just like that discussion to take place elsewhere. 

[Frozen_Heart]

I really think that a 1.875m line up should be in in game, and properly implemented would probably be the most important part line. Going on KSPs spacecraft scale, shuttle boosters, Falcon 9, Atlas V, Antares, and Soyuz would all fit in this size range showing that it should really be the workhorse of any space program, and would make life very easy for replica builders.

The correct size shuttle boosters alone would make the entire line worth it. The current ones are way too small for the Mk-3 and 3.75m fuel tanks they are meant to launch.

 

[cantab]

23 minutes ago, cami said:

The idea of making FLT-100, FLT-200 and FLT-400 a single sizeable part is not without changes to gameplay, even if restrictions by tech level apply. If I have a single sizeable part I can reduce part count on early career vessels a lot (because i dont need to stack a dozen tiny tanks), which removes the need for an early VAB upgrade. I also can make much bigger rockets after only one launchpad upgrade for the same reason.

 

But then the part count limit can itself be lowered. Perhaps as low as ten parts, say, more than enough for a two-stage rocket.

[blorgon]

44 minutes ago, cami said:

The idea of making FLT-100, FLT-200 and FLT-400 a single sizeable part is not without changes to gameplay, even if restrictions by tech level apply. If I have a single sizeable part I can reduce part count on early career vessels a lot (because i dont need to stack a dozen tiny tanks), which removes the need for an early VAB upgrade. I also can make much bigger rockets after only one launchpad upgrade for the same reason.

From what I've gathered reading the forum and the subreddit over the past year is that the general consensus on Career is that it isn't done very well. I can't comment on that particularly since I don't play career, but it sounds like part count is a significant factor in early game? If that's really the case, that's pretty silly. And maintaining that wholly arbitrary limitation is hardly a reason to not go for procedural.

In case that isn't clear, I'm saying that the rewards of procedural far outweigh the risk of changing something a lot of people don't even think was done right in the first place.

31 minutes ago, Panel said:

Procedural parts is a discussion fir another thread. What those people are saying is that they would like another stock part size, just not all the parts to go with it. That is fine, I would just like that discussion to take place elsewhere. 

Well this is a forum. You started a thread, and a relevant subject came up.

The reason it's relevant is because adding a new set of parts is impractical. It will clutter an already cluttered parts list. People brought up procedural because they see it as the only practical way to give you what you want.

Edited June 8, 2016 by blorgon

[Angelo Kerman]

I vaguely recall one of the developers saying that they didn't want procedural parts because it would make the game formulaic. It's good that procedural parts is available as a mod, however. As for the 1.875m tanks, it would be nice to have but for me they aren't mission critical since I can (and have) made my own, including a two-kerb command pod. Perhaps an official stock mod could include 1.875m parts.

[blorgon]

1 hour ago, Angel-125 said:

I vaguely recall one of the developers saying that they didn't want procedural parts because it would make the game formulaic.

What do you (or did they) mean by 'formulaic'?

[Angelo Kerman]

33 minutes ago, blorgon said:

What do you (or did they) mean by 'formulaic'?

Again, this was awhile ago so I don't quite remember, but it was something along the lines of not wanting to make it so easy to build rockets that you just procedurally generate the parts and have a rocket. They wanted to keep the lego aspect of the game. Probably best to get Squad's official stance (if any), it might have been just one developer's opinion.

[Wjolcz]

On 6/8/2016 at 3:33 AM, regex said:

Nope.

What it needs is a procedural tank.

I agree, but only if something like Kerbal Krash System became stock. Otherwise 30 meters long fuel tanks would simply go *poof* in the middle and everything would fall down and also get poof'd.

 

[legoclone09]

Well, there's one problem with procedural tanks. They look ugly and it's very hard to make them look nice. Look at the current PP, then look at stock tanks or mod tanks. Which looks better?

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, legoclone09 said:

Well, there's one problem with procedural tanks. They look ugly and it's very hard to make them look nice. Look at the current PP, then look at stock tanks or mod tanks. Which looks better?

Procedural tanks that textured themselves based on contents and size.

[legoclone09]

2 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Procedural tanks that textured themselves based on contents and size.

Ah, but it's still hard to make that look good, And at that point it's easier to make individual parts, since you make textures for each size and then you make the procedural part system.

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, legoclone09 said:

Well, there's one problem with procedural tanks. They look ugly and it's very hard to make them look nice. Look at the current PP, then look at stock tanks or mod tanks. Which looks better?

They don't -have- to look terrible;  take a look at the 'modular' fuel tanks in my mod ( SSTU ).  While not fully procedural, they offer a very wide range of configuration options (lengths, diameter scaling, mount/nose/adapter, and texture options), all while maintaining a less generic aesthetic than Procedural Parts.  These are also more 'discrete' than procedural parts; they are only available in pre-determined length intervals/increments (diameter scales freely), so it maintains much of the 'lego' aspect along with much of the freedom that procedural parts offers.

 

Anyhow, on the subject of the thread; I say 'yes' to 1.875m, but 'no' to yet-more-parts in the parts-list;  procedural or modular all the way.  The jump from 1.25->2.5 in career is... terribly jarring, and so are the aesthetics of adapters for those sizes (2:1 is a pretty big change for profile).  Having an intermediate size (tanks/pods/engines) would make the transition up the tech tree seem a bit less awkward, while opening up a whole new range of replica craft to be created more faithfully, and allowing for smoother profile changes in craft designs.

Ideally I would see this done with one part for each 'type' or 'variant' of tank (single fuel cryo, hydrolox, kerolox, hypergolic, dry-goods/ore/containers), with that single part having proper mesh switching or procedural mesh generation to derive the full array of diameters and lengths.  Diameters (and lengths, if necessary) can be tech-tree limited to use the same progression mechanics that are currently in place; the biggest change would be the de-cluttering of the parts list (at least for fuel tanks and containers).

 

[Superfluous J]

35 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

Ah, but it's still hard to make that look good, And at that point it's easier to make individual parts, since you make textures for each size and then you make the procedural part system.

But we already have the textures, and most if not all would look just fine squeezed down by half or stretched out double.

Edited June 9, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[John FX]

21 hours ago, cami said:

The idea of making FLT-100, FLT-200 and FLT-400 a single sizeable part is not without changes to gameplay, even if restrictions by tech level apply. If I have a single sizeable part I can reduce part count on early career vessels a lot (because i dont need to stack a dozen tiny tanks), which removes the need for an early VAB upgrade. I also can make much bigger rockets after only one launchpad upgrade for the same reason.

 

You seem to have missed the point that in a career game, the procedural fuel tanks would be limited to the same size as the current ones for your tech level which means you would have to build your early rockets using the exact same number of parts, weighing exactly the same, of exactly the same size, and holding exactly the same amount of fuel. As now, you would have to unlock the node for the FLT-200 to use a tank of that size. No change.

In options for sandbox, there could be a setting for `stock sizes`, `1m gradient` or `5cm gradient` for fuel tanks so for those who wish not to have the increased options, the game has no differences at all from the current one, you could even have exactly the same list of parts in your VAB as now but for those of us who want a less cluttered list we could have one resizable part.

There really is no valid objection to things staying exactly the same, your game would stay exactly the same, others would get the functionality they desire. There would literally be no perceptible or functional difference for those who do not want any change.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Why deny others a benefit if them having it does not change your game at all?

As a nice side effect it would make adding 1.875m parts as easy as adding one line in a .cfg file...

[cami]

1 hour ago, John FX said:

You seem to have missed the point that in a career game, the procedural fuel tanks would be limited to the same size as the current ones for your tech level which means you would have to build your early rockets using the exact same number of parts, weighing exactly the same, of exactly the same size, and holding exactly the same amount of fuel. As now, you would have to unlock the node for the FLT-200 to use a tank of that size. No change.

Thats a slightly different concept. The original suggestion contained the idea of obtaining long tanks first in the tech tree, and allowng to create single parts of any multiple the size o the unlcked part, so if you unlock a 400u tank you can make a single-part 800u tank but not a 1000u tank.
Of course it's possible to make the part snap only to the unlocked lengths, not arbitrary multiples of them. That kind of change seems rather an interface cleanup than a procedural part, then, letting you just choose function (i.e. tank), diameter and length instead of rummaging in a box of half-sorted lego bricks. Probably a useful idea for the plethora o wing parts too. In any case, it's a discussion for a different thread.

Edited June 9, 2016 by cami

[John FX]

2 hours ago, cami said:

it's a discussion for a different thread.

I don`t think so.

Any request for more parts leads naturally to the discussion of whether it would be more sensible to implement those parts as a single procedural part or as additional unique parts which would add to the parts list. Unique items should have their own entry of course, pods for example, but tanks are a prime example of a part that could easily be replaced with a single procedural part without changing function. There are too many parts which are pretty much just resizes of other parts with a slightly different texture, many science experiments could be replaced with a single part that has access to multiple functions with relevant textures for example. I am in favour of a larger range of part sizes including 1.875m parts but also in favour of less parts in the parts list. That means procedural parts and it is very much relevant to talk about it when more parts are being requested which IMHO would just clutter up the parts list with no need for that to be the case.