What new parts should they add?

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Vaporized Steel said:

In KSP I don't think someone would mod this because if you were to actually accurately model this you would have a single part with dozens of aerodynamics surfaces that would need alot of aerodynamic calculations to be done just on 2, 4 or more parts.

 

Ummm, did you read anything above?  I found at least two different mods which implemented grid fins, and I believe that someone else also found another mod with grid fins.

[Jeb-head-mug kerman]

On 11 June 2016 at 3:03 PM, FCISuperGuy said:

More SRBs. Also, retexturing of the SLS parts to orange to fit NASA's official color scheme (that they changed since Squad and NASA partnered). Allowing for the two extra seats in the Mk3 cockpit to be used would be great too.

SLS parts yes great idea!

[gugguu]

Procedural mobility enhancers 

[Corona688]

Weather balloon.

[Ozymandias_the_Goat]

MOAR BOOSTERS!!!

[SingABrightSong]

More nuclear engines. In fact, just go ahead and make Atomic Age stock(That, and @Porkjet's other mod Stock Fuel Switch).

[Red Iron Crown]

14 hours ago, SingABrightSong said:

More nuclear engines. In fact, just go ahead and make Atomic Age stock(That, and @Porkjet's other mod Stock Fuel Switch).

I used Atomic Age for a long time, but lately I've switched to Nertea's Kerbal Atomics for my big, nuclear engine fix and I have to say the models are gorgeous and the selection is interesting (I do miss the Candle, though).

[Enceos]

Bigger landing legs and gridfins. Every SpaceX fan would love to be able to repeat the achievments of this rising space company in KSP.

Wide base landing legs. similar to the ones on Philae spacecraft, but retractable.

[Enceos]

When I introduced my friend to KSP he immediately wanted to make a Falcon 9 in this game. After some time spent in the VAB he was very disappointed about the available landing legs and the absense of grid fins.

I believe many newcomers to KSP would like to repeat the achevments of SpaceX in the game.

It will require some fiddling and an inquisitive mind to find out that they'll need mods for that, people whose first game became KSP won't even have this word in their dictionary.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Enceos

[p1t1o]

Grid fins are not airbrakes. They can be modelled as a simple fin. 

They are not especially draggy, they are used on missiles.

There are many, many parts in stock KSP that aren't *totally* necessary.

If that is your criteria, then all you need are about 16 parts and delete the rest.

There should be a rule in the suggestion forum that if you do not support the idea, you do not comment. Unpopular ideas would quickly get pushed down the page and it keeps the thread a bit more useful.

On a personal note: I want loads of parts I hardly ever use, just for that one time when I need that niche part and there it is right there. How many times have I used ion/electric propulsion? About twice. How many different electric engines do I have in my build? About...i dunno, 15? Just the way I like it

[magnemoe]

On 8.6.2016 at 2:36 AM, Snark said:

A reasonable selection of rocket-friendly liquid-fuel-only tanks, in sizes from 1.25m to 3.75m, so it's possible to build an LV-N spacecraft without resorting to kludgy airplane-tank designs or mods.  (Would also accept a solution that involves switchable tanks.)

Also, interstage adapters such as in the excellent SpaceY mod.  These let you put a differently-sized (i.e. smaller) engine in the  middle of a bigger-diameter stack without having to play weird games with adapters and struts.  For example, you can have a 2.5m stack that has a 1.25m engine in the middle, without borking everything.

This, and it don't have to be so many eiter, mostly is the grey tanks for liquidfuel and the medium here most, the smaller can be build with the 1.25 meter tank and I just as well use an MK3 tank for the orange. 

Interstage would also be nice, yes you can use fairings for this but its a bit clunky. 

[Snark]

39 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

This, and it don't have to be so many eiter, mostly is the grey tanks for liquidfuel and the medium here most, the smaller can be build with the 1.25 meter tank and I just as well use an MK3 tank for the orange.

Except that the 2-ton 1.25m tank is too short; stacks of little tanks are a Bad Thing that leads to floppy rockets.  We need a tall skinny 4-ton LF tank for the same reason we need a tall skinny 4-ton LFO tank.

And the Mk3 is not a reasonable substitute for the orange tank.  It's the wrong shape.  It looks awful, and it doesn't match up aerodynamically.   Yes, it's possible to hack a rocket together with it, but it's unpleasant (at least to me).  Let me put it another way:  Suppose the real concern here is "too many parts", and Squad just said "Okay, we're going to get rid of the Mk3 liquid fuel tanks and replace them with equivalent 2.5m rocket tanks.  Can you even imagine the (completely justified) outcry from the spaceplane people?

There needs to be a solution.  Every LFO tank there is, there needs to be a way to have the same thing except LF-only.  I don't really care if this means doubling the number of fuel tanks out there (just put 'em in a different tab, or something), or whether we get a stock fuel-switching solution so that you can simply choose on a per-tank basis which one it is.  But we need this.

[Red Iron Crown]

7 minutes ago, Snark said:

And the Mk3 is not a reasonable substitute for the orange tank.  It's the wrong shape.

The killer for me is you can't close a stock fairing on it.

[Gojira1000]

For true stock parts - the LF tanks are about the only that comes to mind.

(I'd think having a switch option to set tank contents would be the easiest fix)

The rest should probably remain as mods.

[Kerbart]

Dreaming is nice. If I had to put my money on it, I'd say that we'll be getting more plane parts though. Because basically, any new parts we get these days seem to be plane parts.

[MaxPeck]

I'd like something that allows you to secure (and re-secure) payloads and rovers without having to use a docking port or a decoupler.  A tie-down mechanism you could park your rover on and lock it in place, or recover a satellite and tie it down in a cargo bay without having to deal with awkwardly docking inside of a cargo bay.

[John FX]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Except that the 2-ton 1.25m tank is too short; stacks of little tanks are a Bad Thing that leads to floppy rockets.  We need a tall skinny 4-ton LF tank for the same reason we need a tall skinny 4-ton LFO tank.

And the Mk3 is not a reasonable substitute for the orange tank.  It's the wrong shape.  It looks awful, and it doesn't match up aerodynamically.   Yes, it's possible to hack a rocket together with it, but it's unpleasant (at least to me).  Let me put it another way:  Suppose the real concern here is "too many parts", and Squad just said "Okay, we're going to get rid of the Mk3 liquid fuel tanks and replace them with equivalent 2.5m rocket tanks.  Can you even imagine the (completely justified) outcry from the spaceplane people?

There needs to be a solution.  Every LFO tank there is, there needs to be a way to have the same thing except LF-only.  I don't really care if this means doubling the number of fuel tanks out there (just put 'em in a different tab, or something), or whether we get a stock fuel-switching solution so that you can simply choose on a per-tank basis which one it is.  But we need this.

Personally I think that's in the same way as some of the latest updates have not changed anything except under the hood to make the game function better and to allow for expansion later and for a more increasingly modable game, the underlying mechanism for fuel tanks should be changed to procedural with various textures.

This would greatly reduce the number of parts whilst not changing the career game in the slightest. Then there would be no need to make room for new parts by emoving old parts. 

Part of that change would be the ability to assign a particular fuel type to any tank which would solve the problem of not enough liquid fuel tanks and also make new sizes of tank incredibly easy to implement.

So to answer the question posed in the thread I do not particularly want new parts but I would like the current parts implemented in a new way

[Violent Jeb]

1.25 Liquid fuel only tanks!

1.25 Liquid fuel only tanks!

2.5 Liquid fuel only tanks!

2.5 Liquid fuel only tanks!

Seriously! Not everybody who uses the LVN is building a spaceplane. Having fuel tanks to match the fuel types the engines consume is kind of a no brainer. Its such a hacky gameplay killer to even think of half full tanks. not to mention a mass fraction which is abysmal.

with 64 bit I don't see the harm in adding the parts that need to be there. But as i've said before I can point to 6-10 wings you can get rid of if you need some space for the rocket parts to perform as desired.

FWIW, i'd also like

a longer ladder,
a mid tier landing leg,
a longer 2.5 Ore tank,
a large version of the TT-70 decoupler (it makes for safer margins when staging crafts.)
a mid tier wheel between the M1/TR2L & the XL3 (i'll give you a hint, the first two weigh 0.075t max,  the large weighs 1.25t. How about a 0.5t size?)
an mk 12 or 16 non-radial drogue (for small crafts where drogues are not desired radially)
 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Violent Jeb

[adsii1970]

I would like to see science labs for the Mk 3 size as well as habitation units (such as crew quarters). A greenhouse in the Mk 3 size would also be something nice to add.

[Alshain]

On 6/10/2016 at 0:07 PM, SchwinnTropius said:

It honestly surprises me no one had mentioned stock propellers yet. Would make atmospheric flight a lot more fun, at least for me.

I didn't forget, I just don't think they should be stock.  Jet planes played a vital role in the early days of space travel, and may yet again someday.  The only instance of a prop plane playing any role that I know of is the good ol' original Vomit Comet (C-131 Samaritan).

I've said this several times before but I would love to see a spin-off game of KSP for aircraft only which had the same building style, but didn't include space and had a much more elaborate Kerbin and much more elaborate aircraft parts.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Alshain

[cantab]

I did forget. I've been wanting an electric propeller in stock for ages. KSP has six bodies with atmosphere, five of which are feasible for flight on, but only on two do we have engines suitable for decent endurance.

[Hevak]

On June 12, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Alshain said:

Grid fins simply provide drag at one end of the craft to keep it righted.  How many times have you had a craft flip itself into an orientation you didn't want when entering the atmosphere?  If you can remember at least one time, then grid fins can be usefull.  Not just for landing first stages, but aerobraking, and landing tall craft on other planets.  It would be far more versatile than you give them credit for.

You mean like my kerbin/mun tourist rocket that likes to end flying sideways though the lower atmosphere of kerbin return instead of keeping the heat shield facing the direction of travel. I just cross my fingers and hope it doesn't blow up  .  So if I had any idea how to use these I could probably find a use for them. Chances are I'd just make things worse though.  Lol.  Sounds very Kerbalesque to me. 

Wasnt som sort of "agreement" or "partnership" type thing with space X mentioned awhile back? Did we ever see what that was referring too? Could of swore sqaud mentioned it once in a dev note or something. 

Anyways, in my opinion I think anything that equates to what is currently happening with rocket parts has good reason to be considered for the game. It is after all categorized as somewhat of a learning tool, and people relate much better to things they recognize. I'm sure that's why we have a lot of parts resembling early space parts. Like say the just about useless stayputnik thing? Think I've only ever used that as a nostalgia type thing.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Hevak

[Alshain]

1 hour ago, Hevak said:

You mean like my kerbin/mun tourist rocket that likes to end flying sideways though the lower atmosphere of kerbin return instead of keeping the heat shield facing the direction of travel. I just cross my fingers and hope it doesn't blow up  .  So if I had any idea how to use these I could probably find a use for them. Chances are I'd just make things worse though.  Lol.  Sounds very Kerbalesque to me.

Yes, that is one thing you can do with them.  As mentioned they also have actuators so you can even steer with them like a traditional fin, but they collapse so you don't have lift inducing fins at the top of your rocket during ascent screwing up your CoL.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Alshain

[Shadowsteps]

Out of the NUMEROUS things that need to be made stock (life support, dv readout, radar altimeter on the main screen, center of pressure indicator, simulation mode to name a few) this would be very, very far down the list.

[GKSP]

Some of my rockets 'sometimes' flip during stage sep, I would like them.  (Also, i'm trying to build a stock landable Falcon-9 first stage)