Procedural Parts

[Starker]

The procedural wings and fuel tanks mod was definitely the most practical mod I have used. This game could benefit greatly from adding procedural parts for engines, wings, and fuel tanks, and maybe more.

I have a few ideas for the base parts and their adjustable parameters

 

Wing

     Base width

     Tip width

     Sweep angle

     Thickness

 

Control surface

     (same parameters as wing)

 

Nose cone

     Length

     Base diameter

 

Stack adapter

     Top diameter

     Bottom diameter

     Split ratio

     Length

 

Parachute

     Area

 

Turbofan engine

     Thrust

     Vectoring range

     Thrust reverser presence

 

Turbojet engine

     Thrust

     Vectoring range

     Thrust reverser presence

 

Ramjet engine

     Thrust

     Vectoring range

 

Scramjet engine

     Thrust

     Vectoring range

 

Bell Rocket engine

     Thrust

     Bell length

     Gimbal range

 

Aerospike rocket engine

     Thrust

 

Nuclear rocket engine

Thrust

Bell length

     Gimbal range

 

Ion Engine

Thrust

 

Hybrid engine (RAPIER)

Thrust

Bell length

 

Fuel tank

     Fuel type

     Shape preset

          Sphere

               Diameter

          Cylinder/cone

               Top diameter

               Bottom diameter

               Curvature (Example: hour glass)

 

Heat shield

     Diameter

     Ablator thickness

 

Reaction wheel module

     Diameter

     Max torque

 

Battery

     Type (radial/inline)

     Energy storage

     Diameter

 

RCS Thruster

     Thrust

 

All of these adjustable parameters should accurately affect the rest of the derived parameters of the parts. Example: increasing bell length would add mass, but lower the optimum ambient pressure for a rocket engine.

This is a lot to ask for, but I am in support of a non-free dlc for this game. Most of the great mods out there are dead and this game still has much potential.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Starker

[Spricigo]

Procedural nosecones == fairings

The only procedural part I think is "missing"  in stock game is wings. 

I'd be satisfied enough with it varying length, base  width, tip width and just in integers (You can have 1 or 2, but not 1.638) . Higher technology enables bigger wing area in a single piece.

 

[pandaman]

Procedural fuel tanks.

Maybe even limited to the same size options as now, but longer options would be good.  Select the diameter then set the length, hopefully even choose fuel type too.  Job done

[Cassel]

Procedural wings, structural parts and adapters YES!
Some procedural fuel tanks could be good idea, but not engines.

[Starker]

On 10/10/2017 at 11:50 PM, Cassel said:

Procedural wings, structural parts and adapters YES!
Some procedural fuel tanks could be good idea, but not engines.

I have noticed that many seem to be opposed to procedural engines and they may not be possible with KSP's engine beyond solid rocket motors.

Instead, Squad could apply their fuel tank template scheme to engines. There could be 4 engine sizes per engine type, with each size twice as powerful as the previous one. Each engine engine size would also be compatible with one of the 4 attachment point sizes (radii).

This partially exists with rocket engines. I would like to see more sizes of turbojets, ramjets, hybrid rockets, and even ion engines. Currently, my larger SSTO craft look a little silly with their swarms of undersized atmospheric engines.

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, Starker said:

Currently, my larger SSTO craft look a little silly with their swarms of undersized atmospheric engines.

The engines are of the correct size, the plane is oversized. 

The option in stock game are flexible enough to you build an oversized spaceplane.

[MoarBoostersRUS]

Procedural engines are unnecessary with tweak scale 

[Van Disaster]

Good luck with this ( genuine ) - we've only been trying to get proc parts added for years & look how far we got :S

[Mukita12]

I support This

[linuxgurugamer]

 

On 10/10/2017 at 12:46 AM, Starker said:

 

All of these adjustable parameters should accurately affect the rest of the derived parameters of the parts. Example: increasing bell length would add mass, but lower the optimum ambient pressure for a rocket engine.

This is a lot to ask for, but I am in support of a non-free dlc for this game. Most of the great mods out there are dead and this game still has much potential.

 

This is rather a strong.statement.  I’m not denying that some really good mods have died, but saying “most of the great mod are dead” is a bit too over the top.

Why don’t you be a bit mor specific?  Also, one person’s definition of “great” may not be another.

 

[TheDestroyer111]

Procedural parts in stock?! That's most likely the #1 worst suggestion i have seen on this forum! That would COMPLETELY break the KSP "engineering" gameplay.

Edited October 14, 2017 by TheDestroyer111

[Starker]

On 10/12/2017 at 5:06 PM, MoarBoostersRUS said:

Procedural engines are unnecessary with tweak scale 

I must've fallen short with my research because I didn't find this mod until you suggested it. This addresses most of my qualms. Thank you!

Hopefully this will stay up to date with future KSP versions.

[NSEP]

On 13/10/2017 at 2:06 AM, MoarBoostersRUS said:

Procedural engines are unnecessary with tweak scale 

True.

I would still love to see a Procedural Engine mod, especially for Realism Overhaul.

[Urses]

13 minutes ago, NSEP said:

True.

I would still love to see a Procedural Engine mod, especially for Realism Overhaul.

@NSEP like mentioned above try Tweakscale, but a word of Warning. It is like with Galileos, Nerteas, RoverDudes and Alistas modes, you become godlike and play no more KSP Vanilla (you can't it anymore)

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

[linuxgurugamer]

27 minutes ago, Urses said:

@NSEP like mentioned above try Tweakscale, but a word of Warning. It is like with Galileos, Nerteas, RoverDudes and Alistas modes, you become godlike and play no more KSP Vanilla (you can't it anymore)

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

I actually used PP for a while, but became dissatisfied with it.  Now I only use it to shrink some parts to fill in for missing parts

[MoarBoostersRUS]

 

8 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I actually used PP for a while, but became dissatisfied with it.  Now I only use it to shrink some parts to fill in for missing parts

I feel the same way, I only use procedural tanks to keep part count down on large things but it feels cheaty when I can make a rocket that can land on the moon before I've unlocked any tech nodes. Tweak scale feels the same way, 200% mammoth engines is a crap ton of lifting power but I do like the ability to down size things.