Best way to prevent part amount creep?

[Jestersage]

When I first went it, I say myself: "Okay, part number, function, delta-V/TRW first, aesthetic be damned"

Now I found myself starting to find some of my craft start to ignore that "rule".

So how does everyone, especially those focus on low-part count, prevent oneself from going part count crazy?

[Shadow dream]

 

[klond]

3 hours ago, Jestersage said:

prevent oneself from going part count crazy?

 Lag usually does it for me.  When it starts to feel uncomfortable and the fun factor goes down cuz frames are low, then it's too many parts.

[Mr. Peabody]

K.I.S.S.

Keep it simple stupid

[Lisias]

4 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

K.I.S.S.

Keep it simple stupid

What could be more simple than throwing parts until the thing just works?  

[qzgy]

5 minutes ago, Lisias said:

What could be more simple than throwing parts until the thing just works?  

Or till it looks pretty.

Edited December 13, 2018 by qzgy

[Fearless Son]

I have found benefit from using larger parts as substitutions for many smaller parts.  For example, using larger wing sections instead of smaller structural wing components.  The Making History expansion has also done a lot to add multi-functional parts which can use a single part to take the place of several others.  For example, the Munar Excursion Module combines the functionality of a command module with a small built-in fuel tank, monopropellant tank, battery, control wheel, and RCS system, with enough space for two crew.  Similarly, the Kerbodyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank lets me stick lots of engines on without needing to use Cubic Octagonal Struts or Aerodynamic Nose Cones onto a short fuel tank.

[Foxster]

I suspect your aesthetics are different to mine. I find "prettiness" in a well designed/functioning craft, not in whether it has bits stuck on to create some sci-fi look or whatever. 

[Geonovast]

My answer was more RAM and an i7.  Part count optimization was never really my thing.

[Jestersage]

On 12/12/2018 at 11:32 PM, Foxster said:

I suspect your aesthetics are different to mine. I find "prettiness" in a well designed/functioning craft, not in whether it has bits stuck on to create some sci-fi look or whatever. 

Oh come on, mine is not that pretty... I want it streamlined, but lego-y is enough...

On 12/12/2018 at 6:01 PM, Fearless Son said:

I have found benefit from using larger parts as substitutions for many smaller parts.  For example, using larger wing sections instead of smaller structural wing components.  The Making History expansion has also done a lot to add multi-functional parts which can use a single part to take the place of several others.  For example, the Munar Excursion Module combines the functionality of a command module with a small built-in fuel tank, monopropellant tank, battery, control wheel, and RCS system, with enough space for two crew.  Similarly, the Kerbodyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank lets me stick lots of engines on without needing to use Cubic Octagonal Struts or Aerodynamic Nose Cones onto a short fuel tank.

Yeah, pretty much doing this -- until you find some how it does not look pretty enough, and you throw in 4 parts here, and 2 parts there...

[Shaun]

Thanks to the auto strut system, struts aren’t needed. There is also an option in settings that allows fuel to feed if not directly connected, which means you can get rid of fuel lines. You can still disable cross feed to stop various stages feeding.

For me, every part has to be practical. Once that’s done, I may clean up with a few aesthetics, aerodynamics etc. Nothing too crazy; a winglet, little antenna or something. Nothing like “I’ll attach empty RCS tanks to my rocket engines so it looks like they have helium tanks.” or “I’m making a replica so I’m going to add a ton of solar panels to make a cockpit.”

I find the problem with replicas I see on the forums, especially planes, is that they all concentrate too much on looks and not on performance. Most have so many draggy parts, the jets can’t reach mach 0.50 so they have to clip in more engines, giving a stupidly fast take off and climb, but then they get to speed and all the laggy aerodynamic effects take over.

My replicas only resemble the basic look and function of what I’m going for. If I’m making a U-2 for example, I’m not going to clip a load of small wings together to get the wing shape, because now I have 50 parts per wing. I’ll just use the larger wings, providing more life, less physics to calculate and a cleaner airframe. If it’s got a long cigar nose and long wings, everyone knows it’s based on the U-2. If i rotate the wings slightly, it can cruise at high altitude without the need of SAS.

The only time I’ll use more parts is if I want to use Juno jets in place of a wheesy or panther; much better altitude and speed performance than the wheesy, better efficiency than the panther, lighter and cheaper than both.

[Jestersage]

3 hours ago, Shaun said:

For me, every part has to be practical. Once that’s done, I may clean up with a few aesthetics, aerodynamics etc. Nothing too crazy; a winglet, little antenna or something. Nothing like “I’ll attach empty RCS tanks to my rocket engines so it looks like they have helium tanks.” or “I’m making a replica so I’m going to add a ton of solar panels to make a cockpit.”

I find the problem with replicas I see on the forums, especially planes, is that they all concentrate too much on looks and not on performance. Most have so many draggy parts, the jets can’t reach mach 0.50 so they have to clip in more engines, giving a stupidly fast take off and climb, but then they get to speed and all the laggy aerodynamic effects take over.

My replicas only resemble the basic look and function of what I’m going for. If I’m making a U-2 for example, I’m not going to clip a load of small wings together to get the wing shape, because now I have 50 parts per wing. I’ll just use the larger wings, providing more life, less physics to calculate and a cleaner airframe. If it’s got a long cigar nose and long wings, everyone knows it’s based on the U-2. If i rotate the wings slightly, it can cruise at high altitude without the need of SAS.

Agree completely. The problem is how do you stop yourself from starting to add parts when you don't need it. If you look at my crafts at kerbalX, you will notice there is a part-number increase vs functions.

[Foxster]

59 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

The problem is how do you stop yourself from starting to add parts when you don't need it.

Why do you feel you have to stop yourself?

My personal aesthetics are for function over appearance i.e. it has to work efficiently as the first priority. However, that doesn't mean my craft are a random pile of parts. Once I have the function, I then spend probably even more time arranging those parts so that it is pleasing to my eye but I don't do things that reduce the efficiency of the craft other than tiny amounts. I also won't clip parts inside others where this would not be possible IRL, so no tanks within tanks and such. 

But that's just my preferences. You might be quite happy with an escalating part count and as long as the craft does what you want it to then what's wrong with that?

Edited December 20, 2018 by Foxster

[Shaun]

1 hour ago, Jestersage said:

Agree completely. The problem is how do you stop yourself from starting to add parts when you don't need it. If you look at my crafts at kerbalX, you will notice there is a part-number increase vs functions.

Start believing simple is beautiful. You’ll start to think simple craft are way better, especially if they’re atmospheric. Personally I can’t stand all these super realistic looking replicas. The Aeris 4a is beautiful 

[Snark]

Moving to KSP Discussion.

[magnemoe]

On 12/14/2018 at 10:01 PM, Geonovast said:

My answer was more RAM and an i7.  Part count optimization was never really my thing.

This, the brute force more boosters solution also work in real life, its also helps with other games and software. 
Still my minmus base during peak hours like the Jool push was an slideshow. 

[Fearless Son]

6 hours ago, Shaun said:

Thanks to the auto strut system, struts aren’t needed. There is also an option in settings that allows fuel to feed if not directly connected, which means you can get rid of fuel lines. You can still disable cross feed to stop various stages feeding.

I do still find struts useful for some very specific kinds of functionality.  For example, I like to arrange discarding boosters such that their attachment point is high up along the booster's body.  I then use a strut to fix the bottom of the booster in place so it doesn't "wiggle" from the top.  Add a little winglet to the bottom of the booster, then when it detaches the explosive bolts in the separation part push the top of the booster away from the craft, causing it to peal neatly away from the body of the lifter.  If I auto-strut the boosters, the auto-strut would calculate from the center of the booster part's mass, which would limit the leveraging forces during detachment.

But in general, yeah, the auto-strut system has drastically reduced my part count overall.

 

2 hours ago, Foxster said:

I also won't clip parts inside others where this would not be possible IRL, so no tanks within tanks and such. 

Same.  I do a tiny bit of clipping for aesthetic reasons, such as making fixed solar panels more flush with surfaces, or pushing something partly inside of a structural part that can fit it ("Cut-and-weld" is how I like to think of them fitting together.)  But I avoid clipping if I thought it would plausibly interfere with the functionality of the thing.

[Norcalplanner]

SSTU. Seriously. The command module includes RCS thrusters, drogue and main chutes, a docking port, and a heat shield. One part.

And the tanks are customizable too. I frequently play with USI-LS, and will have a procedural tank with fuel, oxidizer, monoprop, thousands of EC, supplies, mulch, and fertilizer. Again, one part.

[Kernel Kraken]

For a second I was confused until I realised you were talking about the unavoidable Frame Rate Sledgehammer of Awesomeness. Only the most awesome craft are given the privilege of being flown in 30 seconds per frame instead of 60 frames per second.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Kernel Kraken