Procedural Part Wishlist

[poopslayer78]

The KSP2 team has showcased some very large ships and has emphasized that the new physics engine will be heavy optimized and ruggedized to enable these ambitious ships to exist.

That said, great wealth is not in having many things but in having few needs.  Avoiding unnecessarily high part counts with procedural parts is also great because it is orthogonal to the physics engine optimizations and could also have other benefits like additional customization and a less cluttered part list.

Here are my thoughts on parts that would be great if they had procedural options without breaking the game.

1. Trusses (I noticed the "grand tour plus" ship in feature video #5 contained discreet trusses, albeit very very large ones and not too many).
2. Fuel Tanks
3. Solid Rocket Boosters (I think general procedural engines would break the game balance)
4. Solar panels (It sounds like these have already been considered and deemed unnecessary, but I think they'd at least look really cool).
5. Fairings (already in KSP1)

Furthermore, I think KSP1 was right by creating "all in one" probe cores that contained weak batteries, reaction wheels, antennae, and monopropellant tanks inside a single part.  The built-in parts weren't powerful enough to make adding dedicated parts unnecessary but eliminated unnecessary parts when only light use was required.

Either way, good job KSP2 team, sounds like you're doing great!  Also, don't implement anything I ask for unless it was already scoped into a 2022 release timeline before I asked for it .  You have more info internally than I do and I trust you guys!

[darthgently]

6. Service bays.

[KSACheese]

Personally, I disagree with fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters. I think that the game would lose a lot of it's lego-ness that I love so dearly. To be fair, it could definitely be useful in reducing part count and making rockets a bit more custom, but again, I think the "slap-it-all-together" nature is somewhat diminished when using procedural tanks and boosters. Also, a big challenge in KSP1, and likely again in KSP2, is being able to build what you can with the parts on-hand, and that is also messed up a bit when procedurals are introduced. If, however, they have limited presets (similar to those structural tube pieces in KSP1), or can be limited by what tech level you are at, I could get on board with it.

As far as SRBs go, however, I think and interesting solution would be to instead add solid fuel sections that can customize the burn time or thrust to a certain degree. If I am not mistaken, some SRBs in real life are segmented, but I may be wrong about this.

I completely agree with the structural parts, however. Sometimes a truss is either just a bit too short or a bit too long and can be quite frustrating. Completely agree.

[Bej Kerman]

57 minutes ago, poopslayer78 said:

Solid Rocket Boosters (I think general procedural engines would break the game balance)

An SRB is already an engine and is prone to the same balancing issues.

57 minutes ago, poopslayer78 said:

Solar panels (It sounds like these have already been considered and deemed unnecessary, but I think they'd at least look really cool).

It was hastily deemed unnecessary by Nate, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. There are millions of applications for tiny and differently shaped solar panels - it doesn't start and end at being "big, interestingly-shaped" as Nate said.

[Vl3d]

Procedural Radiators video already showcased procedural trusses.

Solid rocket boosters should indeed be segmented and extensible to control burn time.

I would like the same for fuel tanks - but most importantly have the ability to group/merge tanks together as a single part.

I would also like procedural radiators to not look like solar panels.

[darthgently]

42 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

but most importantly have the ability to group/merge tanks together as a single part.

This.  More part merging.  I gather the main issue with is part module conflicts (duplicates and nonsensical combinations).  But if the parts have identical part modules, merging should be simple, stock, operation where a single part module takes the place of duplicates.  Of course the new instance of the part module, like for example a module for a cryo tank that deals with tank temp and boil-off, would have to be able to deal with being merged into a bigger tank and alter its processing parameters accordingly

[poopslayer78]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I would also like procedural radiators to not look like solar panels.

Same.  The new procedural radiators look amazing but I agree they look more like solar panels than radiators.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Procedural Radiators video already showcased procedural trusses.

As a required component of radiators. It didn't showcase actual procedural trusses.

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Solid rocket boosters should indeed be segmented and extensible to control burn time.

You can already adjust how much fuel an SRB starts with.

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I would like the same for fuel tanks - but most importantly have the ability to group/merge tanks together as a single part.

This I agree with.

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I would also like procedural radiators to not look like solar panels.

46 minutes ago, poopslayer78 said:

Same.  The new procedural radiators look amazing but I agree they look more like solar panels than radiators.

You don't make the call on what spaceship radiators will look like in 200-300 years time. This is what radiators will look like in the future - lightweight and efficient. KSP 2 will probably have your early-game old white bulky inefficient radiators for starting out and building ISS replicas, but it will not be able to keep late game engines cool.

[Vl3d]

This should be taken into consideration for Early Access. We have procedural wings, radiators and fairings but we could also use procedural parts that like add good as the non-procedural ones:

- tanks / booster segments

- cargo bays

- structural parts (trusses, walls etc.)

And also we could really, really use part merging (welding, grouping).

[TheOtherDave]

I vote for procedural everything (except maybe some of the engines), with research nodes unlocking bigger (or smaller) limits.

It does take away a bit of the Legoness, but it also keeps the part counts down. This helps the game run smoother and reduces the chances of both spaghetti rockets and kraken attacks.

Edited November 12, 2022 by TheOtherDave

[regex]

We absolutely need procedural fuel tanks, especially ones that allow us to create proper R-7 booster tanks. The ones that come with the DLC are, quite plainly, bad.

This is not the shape of an R-7 side tank. In reality it's a cone on top of a truncated cone on top of a cylinder; if you set it upright it will have a defined centerline.

Spoiler

That's three procedural parts to allow for proper R-7 construction, not to mention the millions of other possibilities procedural tanks like that will open up, all with reduced part counts.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 4/9/2022 at 2:10 PM, poopslayer78 said:

Solid Rocket Boosters (I think general procedural engines would break the game balance)

I think for both engines procedural parts would be viable and not game breaking so long as limits to those procedural systems were in place and could be expanded as the tech tree gets more complete.

[Lowi_Sace]

In KSP2 we will have procedural wings, radiators and panels/beams. I think feul tanks and solid rocked boosters should also have a procedural option. A way to do this is that you select your feul tank or booster (type and diameter) and then can adjust the length. No more stacking a lot of tanks and having them just not be de right size. Also having solid rocked boosters of the right length.

[poopslayer78]

I also like this idea, not just for freedom during construction, but also for reducing part count and unnecessary physics calculations.

[regex]

I think we should also be able to have cones and truncated cones of varying lengths in addition to simple cylinders. Being able to create fueled nose cones and adapters would be excellent.

Edited February 20, 2023 by regex

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[dansiegel30]

Procedural tanks will certain be in KSP2 at some point, but lets be honest, thats for advanced users, playing in career mode, and probably on higher difficulty levels.  It offers much greater precision to your design, but adds a level of complexity that I dont think they want yet in KSP2.  Procedural wings were a must, because the stock wing design in KSP1 was a disaster.  As long as they have a tutorial for new users, I think it will be ok. 

 

Now I certainly would prefer the devs release procedural tanks rather than relying on a mod, but I dont think its necessary now...perhaps when the drop career mode and/or colonies, where your DV requirements will vary by a huge margin, based on what cargo and where you are sending it.  However, as a bonus, procedural parts should REDUCE the number of parts for a rocket design, which is certainly the bane of the performance issues.

[DimaPT]

On 4/9/2022 at 7:10 PM, poopslayer78 said:

• Fuel Tanks
• Solid Rocket Boosters

These are the two biggest ones in my opinion, they're essentially the same.
You should have 1 fuel tank per diameter and fuel type in the parts list and just be able to change the height, even if not procedural and just premade, it would be very useful.
The possibility of changing the size of SRBs (the fuel tank only obviously) would be pretty neat to fine tune your rockets but not as useful as the Liquid Fuel tanks I mentioned above.

[royying]

KSP2 have more fuel type, each diameter and each fuel type have it's "32, 64,128,256....." variant, it is a nightmare in VAB

Just group those variant into one part like Structural Tube or Engine Plate in KSP1, let player choose the length would be much appreciated, if fuel type can be change would be perfect

[Dakitess]

I don't get how we are supposed to get Proc Radiators and Proc Solar Pannels and not tanks. It feels very off to me.

And i'm not a big fan of Procedural at all, but definitely can understand et admit the huge advantages. I like the lego-ness of KSP, it's really part of its identity and even allow to immediately recognise what a craft is made of. Sooo... Instead of Continuous Procedural, why not some Discrete Procedural ? Like, a tank would grow by a meter, then another one, with a feeling of "measurable steps" and a texture applying accordingly. That would be the best of 2 worls, nah ? I really wonder why it never happened as mod on KSP1.

[Vl3d]

There are too many tanks and trusses parts..  it would be amazing, where possible, to make them procedural step-wise by length.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Vl3d

[CanOmer]

I am in favor of procedural parts to all. My thoughts about procedaural parts:

1. Vehicle structural integrity is part-based; the connection strength between parts. So if we are able make very long procedural fuel tank, it would still be a very sturdy part because it is a single part. I am not sure if the devs would want it this way because they seem to like wobbly vehicles a lot. So, there needs to be limit on how long would the procedural tank can be and technology should definitely set the max limits.

2. If there would be cheap way to fix wobbliness such as struts or a completely free way such as autostrut, then everyone would use it. So, the case in the first argument becomes null.

3. Personally I think procedural parts should have certain limits defined by technology and bigger the part should have higher dry mass for fuel tanks for example because it gives you less wobbly vehicle. The cost of less wobbliness should be increased weight. Struts and autostrut should increase the weight depend on the connected part's weight.

Edited February 21, 2023 by CanOmer

[darthgently]

I'd like procedurals to generate a "rigidity" value depending on dimensions with an editor option to "adjust rigidity" (stringers etc) that would affect volume if internal stringers, aero if external, and mass of course.  For example.  So one rigidity measure and one rigidity adjustment, to keep it simple. 

Before someone responds, a simple wall thickness adjustment could be seen as a special case of taking stringers and bulkheads to the limit I suppose 

[tstein]

Can I add STAIRS?  I hate when my stairs are 5 cm too short for the kerbal to climb  in eve

[bigyihsuan]

Procedural tanks, trusses, and fairings are a main want for me.

The tanks they don't need to be that procedural, if it let me combine the 4 sizes (1x, 2x, 4x, 8x) into 1 part, I'll be happy.

Trusses are an interesting thing, because so many missions would benefit from a light-weight structural component as an adapter, core structural part, etc. It'd also make a great payload/interstage adapter if we can make it hollow/ring-shaped.

Fairings are a given, we have those already in KSP1.