Procedural Part Wishlist

[cocoscacao]

2 hours ago, tstein said:

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

Better to have ladders and be unable to reach them, than to forget them altogether...

But yeah, I was also hoping for procedural fuel tanks....

[neelrj]

I would like to see procedural engines because:

1. I think that it would be educational not just do you have to choose an engine from a list
2. do you want it to be optimized for atmosphere or space
3. do you want presser fed or are you willing to weight/cost consequence of larger more efficient engines

I would like to see procedural fuel tanks because:

1. it is silly that some of the shapes and sizes that are only available with certain types of fuel, at least being able to change the cargo content would be a big help.
2. having some procedural tank would also reduce part counts and make the game run smother, compromise could be the ability to fuse part in the editor

[TheOtherDave]

Yeah, if procedural tanks will reduce the parts count (and they will), they I say bring them on.

I’m less sold on procedural engines, other than to say that having the mechanism in place would probably make things easier for modders who are trying to add different sizes.

[bigyihsuan]

Procedural engines would be hell to implement. Though, if Simple Rockets 2/Juno can do it, surely KSP can as well.

[mattinoz]

On 4/10/2022 at 4:36 AM, KSACheese said:

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.

Having had a mis-spent youth with a good hand me down lego collection the whole Procedural parts aren't lego like still confuses me. 

I mean if I make a shape like a tank profile I can repeat that profile in one block high increments until I run out of blocks and It become one things as far as I'm concerns although it still could fall apart. Well just adapt to the changing situations on the fly. 

ie Bring it on as far as procedural goes for me . 

Tanks, booster, solar panels, wings the works. Have an off thread structural test in the part that might deform the tank in a future (milliseconds later) physics frame so the slow down happens as things go pear-shaped and you can watch the full glory of the explosion.