Concern about procedural things and other 'QOL' improvements

[snkiz]

I tried out Procedural wings for the second time this week. The first time I did, long ago it was clunky and not very intuitive. This time however it took a few min to figure out the controls and it was super easy, barely an inconvenience. And that's my problem.

Kerbal has been inspirational for me because I'm forced to use a certain set of parts. I have to figure out how to work with what I have. 'Lego' rockets was a good idea. I'm all for reducing redundancy. I really hope we have fuel switch on the generic tanks and not 4 versions of every tank, except the one you really want. When I used Pwings, none of that mattered. I could just make any shape I want, any size. So I did, the end result was spectacular, if I do say so myself (see pic.) When I got finished doing that, I felt... nothing. Pwings are wonderful tools, that sapped all the challenge and fun out building an unconventional design with triangles and rectangles. I had no sense of accomplishment, even though I am very happy with the end product. 

So that's my fear about the qol changes, are they going to end up just being an easy button? Is the hand holding going to take away from that sense of satisfaction you get when something clicks for you? I don't know, I don't know if anyone else even cares. Lot's of people want to move away from the 'lego' build style. These are my thoughts on the subject, have a screenshot for your trouble. One of these I feel pride for.

[jastrone]

if you make wings out of many parts in ksp 1 it looks bad, there z-fighting and its laggy. on top of that it is frustrating to make. parts dont go where you want them and you really have to look to get the correct part with the correct size and shape. and i wouldnt say its difficult. i could easily figure out a design and how to make it but its just frustrating to make because nothing works like its suposed to. 

and there is a BIG difference between difficult and frustrating and making good looking wings in ksp is not difficult.

If the devs make a good system for procedural wings that would be awesome andi would use that a lot.

[regex]

The "LEGO" paradigm bugs the absolute crap out of me; I don't feel more creative, I feel completely constrained and limited to using excess garbage parts in order to get a particular look which never looks right and, as noted, results in Z-fighting and all sort of other visual clutter. Plus, the parts picker is so damn cluttered. Clean that crap up.

We need procedural tanks and solar panels (if we don't already) as well as the procedural wings and radiators. It's super easy to clamp sizes to progression as well, people having been doing that for years in KSP1 mods already and with that we still get some of the "LEGO" benefits.

Edited February 5, 2023 by regex

[snkiz]

43 minutes ago, jastrone said:

f you make wings out of many parts in ksp 1 it looks bad, there z-fighting and its laggy.

There is no zfighting on either of those crafts. It isn't hard to move a part enough to get rid of the zfighting.  I  have made the seams work for me. and I think it worked out.  I'm not concerned with part clipping as it's an intended mechanic. It would be nice if tank volumes adjusted for that. 

The thing is with lego when you feel constrained, you can always get more lego. Both of those were built with mods compliant with runway project. AP+ alone is like an expansion pack of wing bits. yet, I still didn't have exactly what I wanted. Look I'm not against Pwings or rads or other part that it makes sense for. I'm just worried that it loses something being as easy as the Pwings mod. I don't see how to fix that, I hope they did.

But tanks?  That's simple rockets not kerbal.  Hard no. There's no reason for it if the the tanks are configurable. (standard tanks. Balloon tanks, specialty tanks are another matter. )  The exception I would make for that is adapters. It's frustrating not having the right size/shape or wasted empty volume of adapter. If you size limited a procedural tank for gameplay reasons, then people are just gonna stack them anyway, so you haven't solved a problem like you can argue wings or radiators or adaptors would.

[regex]

2 minutes ago, snkiz said:

If you size limited a procedural tank for gameplay reasons, then people are just gonna stack them anyway, so you haven't solved a problem like you can argue wings or radiators or adaptors would.

You can't make a clean-looking R-7 without procedural parts, so that's a problem that can be solved. Limiting procedural part sizes by tech tree progression is fine; you get one tank that can be sized to 0.625, 1.25, 1.875, 2.5, 3.75, 5, and so on, with varying lengths. Being able to change one end to a point and the other end to 1.25 with a varying length would be fantastic and really open up the variety of shapes available for less in terms of parts cost (and thus processing cost). Plus, you declutter the parts picker.

[snkiz]

Just now, regex said:

Being able to change one end to a point and the other end to 1.25 with a varying length would be fantastic and really open up the variety of shapes available for less in terms of parts cost

That's an adapter. Sure make them procedural that makes sense. For regular tanks you can handle size, length (standard set. something like 1/8u, 1/4u, ....4u, 8u.) and fuel contents in part variants. They are mostly the same models with different skins, or should be.You could even handle structural parts, because they can swap models. Part variants were a good idea that was late to kebal. I think it that if it was there form the start, that's how it would have been used. 

[regex]

Just now, snkiz said:

That's an adapter.

I want it with fuel in it. I want it to have a configurable size and length. I want to do odd lengths of tanks as well. I think aircraft fuselage parts should be configurable length as well, not just "part variant" lengths but odd lengths as well.

[snkiz]

Just now, regex said:

I want it with fuel in it. I want it to have a configurable size and length. I want to do odd lengths of tanks as well. I think aircraft fuselage parts should be configurable length as well, not just "part variant" lengths but odd lengths as well.

Again that is a feature you can handle with variants, Odd lengths is something I have have a problem with, you complain about z-fighting?  What about trying to match your custom part sizes so they don't collide, and the textures and gerebals match up? Standard sizes solves that. I don't want to deal with that that's the beauty of modular sizing. If there was a part that functioned like the fairing with nodes enabled,  you could pick your size adapter that way, then the adapter/tank appears  and fits the nodes its connected to. I think your need for odd lengths would be solved by formalizing the unit length and step. Then making most parts available in those sizes. ksp1 has 1/8, all the way up to 8u for almost every profile in some form. But none have them for every stack class of part. That does suck, I hope they fix that. I totally agree that there doesn't need to be a menu full of these things. just we have a way of doing that, that fits the 'lego' pragim KSP has chosen. Dropping that for the core part of every ship is a fundamental change that make it different game. I hope you aren't holding for breath for that. I think one tank/structural model per profile can cover the bases with options for textures, fuel, and enough lengths. Honestly 1/8u of the mk1 profile is a battery, why do you need to split that further?

[regex]

32 minutes ago, snkiz said:

Odd lengths is something I have have a problem with, you complain about z-fighting?

No, I want to have more freedom of parts than simple variants would provide.

32 minutes ago, snkiz said:

I hope you aren't holding for breath for that.

Of course not. In fact, I find your concerns and the fact that you thought them worthy of a thread kind of silly considering the game we have now and the fact that gameplay doesn't appear to be changing in the least for KSP2.

[snkiz]

1 hour ago, regex said:

No, I want to have more freedom of parts than simple variants would provide.

Of course not. In fact, I find your concerns and the fact that you thought them worthy of a thread kind of silly considering the game we have now and the fact that gameplay doesn't appear to be changing in the least for KSP2.

Procedural radiators, and wings are confirmed. Nothing else is nailed down, publicly. Even then isn't this the point of EA? I tried it out with what I had available to do it. I found it lacking. I know it won't be the same in the new game, I'm really hoping to presently surprised. I'm sorry this doesn't seem like an import issue to you, but it is to me, and you thought my thread was worthy enough to reply to either way. Would you prefer I focus my concern on being butt hurt over clouds or multiplayer?

[regex]

4 minutes ago, snkiz said:

I'm sorry this doesn't seem like an import issue to you

It's very important to me, only I prefer that they add more quality of life stuff, reduce the parts list, add more procedural parts, basically unchain building from the sad, Z-fighting, clipped world of KSP1.

Edited February 5, 2023 by regex

[Bej Kerman]

16 hours ago, snkiz said:

Pwings are wonderful tools, that sapped all the challenge and fun out building an unconventional design with triangles and rectangles. I had no sense of accomplishment, even though I am very happy with the end product. 

Building wings isn't something that needs to be difficult. Your sense of accomplishment came not from solving an aerodynamics problem or refining a design, but rather working around an obtuse artefact of the LEGO paradigm. If players feel proud for managing to work around a needlessly complicated part of the game, the game has messed up.

When Pwings come round with EA, your sense of accomplishment should come from making a wing that works how you want it to, not merely managing to get a wing together. Hopefully this will incentivise thinking "How can I make a wing that is efficient in the speed regime I am targeting?" as opposed to "How can I make something that remotely looks like a wing?".

16 hours ago, snkiz said:

So that's my fear about the qol changes, are they going to end up just being an easy button?

This is a hideous oversimplification. You still need to consider things like e.g. what shape wings you need in order to fly supersonic efficiently, something you likely didn't think about because you were too distracted by KSP 1's awful wing building. A QOL that lets you focus on the actual physics of wings isn't an "easy button". The last thing Pwings is, is an "easy button". If you install FAR and actually begin thinking about what kinds of wings you need for certain tasks rather than just making sure the CoL is right without thinking any deeper, you'll see clear as day that it isn't an easy button and merely places challenge where the challenge should be in a game where having spaceplanes to use puts you at a massive advantage to people using typical rockets. You still need to design wings and anyone who is using the feature properly isn't just bashing out things that look like wings in 5 seconds without any deeper thought to how the used wings might impact the flight dynamics.

[tstein]

13 hours ago, regex said:

It's very important to me, only I prefer that they add more quality of life stuff, reduce the parts list, add more procedural parts, basically unchain building from the sad, Z-fighting, clipped world of KSP1.

In general I agree with this.  The reason to exist a second part B in separate of part A should always be:

-Different functionality

-Different technology/efficiency

-Different SHAPE

Different size is not a reasonable one. It is simply stupid, makes zero sense, helps in nothing the game play.

 

We should have fuel tanks by TYPE of fuel, by attachment types (radian, spherical,  clasic cylinder) while ALL dimensions should be parametrization UP to  some size limit (upwards and downards both)

 

Structural stuff are the same.  Why in hell I need to stack 10  cubic ones? I shoudl have a single part that when I stretch it is assembled by 10  cubes. That is better for  design, it is better for the PHYSICS and it is better for game stability.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by tstein

[snkiz]

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

When Pwings come round with EA, your sense of accomplishment should come from making a wing that works how you want it to, not merely managing to get a wing together.

Actually no, I'm very good a wing design for kerbal.   You can't see it on that craft but That wing is not flat. They both fly well with no SAS. I don't use FAR. Because when I'm not making movie planes, my SSTO's are to slipery for FAR. Again earth atmo on Kerbin  is to easy. I like the game balance more or less where it is. I'm not commenting on how to attach wings, that's jank and I'm aware. I'm talking about the spirit of working with what you have. Even with mods I often restrict myself  for some reason or other, this one was runway project rules.

Edited February 6, 2023 by snkiz
punctuation

[snkiz]

1 hour ago, tstein said:

In general I agree with this.  The reason to exist a second part B in separate of part A should always be:

-Different functionality

-Different technology/efficiency

-Different SHAPE

Different size is not a reasonable one. It is simply stupid, makes zero sense, helps in nothing the game play.

 

We should have fuel tanks by TYPE of fuel, by attachment types (radian, spherical,  clasic cylinder) while ALL dimensions should be parametrization UP to  some size limit (upwards and downards both)

 

Structural stuff are the same.  Why in hell I need to stack 10  cubic ones? I shoudl have a single part that when I stretch it is assembled by 10  cubes. That is better for  design, it is better for the PHYSICS and it is better for game stability.

 

 

I don't know how anyone got the Idea I was against any of this. I clearly laid out how it could be accomplished with some procedural, and mostly existing tools. Kerbal tools.

Edited February 6, 2023 by snkiz

[Bej Kerman]

8 minutes ago, snkiz said:

I'm very good a wing design for kerbal

8 minutes ago, snkiz said:

my SSTO's are to slipery for FAR

I'm just saying, if the way you fix your SSTO is by removing FAR and using the woefully underqualified stock aero instead rather than tackling whatever issues your SSTO has (undersized fin?), I think I am allowed to have my doubts.

9 minutes ago, snkiz said:

I like the game balance more or less where it is. I'm not commenting on how to attach wings, that's jank and I'm aware. I'm talking about the spirit of working with what you have. Even with mods I often restrict myself  for some reason or other, this one was runway project rules.

The spirit of "working with what you have" adds nada to the game and detracts from the challenge of creating wing designs. Players shouldn't be thinking "how can I get this approximate shape using these janky wing parts?", they need to be thinking "using these tweakables, how can I make a wing that allows my aircraft to maintain supercruise?". Having to work with LEGO does not add anything but an unnecessary layer of tedium that detracts from being able to properly tackle the challenges of capturing the flight dynamics you want for your aircraft.

20 hours ago, snkiz said:

I'm just not seeing how the left one looks good. The one on the right has wings that are actually coherent.

[snkiz]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

I'm just saying, if the way you fix your SSTO is by removing FAR and using the woefully underqualified stock aero instead rather than tackling whatever issues your SSTO has (undersized fin?), I think I am allowed to have my doubts.

I've used FAR I know how it works, I know these wouldn't work in any regime than they were designed for, in betwwen the buildings on the streets of gotham. Like I said I like the balance where it is. FAR is fine if you playing Real scale. My issue with ssto's and FAR is it doesn't matter, they get out of the soup to fast. I love it, if in the new version, they took some far goodness and properly scaled it. But while the game is balanced the way it is, I'll just enjoy the fact that my sifi creations will get there. 

It would seem that all the counterpoints to me are based on realism. kerbal isn't real, the dev's aren't trying to make it real, and I have accepted that. I choose to work with what the game has. I've been down that treadmill before.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, snkiz said:

I've used FAR I know how it works, I know these wouldn't work in any regime than they were designed for, in betwwen the buildings on the streets of gotham. Like I said I like the balance where it is. FAR is fine if you playing Real scale. My issue with ssto's and FAR is it doesn't matter, they get out of the soup to fast. I love it, if in the new version, they took some far goodness and properly scaled it. But while the game is balanced the way it is, I'll just enjoy the fact that my sifi creations will get there. 

It would seem that all the counterpoints to me are based on realism. kerbal isn't real, the dev's aren't trying to make it real, and I have accepted that. I choose to work with what the game has. I've been down that treadmill before.

All of my points have been based on streamlining gameplay e.g. the devs adding routine missions so you aren't doing the same resupply mission over and over again, so players can focus on worthwhile gameplay.

Sticking together bits of cardboard in a futile attempt to make a coherent wing all while being distracted from the problem of making a wing design that makes sense for the target speed your aircraft is aiming for is not worthwhile gameplay, and the devs are streamlining gameplay here by allowing the player to focus on the problem of figuring out how to make wings that properly serve the aircraft they are attached to - or, as you said it for some reason, allowing the player to use an "easy button".

Can't stress this enough, a QOL feature that makes gameplay less mundane and allows the game's aero simulation to properly shine isn't equal to an "I win" button.

[snkiz]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

a wing design that makes sense for the target speed your aircraft is aiming for

is not a part of stock kerbal, and won't be in the sequel. so what's your point?

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, snkiz said:

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

a wing design that makes sense for the target speed your aircraft is aiming for

is not a part of stock kerbal, and won't be in the sequel. so what's your point?

Just to be clear, did you just say KSP 2 won't have procedural wings?

https://i.imgur.com/tEvXaYx.mp4

That's not what I am seeing here.

[snkiz]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Just to be clear, did you just say KSP 2 won't have procedural wings?

https://i.imgur.com/tEvXaYx.mp4

That's not what I am seeing here.

No I said it wouldn't have FAR like accuracy, or Replica parts. The game is inspired by the real world, it doesn't mimic it. That was made clear ages ago.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, snkiz said:

No I said it wouldn't have FAR like accuracy, or Replica parts. The game is inspired by the real world, it doesn't mimic it. That was made clear ages ago.

We do not have up-to-date info on what kind of aero model they are using. But given the competency of Intercept, I'd expect that by now they're aiming for something closer to FAR. The game's inspired by the real world but that doesn't give it an excuse to be hideously unrealistic.

[snkiz]

26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'm just not seeing how the left one looks good. The one on the right has wings that are actually coherent.

I think they both look good. The Pwing one is downright sexy. The regular one, it's like batman created in the starwars universe. It has it's own cham imo.

[Bej Kerman]

Anything more than a student game, that aims to simulate aerodynamics, needs to properly account for how the shape of a set of wings affects the performance of an aircraft.

Just now, snkiz said:

The regular one, it's like batman created in the starwars universe. It has it's own cham imo.

Charm

[snkiz]

No we don't have any real info on the areo. I making my judgement based on the language they've used so far. I hope it's better, But I don't believe they are targeting that level.

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Anything more than a student game, that aims to simulate aerodynamics, needs to properly account for how the shape of a set of wings affects the performance of an aircraft.

Charm

ya dyslexia is not fun on the internet.