Concern about procedural things and other 'QOL' improvements

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, snkiz said:

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.

Given the improved physics elsewhere and even three-body for binary systems, I'd at least expect them to aim for a highschool student's understanding of aerodynamics and aircraft design.

5 minutes ago, snkiz said:

ya dyslexia is not fun on the internet.

Wdym?

[snkiz]

OK I'll grant you that, but do you really believe, it's going to be FAR level? or something a little more forgiving, like everything else in the game.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, snkiz said:

OK I'll grant you that, but do you really believe, it's going to be FAR level? or something a little more forgiving, like everything else in the game.

FAR isn't any harder, nor will new players have the stock aero in their heads to unlearn. It's not difficult, it just doesn't let you reach lightspeed using propellers.

[snkiz]

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Wdym?

Forgetting letters, consistent spelling mistakes, skipping whole words and modifiers. That's me. Took years to figure out why it only got worse with practice. 

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

FAR isn't any harder

Newbies pulling 30 g's like it was nothing would disagree with you. Just because I know I can abuse the physics. doesn't mean I'm going to. Personally I try to avoid it.

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, snkiz said:

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

FAR isn't any harder

Newbies pulling 30 g's like it was nothing would disagree with you.

Newbies can learn to use fine control mode

4 minutes ago, snkiz said:

Just because I know I can abuse the physics. doesn't mean I'm going to. Personally I try to avoid it.

It doesn't need to be there either way.

[snkiz]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

Newbies can learn to use fine control mode

It doesn't need to be there either way.

I'd argue that it does, And you quoted the reason for it. Go look at reddit and see how many people rip wings off with stock areo and difficulty.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, snkiz said:

I'd argue that it does

You clicked quote and it made me look like I was saying that fine control doesn't need to be there. Can you quote me properly? I was saying that whether or not someone exploits lightspeed propellers, the idea of letting a broken aero model pass needs retiring.

[snkiz]

I'm sorry I didn't read it that way, and it wasn't my intent. 

Come to think of it usually I only use quote to get someone's attention or bring up a point. I don't actually know how to nest quote I don't do this conversational quoting, I was following you.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 2/5/2023 at 12:47 PM, snkiz said:

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.

have you tried attaching procedural wings to more procedural wings?

[snkiz]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

have you tried attaching procedural wings to more procedural wings?

See photo, you can't do that in one piece

[mcwaffles2003]

22 minutes ago, snkiz said:

See photo, you can't do that in one piece

Wow I see them now, that's awesome.  I've used procedural wings before and was wondering how you got those intense curves. You really didn't feel anything after completing that? O_o

[snkiz]

They're made in 6? pieces i don't remember. I basically tessellated them. The core is a structural part, the two inside pieces are split so I could trim out the craft. 

No, I didn't really. I mean I spent a bit of time messing with the sliders. But it really didn't take much effort. I'm used to the shape puzzles wings usually are. Add to that I try to line up textures and seams when I can. this, was next to effortless. It would have been completely effortless if that wasn't my first try. 

[snkiz]

49 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Wow I see them now, that's awesome. 

You know what, thank you! You are the first one in the thread to acknowledge them and compliment me. I appreciate that. I don't share my stuff that often, it doesn't really get noticed much.

[mcwaffles2003]

6 minutes ago, snkiz said:

You know what, thank you! You are the first one in the thread to acknowledge them and compliment me. I appreciate that. I don't share my stuff that often, it doesn't really get noticed much.

Can't get noticed if you don't share

20 minutes ago, snkiz said:

They're made in 6? pieces i don't remember. I basically tessellated them. The core is a structural part, the two inside pieces are split so I could trim out the craft. 

No, I didn't really. I mean I spent a bit of time messing with the sliders. But it really didn't take much effort. I'm used to the shape puzzles wings usually are. Add to that I try to line up textures and seams when I can. this, was next to effortless. It would have been completely effortless if that wasn't my first try. 

Well maybe you should challenge yourself even more then, or stick with the old wings... If you keep your limits to those of lego wings then no doubt you'll experience less difficulty with better tools on the same job though.

[snkiz]

13 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Well maybe you should challenge yourself even more then, or stick with the old wings... If you keep your limits to those of lego wings then no doubt you'll experience less difficulty with better tools on the same job though.

I mean not gonna have a choice about soon enough. That was why I did it. I don't know I mean I like them, but random bits of 'cardboard' felt kebal to me. These not so much, to clean. What I was, and am worried about is if/how they are going to make a system like this fit the 'found by the side of the road' vibe. It could be that just isn't a priority any more, they did say this is all about exploration. Hence the no robot parts, and props. You don't need wings in space, so are they going to be treated as a afterthought as far as gameplay and lore are concerned? Is it going to be we need these, but we don't want to fuss with them? I don't know I feel like I conquered wing puzzles. I accomplished that. There's no puzzle with these. I really doubt the aero model is going to care much what shape your wings are in KSP2, just so long as you have enough.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, snkiz said:

I mean not gonna have a choice about soon enough. That was why I did it. I don't know I mean I like them, but random bits of 'cardboard' felt kebal to me. These not so much, to clean. What I was, and am worried about is if/how they are going to make a system like this fit the 'found by the side of the road' vibe. It could be that just isn't a priority any more, they did say this is all about exploration. Hence the no robot parts, and props. You don't need wings in space, so are they going to be treated as a afterthought as far as gameplay and lore are concerned? Is it going to be we need these, but we don't want to fuss with them? I don't know I feel like I conquered wing puzzles. I accomplished that. There's no puzzle with these. I really doubt the aero model is going to care much what shape your wings are in KSP2, just so long as you have enough.

I'm hoping the game doesn't go only space and I don't think it will. Getting to a planet is only one step in an adventure and building fun contraptions, including planes, to explore it is another. Im hoping the wacky atmosphere/gravity combinations that await and possibly revamped aero system will motivate us all to make a bunch of cool stuff, unique aircraft definitely included

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I'm hoping the game doesn't go only space and I don't think it will. Getting to a planet is only one step in an adventure and building fun contraptions, including planes, to explore it is another. Im hoping the wacky atmosphere/gravity combinations that await and possibly revamped aero system will motivate us all to make a bunch of cool stuff, unique aircraft definitely included

Like a flying submarine with wheels!

[Bej Kerman]

6 hours ago, snkiz said:

You don't need wings in space, so are they going to be treated as a afterthought as far as gameplay and lore are concerned?

Clearly not since they went to the trouble of revamping them so you can focus on the aspects of wing design that actually matter, not to mention all the spaceplanes we've seen so far.

6 hours ago, snkiz said:

I don't know I feel like I conquered wing puzzles. I accomplished that. There's no puzzle with these.

UX/UI should never turn into a puzzle. "There's no puzzle with these" That's a good thing!

[Sesshaku]

As someone who plays Realism Overhaul. I 100% want everything that is structural procedurally available.

I honestly believe all concerns are unwarranted and unjustifiable. The procedural mechanic allows for greater customization and personality of your rockets. The limits? The limits are still there, and potentially even larger, you can have limits in the composition of the materials for the tanks and wings, forcing you to improve technology on the tech tree+allowing different tank types for different objectives of the stage, there is also limits on the laws of nature themselves (KSP vanilla is easier than real life gravity after all) but more importantly, there's limits in engines. Limits that could be further expanded. For instance, two main concerns when designing a RO rocket is not only the thrust and ISP of your engine, but also the numbers of ignitions, the average burn time without failures and wether they require ullage or not. You can also add a mechanic for avionics (that is extra weight needed to be capable of steering a rocket, and if you don't want that you have to build your rockets with that in mind), or you can also remove/limit the current reaction wheels (extremely OP) and make RCS customization more of a thing (again, different types of fuels, weight, isp, etc)

This is just an example. My main point is that there are a ton of mechanics you can add and tweak in order to provide the player "challenges" when building something, without limiting creativity by sticking to "lego parts" that can't be modified and usually screw performance.

I 100% WELCOME procedural parts in KSP2. And hope any parts that are not procedurally available in vanilla be added by mods. I can't go back to lego rockets. I have WAY more fun designing rockets on RO mod than on vanilla.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Sesshaku

[snkiz]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Clearly not since they went to the trouble of revamping them so you can focus on the aspects of wing design that actually matter, not to mention all the spaceplanes we've seen so far.

UX/UI should never turn into a puzzle. "There's no puzzle with these" That's a good thing!

AS we've discussed there is no evidence that the areo is going to care that much, your still thinking of FAR. I just don't think that's going to happen. And Again I'm not talking about UI/UX, or how they attach.

 

It isn't a question limits. Or tec progression at least for wings, they are 1 stop on the tec tree. None of the RO arguments matter, they certainly won't be doing that.  RO is going to be a mod full stop.  when it's gets here I bet it will be better than ever. I don't want to play RO, or I would already. If I wanted procedural everything, I'd use simple rockets, might as well let the computer fly it. I'm trying to discuss how these things are going to effect the stock experience. The stock experience, until now has been 'Found by the side of the road' parts. I like the wings ok. But I don't see these fitting that vibe. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by snkiz

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, snkiz said:

And Again I'm not talking about UI/UX, or how they attach.

It has everything to do with user experience. Having to stick together massive bits of cardboard in order to just barely approximate the wing design you want does not make the actual process of designing a wing any easier, it's just a big obtuse obstacle.

2 hours ago, snkiz said:

The stock experience, until now has been 'Found by the side of the road' parts. I like the wings ok. But I don't see these fitting that vibe. 

Okay. It doesn't matter. Wings are a great deal more complicated than fuel tanks and "just stacking bits" doesn't exactly translate well as KSP 1 has demonstrated. KSP 2 is taking a necessary step in streamlining the UX by adding procedural construction to parts that did not benefit from the LEGO style. For instance, you literally can't stack radiators, and evidently making wings from massive parts didn't work either. Procedural construction fixes these issues that sticking rigidly to LEGO design caused. Tantacrul did a video on Propellerhead's Reason and one of his points he makes is that sometimes you have to break from a tradition or rule in the design of your software in order to fulfil its potential. This is an example of that - Squad dipped their toes with fairings, because who would even dare attempt to make an aerodynamic shell out of smaller parts, and now Intercept is going all in by proceduralifying stuff that didn't benefit from the LEGO construction.

Speaking of fairings, do you like to make them out of smaller parts that look aerodynamic? I mean, telling from your stance on wings, this only sounds natural for you.

2 hours ago, snkiz said:

RO is going to be a mod full stop

Again, it looks like you're getting confused. I have not brought up RO a single time.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[snkiz]

41 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, it looks like you're getting confused. I have not brought up RO a single time.

You are not the only person in this conversation.

[dr.phees]

I hope we can make "presets". Sometimes I want to add the same parts at several positions. Not similar, but "the same". Also, it is good to know that some parts are exactly the same length without remembering *how* long exactly. If we could save a wing design as a preset for procedural parts, that would be cool.

[Bej Kerman]

32 minutes ago, snkiz said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Again, it looks like you're getting confused. I have not brought up RO a single time.

You are not the only person in this conversation.

You quoted me and I responded to all the blocks of text below. If you reply to someone else in that comment, can you make that clear and maybe even quote them above? Cos I'm not a mind reader, how was I supposed to know it wasn't directed at me?

[snkiz]

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

You quoted me and I responded to all the blocks of text below. If you reply to someone else in that comment, can you make that clear and maybe even quote them above? Cos I'm not a mind reader, how was I supposed to know it wasn't directed at me?

Out of your entire bock of text, I quoted  one sentence, addressed it, left a huge gap. Then started talking about something you never said. The post directly above mine would have given you context. Look this has nothing to do with the topic.