Concern about procedural things and other 'QOL' improvements

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, snkiz said:

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. 

Alright, well, may you not make it ambiguous which bits you are quoting? The forum lets you quote more than one person. Thanks.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, snkiz said:

The stock experience, until now has been 'Found by the side of the road' parts.

That doesn't appear to be the case for KSP2. Good riddance to that aesthetic IMNSHO (and the dumb kerbal antics it spawned, but fat chance we're getting rid of eXPlOsHuNs!!1!!!!11!).

Edited February 9, 2023 by regex

[snkiz]

No it doesn't appear that way. Although I really don't think this would have been the success that it was if it didn't start out silly. That might just be it, our little kerbals are growing up.

[shdwlrd]

59 minutes ago, snkiz said:

That might just be it, our little kerbals are growing up.

Growing up is different that maturing. I can still see the silly antics happening. They will just look better doing them.

[TheKrakenHerder]

I simply don't want procedural tanks and engines because:

A. Yes, they would make the game too easy. Having a one-size-fits-all tank plus an engine that you can modify however you want, is basically cheating in my book. 
B. Procedural tanks and engines just look bad. The RSS/RO ones end up looking like a perfect cone with a metal texture slapped on it and an engine attached to the bottom, with no mount or anything. 

To be completely honest, I'm fine with procedural wings/radiators, but procedural engines and tanks are a dealbreaker for me.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by TheKrakenHerder
Accidentally posted my RL name

[Kerbart]

26 minutes ago, TheKrakenHerder said:

I simply don't want procedural tanks and engines because:

A. Yes, they would make the game too easy. (...)

That is always a tricky argument. There's infinite fuel kind of easy, and there's not a hassle kind of easy. Yes, fuel tanks don't come in the exact size you want in reality. But neither do we have rockets where the first stage consists of three different tanks bolted together "because those are the sizes we have in stock."

26 minutes ago, TheKrakenHerder said:

B. Procedural tanks and engines just look bad. (...)

That's just a matter of how they are implemented. You can just have a procedural greeble generator added onto the tank to make it less of a monotone surface.

I don't think tanks need to have the freedom to shape them the way you do with wings, but the ability to scale a Jumbo64 in discrete steps so you don't have to add a stack of tuna cans (messing up the staging while you break apart your rocket to add them) would make building a rocket easier and result in a lower part count. Something like 2.5×, 2×, 1.75×, 1.5×, ... , 0.25×