Procedural Parts

[GizmoMagui]

okay hello, 

i'v been wondering  would it not of been smarter to use the same code for the Procedural wings coding to also apply to other parts as well?  i say this because  one it lowers part count on the list from the side but also players also like to build crazy style rockets/planes/rovers/boats as KSP fashion more parts = more lag and lower fps.... by any change will more parts get reworked into more procedural parts?

also if the PBR texture is procedural or seamless would it not of been smart to make most parts this way? (not saying all)  i only say this because long term if we have more parts in the list then, its more parts that have to be worked into the  game,  Tested/modded/tech-tree etc etc..

i'm down for less parts more frames haha cuz in KSP1 boy was that fun to make 1,000plus part craft only to get low fps even with a super computer....

[tophatrhino]

I agree

[CiberX15]

I've gone back and forth on that same thought. On one hand I agree it would give us a lot more freedom to build, and use less parts to do so in cases where the existing parts aren't as big as we'd like. On the other hand it can somewhat lead to choice paralysis and more confusion.

Like right now with the engines, each engine has a clear role, so it's like a multiple choice puzzle game picking the correct engine for each stage. We could have a great deal more control and ability to optimize our ships if we could dynamically control things like engine size and bell shape however that would add a great deal more complexity, for not that much more depth, and also significantly raise the skill barrier to enjoy the game. So my personal opinion is that KSP 2 made the right choice in limiting how many dynamic parts there are, considering their goal of being the most approachable way to learn real life rocket science.

That said, I could see some potential in maybe making simpler parts like the fuel tank lengths more dynamic though. That way they only need one fuel tank part per size/form factor.

[GizmoMagui]

2 hours ago, CiberX15 said:

 

 "On the other hand it can somewhat lead to choice paralysis and more confusion."

i would not think its confusion, when you yourself can choose rather you want to edit the part of keep it the way it came out of the list. As you LEARN to GROW and get better at something then you can maybe try your hand at editing in more depth, I would not say all parts need to be like this just "structural parts or panels" for instance flat shapes that can be extended because how long your craft might be or you building angles and the sharp corner don't line up so u can adjust the angle as you see fit with the same controls wings get. and have a set limit just like the wings....

"KSP 2 made the right choice in limiting how many dynamic parts there are, considering their goal of being the most approachable"

right, but again  as u learn and grow  you don't have to edit them but the option is there.... u can choose rather you want or not. so why only give the cheapest thought and work haha when its not just kids that play this game but old veterans from ksp1 that still end up making crazy looking craft files 

frankly its all about part count here regardless of what side you take on it. its a game to learn shore but its also a game for the old school players to also enjoy....

[TechDragon]

I think were missing a couple of obvious procedural parts.

• Procedural flat panel
  • Wings are not a substitute, they are curved and look wrong, I like making rover bodies from the neat flat panel parts, but it would be a billion times easier with procedural ones, using procedural wings in KSP1 worked because you could make them flat, you cannot make the KSP2 wings look flat
• Procedural fuel tanks
  • Given differentiation of the designs, might be best to avoid the sort of all in one procedural tank stuff that we got from KSP1 mods, and to just give us a procedural tank per fuel type, so that the existing look and feel of each fuel's tank style can be maintained.

[Buzz313th]

With KSP being a loose simulation of a space program, the method they have now with a selection of parts and procedural wings is much closer to real life.  The engineers at NASA, contractors and other space programs design parts to be used on complete space vehicles.  Believe it or not, most of the vehicles are not one offs and the same parts are used on many different vehicles to reduce manufacturing time and costs.  Some of the engine designs currently used have been around since the 60's.  The fuel tanks and SRB's from many old and newer vehicles are used to design a new vehicle.   This same principal in KSP presents a nice engineering challenge to the player.   Making these parts procedural would dilute the experience for me.   I tried Juno, where almost everything is procedural and I lost interest. 

[CiberX15]

4 hours ago, GizmoMagui said:

right, but again  as u learn and grow  you don't have to edit them but the option is there.... u can choose rather you want or not.

As a counter point, when I said it increases complexity, I don't just mean for us the players. Dynamic parts are a significant undertaking from an engineering point of view. So the amount of work it would take to implement, not to mention debug, has to be weighed against other features that time could be spent on. 

I'm wouldn't say I'm opposed to dynamic parts ever, but I'm certainly way more excited to see things like base building and automatic resupply. ¯|_(ツ)_|¯

[GizmoMagui]

57 minutes ago, CiberX15 said:

As a counter point, when I said it increases complexity, I don't just mean for us the players. Dynamic parts are a significant undertaking from an engineering point of view. So the amount of work it would take to implement, not to mention debug, has to be weighed against other features that time could be spent on. 

I'm wouldn't say I'm opposed to dynamic parts ever, but I'm certainly way more excited to see things like base building and automatic resupply. ¯|_(ツ)_|¯

i know how game design works, lol if u already have something its easier to work off that.  copy paste and change the values to work with other things. but yeah it can kinda be complicated at times. but this is why you make tool that do more then one job. as a 3d modeling artist/programmer  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Superluminaut]

Yes

Other thread of same topic.

 

[AlamoVampire]

Please make the current “fairings” into the fairings we see in the ksp1 mod Procedural Fairings. Please.

014803022023

[Sea_Kerman]

but that limits them. AFAIK that mod only has one or two shapes of fairings, whereas the current method allows fairings of any radially-symmetrical shape

[AlamoVampire]

@Sea_KermanIm certain you have either never used the mod Procedural Fairings or have extremely limited experience with it. I say this having enough extensive experience with the mod to know youre wrong. The mod has infinite shapes (regardless if you use egg or conic shaped) that INSTANTLY form to a shape that fits your payload. It has multiple symmetry settings the same as regular symmetry mode. Place a fairing base, choose the number of fairing sections ie 2 or 4 as just an example, choose if you want a conic or egg shaped fairing and take that fairing nub and drop it onto a node and bam instant fairing. Done and dusted. Need to alter the payload? Shape/size change? Instant adaptability. No faffing about with multiple layers. 1 fairing nub onto 1 node and youre done. The only limitation is you. The stock “fairings” do not have this ease or speed or adaptability. Yes SOME players can get close to the speed, but will still lack the instantaneous adaptability that the gold and diamond standard Procedural Fairings has. Why they still will not go with a superior fairing system like Procedural Fairings baffles me.

030503022023

030603022023

Edited March 2, 2023 by AlamoVampire

[Sea_Kerman]

what if I don't want cone or egg? (this isn't a great example but people have done some fun stuff)

 

[AlamoVampire]

@Sea_Kerman to be fair ALL fairings even the “fairings” in stock fall into either category. Even (my opinion on the craft in the “thumb nail” in your example) that hideous monstrosity falls into the egg side, if a bit pointed. The reason this is true is aerodynamics. Your fairing no matter how (im so not talking about interstage here, but if you insist, Procedural Fairings made them as simple as simple gets, but we are talking top of rocket so back on track) fat or thin, ALL will be either conic or egg, only differences will be just how anemic or obese the fairing.

034303022023

[Sea_Kerman]

 

[Rpatto92]

On 3/1/2023 at 2:28 AM, TechDragon said:

I think were missing a couple of obvious procedural parts.

• Procedural flat panel
  • Wings are not a substitute, they are curved and look wrong, I like making rover bodies from the neat flat panel parts, but it would be a billion times easier with procedural ones, using procedural wings in KSP1 worked because you could make them flat, you cannot make the KSP2 wings look flat
• Procedural fuel tanks
  • Given differentiation of the designs, might be best to avoid the sort of all in one procedural tank stuff that we got from KSP1 mods, and to just give us a procedural tank per fuel type, so that the existing look and feel of each fuel's tank style can be maintained.

I wouldn't like procedural parts to expand infinitely into other categories such as engines or pod/pits but if you're going to do fuel tanks. Then I feel like you also have to do structural versions of all the fuel tanks diameters, as well as cargo variants and skeletal trusses of those space parts. 

Perhaps allow us to pick from a selection of compatible part diameters (in keeping with pods/engines) then only allow for length adjustable and also select part variants for skeletal trusses, hollow structural, cargo bays, fairings and the original tank. 

Sort of a middle step, between only modular and full procedural. 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Rpatto92