Build Procedural Tanks with the fairing method

[dr.phees]

I want procedural tanks and when already doing it, want them done right:

Select the procedural tank part, set the type of end cap you want (Mk1, Mk 2, 1m, etc.) and then form the tank like we can form fairings (in KSP 1). We could then taper a big tank or even give a long tank a cool bulge in the middle.

So: There will be these tech-tree included parts:

- Simple procedural stepped/continuous tanks:
This will be a tank that can be changed in length so that it becomes multiples of the smallest size. This is as good as the lego-approach for new players.

Next iteration (unlocked in the tech tree) is continuous size: You can toggle that per-part in the context menu, or globally as a default in the advanced settings per game. Now we can use a tank that is exactly 1.41 times the base size.

Give us certain endcap sizes that we can select from the context-menu or even hook certain premade versions into the parts catalog. Allow us to remove presets at a later state to unclutter the catalog.

When putting a new part onto another part, it will take over the connected endcap size to allow  easy building. Moving the part later on will *not* change that size, please.

- Shaped tanks:

The new part will behave a bit like the above, taking over enc-cap size if available, but also allow me to set the end-cap styles and sizes via context menu. Then we will have a "build tank" option like with fairings (in KSP 1). I can then build a tank like a fairing. Make it fat, slim, give it a mid-bulge or slim waist, end it in the selected size or even allow us to taper to a tip. Of course all that while displaying the amount of selectable fuel/liquit, which will be contained in it.

New end-cap styles and sizes can be unlocked in the tech-tree. The shaped tanks can only be of a size, complexity etc. allowed by the VAB tech level or limited by the tech tree.

- Special geometry tanks like spherical tanks should be one part only, adjustable via steps or continuous multipliers.

 

There is still room for many parts: You could make each basic tank type its own part in the catalog: Vacuum tanks, athmospheric tanks etc.

 

Also you should be able to set your own default tanks as favorites, showing up in the catalog, probably in its own category.

 

This way you can cater to new players as well as seasoned veterans.

 

And a bonus: *This* would really feel like KSP 2.0, basically KSP 1 evolved.

Edited April 11, 2023 by dr.phees

[Sea_Kerman]

I saw this idea a bit ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/11cnkyx/my_idea_for_a_new_way_to_build_fuel_tanks_in_ksp_2/

[WelshSteW]

I like this, mainly because it could help produce some interestingly designed vessels.

[dr.phees]

Exactly. Currently KSP 2 is just KSP 1 with a slightly larger parts catalog. There are a lot of strengths in KSP 1 that should be taken over to KSP 2, but the huge mess of parts is none. The current craft in KSP 2 look basically not different from what  you can achieve in KSP with painting mods (TUFX).

This procedural parts embracing concept would really form a KSP 2.0, allowing finally to get creative from a shape point of view.

[Lyneira]

For better control over the amount of fuel you bring on a stage and where to fit it on your vessel, procedural tanks help a lot. At the same time I'm somewhat partial to the lego method of being able to quickly do stepwise additions to arrive at roughly fuel needed, so I would hope a procedural tank system will allow for this to quickly put something together.

Since fuel tanks tend to have many connections to other parts (like radial parts or entire booster stages attached to them), some extra care needs to be taken with any procedural tank system that resizing it doesn't create too much of the "now I have to pick up every part that was attached to it and re-attach it in its proper spot"-problem. This is already a bit of a problem with procedural wings when you find you need to adjust your main wing's shape after you've already attached landing gear, engine pods and extra winglets to the tip.

For the tank shape suggestion like a fairing, I wonder if this would not be better served by expanding the scope and looking at the design a bit different. Allow players to design a hull with a specific shape and then put things in it, up to its volume limit. Crew compartments, fuel tanks, batteries, docking bay, etc. The parts you put inside the hull would be protected from drag and heat so they don't necessarily need to be simulated individually with part physics, nor would it be possible to detach them with docking and staging equipment. They also would not need to weigh as much as a separate tank with its own protective hull, since the container hull is doing that job for it.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Lyneira
Grammar

[dr.phees]

1 hour ago, Lyneira said:

For the tank shape suggestion like a fairing, I wonder if this would not be better served by expanding the scope and looking at the design a bit different. Allow players to design a hull with a specific shape and then put things in it, up to its volume limit.

Interesting concept. Maybe add both: One fairing-type tank (system) and one configurable hull system. Two parts in the catalog with near endless possibilities, replacing and expanding the current parts conglomerate.

[Lyneira]

Regarding putting things inside the hull: It could just be some kind of menu that lets you add and scale features based on volume available, or it may be an actual part that is visible inside the hull in the VAB (the hull can be see-through during editing) but doesn't have physics, creating a puzzle for the player to fit things into their hull in a space efficient way. This second approach could add to the immersion when adding cargo or docking bays somewhere in the hull, since their position determines where the door will be and what internal parts might be visible when viewing the inside of the bay and help adjust to the center of mass.

[WelshSteW]

 

I think a problem with more free-form building like the suggestions above, is how the game would handle connection nodes, symmetry... If you ever tried putting things onto the Mk3 stuff using symmetry (in KSP1), you'd know that some of the things end up floating around the surface, rather than actually being attached, while some get embedded in the surface.

It'd also make it harder to make your ship flyable. For exmaple, the direction of the thrust really needs to line up with the centre of mass, and it's going to be more difficult getting things like that right if you're able to create all sorts of shapes and sizes of ship? You'd end up with ships spinning out of control as soon as you try and throttle up.

 

But, if those things could be solved, it'd be brilliant. You could make some really good looking stuff.