Allow Precision Text-Based Editing of all Parameters

[Furniture]

The title says it all. There are many tweakable parameters in KSP2 - whether you're editing fuel levels, the shape of a wing, the angle of a part, your paint job - and right now, you kind of have to eyeball everything.

I propose that at least the following parameters of a vehicle receive text entry fields:

• Everything procedural. Wings, fairings, TOOBs - every relevant parameter that can be edited by the player.
• Colors. Many people have suggested an RGB or Hexadecimal entry field, which would help with color consistency.
• The move/rotate tool. Admittedly this is less straightforward, but the ability to specify an exact amount of degrees/meters to offset a part would be nice.
• Maneuver Nodes.  To allow for greater precision, a system of text entry fields similar to those in KSP1's system would be helpful.

There may be other useful applications I'm forgetting - feel free to make suggestions - but these are the biggest ones for me.

[Barrackar]

I agree with some but disagree on others. I don't know what your acronym TOOBs stands for.

Agree: Wings and stabilizers. Maneuver nodes.

Disagree: Move/rotate - KSP would lose some of the charm to reduce the current qualitative VAB design to quantitative number-based design.

Neutral: Fairings - doesn't seem necessary and the visual clutter may not be worth the benefit. Maybe if the interface could borrow the same space as the wing/stabilizer and therefore not cause any additional interface clutter.

[Lyneira]

6 hours ago, Barrackar said:

Disagree: Move/rotate - KSP would lose some of the charm to reduce the current qualitative VAB design to quantitative number-based design.

I understand why you disagree with this but there is a use case where text input could be useful: Attaching multiple objects to a fuselage when not in symmetry mode but you want them offset by the exact same amount. I don't know if text based input is the only way to achieve this or if some other UI element could do the job, though.

[kdaviper]

7 hours ago, Barrackar said:

I agree with some but disagree on others. I don't know what your acronym TOOBs stands for.

Agree: Wings and stabilizers. Maneuver nodes.

Disagree: Move/rotate - KSP would lose some of the charm to reduce the current qualitative VAB design to quantitative number-based design.

Neutral: Fairings - doesn't seem necessary and the visual clutter may not be worth the benefit. Maybe if the interface could borrow the same space as the wing/stabilizer and therefore not cause any additional interface clutter.

Ksp 1 already had an option to switch from sliders to numerical input. It replaces the interface instead of cluttering it up with more.

[Furniture]

10 hours ago, kdaviper said:

Ksp 1 already had an option to switch from sliders to numerical input. It replaces the interface instead of cluttering it up with more.

A system like this would be great - like, you can still have the qualitative experience, but if you want precision, it's also available. Completely optional, but there if you want.

17 hours ago, Barrackar said:

 I don't know what your acronym TOOBs stands for.

It's what they're calling the structural tubes now. Essentially a single-segment, non-deployable fairing with adjustable lengths, whose top end automatically changes to match the diameter of the part above it.

[WhereAreTheBathrooms]

On 9/20/2023 at 6:17 AM, Barrackar said:

I agree with some but disagree on others. I don't know what your acronym TOOBs stands for.

Agree: Wings and stabilizers. Maneuver nodes.

Disagree: Move/rotate - KSP would lose some of the charm to reduce the current qualitative VAB design to quantitative number-based design.

Neutral: Fairings - doesn't seem necessary and the visual clutter may not be worth the benefit. Maybe if the interface could borrow the same space as the wing/stabilizer and therefore not cause any additional interface clutter.

He's talking about TOOBs, the tubular fairing parts in the game.

I agree so much with the OP. Everything needs the option to be precise. KSP is a game that lends itself so well to both ends of the math spectrum - none of the math, and ALL the math - and not being able to be precise with things like fuel fill, part size, etc., makes the game less appealing to people on the latter end.

[Bej Kerman]

On 9/20/2023 at 2:45 AM, Furniture said:

• The move/rotate tool. Admittedly this is less straightforward, but the ability to specify an exact amount of degrees/meters to offset a part would be nice.

Or better, the ability to change the location and rotation parameters themselves instead of just the offset from its current position.

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Or better, the ability to change the location and rotation parameters themselves instead of just the offset from its current position.

YES. It drives me nuts that I can't place the antennas EXACTLY in the middle of the top of the command pod/probe core. I have to get it close and then use the translation gizmo to ... well do nothing because even fine controls have steps that are spaced too far apart. I'd love to just be able to type a "0" in for the x/y coordinate of the antenna compared to the part it's attached to.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

YES. It drives me nuts that I can't place the antennas EXACTLY in the middle of the top of the command pod/probe core. I have to get it close and then use the translation gizmo to ... well do nothing because even fine controls have steps that are spaced too far apart. I'd love to just be able to type a "0" in for the x/y coordinate of the antenna compared to the part it's attached to.

I could go on and on about the features I find in Blender and other CAD applications that I'd love to see translated into KSP 2 features... or just about any kind of game that involves designing stuff.