Rewrite the part descriptions

[ddavis425]

I can't count how many times I've watched a video of someone playing the game for the first time only to be confused by the part descriptions. Take for instance the Inline Advanced Stabilizer.

"The inline reaction wheel system uses a series of spinning discs that are going "Very Fast", to generate the torque necessary to control a spacecraft. Comes complete with a built in flight computer. Please do not attempt to service this device while it is running."

The only part of that description that actually explains what the part does is "to generate the torque necessary to control a spacecraft. Comes complete with a built in flight computer." Now, even though someone who has been playing for a while knows what that means, a new player is going to need something more descriptive than that. The current descriptions of parts are a mix of poor explanations and statements that are supposed to sound funny ("a trash bin full of boom", from the description for the small solid rocker booster). How could that description be fixed to let a new player know what the part does?

"The Inline Advanced Stabilizer allows for better control of your spacecraft using reaction wheels. Attaching this part to your ship will allow it to hold its heading better and will make turning easier."

This description provides a useful description that a new player can understand and does not contain jokes which add nothing to the description. Improved descriptions like this would be just as helpful to a new user for building as the tutorials are for flying.

Edit: Many people are saying that the funny parts should stay, and I agree as long as it doesn't get in the way of the real descriptions.

Edited July 27, 2013 by ddavis425

[Comrade Jenkens]

While I agree that some of the parts descriptions need to make it clearer what the parts do, I personally like the tongue in cheek humour in the text.

[Themohawkninja]

That is what a reaction wheel is/does.

Most of the parts have usable descriptions, and the game has such a trial-and-error way of doing things, especially with the ability to revert to the construction building with no ill consequence, that you don't really need to the point descriptions for most things.

[Synapse]

I agree with the OP, needless to say nobody else will

[regex]

I like the descriptions as-is; they fit the tone of the game and they're good flavor text to go along with the more useful information in the dialog below. It is important to remember that KSP is still very early in its development cycle and will get a manual at some point, so the descriptions won't be as crucial in the finished product.

[ddavis425]

That is what a reaction wheel is/does.

Most of the parts have usable descriptions, and the game has such a trial-and-error way of doing things, especially with the ability to revert to the construction building with no ill consequence, that you don't really need to the point descriptions for most things.

Though it does describe a reaction wheel, it doesn't properly explain the functionality so that a new player can understand what it does.

[Paul Kingtiger]

As a compromise they could split the description into two sections. The first part explains what the part does, maybe with links to wikipedia articles for the educationally minded.

The second section could contain flavour text with quotes and humor to give the part some life.

[bac9]

That's a good suggestion and a good example of replacement text, actually.

[satcharna]

I greatly support the idea of a more serious description rewrite. Some of the silly descriptions are fun, but there are too many of them, and I feel like it would be better to have just a few such descriptions.

Getting a basic category system would be nice as well, for example grouping certain sizes together.

[Alguien]

Indeed, Descriptions are suppose to explain what parts are suppose to do, and while is possible to put some "fun" descriptions, its not the main point of them

[Kegereneku]

Paul Kingtiger basically described a Card game like Magic : The Gathering.

This field describe what the equipment do in layman term

------------------

Most Useful data

------------------

"This field contain an humoristic description/citation of how this equipment came to be, why the guaranty is Void when unpacked, or how to NOT use it."

-Signed Anonymous Kerbin

Edit : you can color-code the text to make it easier to read.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Kegereneku

[Supernovy]

Perhaps the functional descriptions could be bundled in with the part stats, for example "reaction wheel torque - this helps you turn the craft"

[Frederf]

The part stats are already pretty crowded and loaded in the flight scene too which is the time for brevity. Already I right click on a pod and the stats page goes off the screen behind the navball.

I like the humorous flavor text but the descriptions are getting very long and often at the expense of knowing what it is the thing does.

[sytaline]

"supposed to sound funny" Correction Do sound funny. I remember when I first mk2 lander can description I thought it is gonna burn up on re-entry so I didn't use it.

[skyace65]

I find the silly descriptions fine. why? because any useful information is right under the description where it says the power, how much fuel ect. honestly I don't know what more info you would need. as for new players understanding something like the reaction wheels, well that's what tutorials are for and I would be surprised if by launch we don't have a tutorial on SAS and stuff, this is an alpha game after all of course it's incomplete right now.

[sumghai]

I'll give this a miss.

I greatly prefer the funny descriptions, as it better fits the overall feel of the game.

[That guy who builds stuff]

The great majority of the texts are fine. The reaction wheels are the only ones I've noticed any weirdness about, and that's only the new description

Edited July 29, 2013 by That guy who builds stuff

[rakutenshi]

I support the idea of having "functional part description" and "flavour text" in separated blocks. I very much like the tongue-in-cheek aspect of the descriptions, but, even in mods for example, the B9 Aerospace to be specific, I didn't even realise that the Stabilators will full moving wing surfaces until I put on one and lo and behold it moved. The base parts I can't really say that for any more since I've been using them since like .12 or something.. Its kinda just rote memorisation what the things do..sorry rambling.. shutting up now.

[Tw1]

Perhaps one idea for having both funny and useful descriptions would be to give a more practical description to one, and a somewhat more humorous one for the rest.

For example, the FL-T4oo mentions:

Fuel tanks are useless if there isn't a Liquid Engine attached under it. They can also be stacked with other fuel tanks to increase the amount of fuel for the engine below

While most of the others do not. But it's clear enough that these are also liquid fuel tanks, so you can expect the same kind of useage.

[Kegereneku]

Maybe the problem isn't as much in the description, than in the way parts are classified ?

For example :

Xenon-based and Liquidfuel-based thruster/tank are now in different category although they should both be in Propulsions.

Jet engine are in Propulsion.... but need Air Intake from Aerodynamic anyway.

If the User Interface changed you could put one description for a family of parts. I would also be a way to put together linked parts.

example :

# Liquid fuel tank : <explain what the part do>

[ << All liquid fuel Tank >> ] (each have Raw data and it's own funny description)

# Liquid fuel engine : <explain what the part do>

[ << All liquid fuel engine >> ]

# RCS : <explain what the part do>

[ << Everything needed for RCS >> ]

[Kimberly]

Personally, I don't like the idea of splitting up a functional description and "flavor text". In my experience, this tends to break immersion, and the flavor text will end up being very bad--Magic the Gathering is an excellent example of where the flavor text is clearly trying too hard to be flavor text.

I think a sensible system would be to assign each part a subcategory (which also makes sorting easier), and to have a single description that is both amusing and informative.