why isnt parts procedurally generated yet?

[lammatt]

this will ease a large extent of the part count lag issue

we have

procedural wings

procedural fairings

procedural tanks

why arent those stock part yet??

instead of blaming the engine or the coding; i think a feasible workaround would be lowering the part count by removing the need to stack the same parts to get a larger one of the same use...

tho i think ppl who complain about the part count lag are usually doing things wrong and have no sense of efficiency in general; let's face it... you need what? >500parts to starting getting lag? how could you build a station with such low part efficiency? what? 8 lights on every tank? and a hundred of solar panel? and a hundred of battery? come on... those are just redundant things; aka junk.

Edited August 17, 2013 by lammatt

[astropapi1]

PWings: They're gonna overhaul the spaceplane system in the future. (Hopefully Artyom will help )

Dynamic Fairings: They're useless ATM, and will probably come with the new plane system ( Which will add realistic awrodynamics)

Procedural tanks: I don't see why not.

[Lazro]

Procedural tanks is actually a thing!

Part Generator 2.3

[sojourner]

Why not? One word. Alpha.

[Guest]

Procedural tanks is actually a thing!

Part Generator 2.3

Stretchy Tanks

[astropapi1]

Procedural tanks is actually a thing!

Part Generator 2.3

There's a procedural tank mod being developed already. It's called "Stretchy tanks".

EDIT: regex beat me.

[gompasta]

The reason is, those are fairly recent mods, and even if the devs wanted them to be added, it will not happen quickly.

[Mercy]

Because SQUAD should focus on implementing important core mechanics instead of largely unneeded things such as P-Parts, and if they just keep taking things from mods and patching them into KSP, the game will turn out like Minecraft. (That's very bad, BTW.)

[Skyrunner27]

Parts get weird when they are large.

[AngryGiant]

The reason is, those are fairly recent mods, and even if the devs wanted them to be added, it will not happen quickly.

Not to mention they haven't just imported mods to stock. They've brought the mod maker into the design team and remade the mod from scratch.

[Firenexus13]

Because SQUAD should focus on implementing important core mechanics instead of largely unneeded things such as P-Parts, and if they just keep taking things from mods and patching them into KSP, the game will turn out like Minecraft. (That's very bad, BTW.)

There is one problem with this... people create mods about stuff that the devs plan to add to the game! they are not taking from mods! (kethane for example: mining WILL be added, but kethane exists. they are not "taking" from kethane. and KSPX is a mod that was created by a now-stock part creator, who is implementing the KSPX stuff!)

however, these parts are not added because...

1. they are available in mods

2. if you need different sized tanks, there are mods.

3. for those who don't like mods, then you will have to wait for more tanks.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Firenexus13

[sporkafife]

I think having procedural wings and procedural fairings is a great idea. Procedural fairings is one of the very few mods I install, just because it's a one-size-fits-all way to make your rockets look better. And if I made space planes often enough, I'd probably have procedural wings installed for the same reason.

However, for some reason I wouldn't want procedural fuel tanks... I don't know why really, it just seems so much simpler to have fuel containers of a set size. Maybe I'm just a KSP elitist that still likes attaching 12 tanks together when I could just have one

[Tw1]

However, for some reason I wouldn't want procedural fuel tanks... I don't know why really, it just seems so much simpler to have fuel containers of a set size. Maybe I'm just a KSP elitist that still likes attaching 12 tanks together when I could just have one

I get the impression that they want us stitching parts together, rather than just forming a shape, and filling it with fuel. Makes getting huge things to orbit a challenge. Procedural generation makes sense for things like fairings, but I like all the parts with their various descriptions and all.

Disclaimer: I never claim to know squad's plans or intentions, this is just a personal view.

[Dkmdlb]

you need what? >500parts to starting getting lag? how could you build a station with such low part efficiency? what? 8 lights on every tank? and a hundred of solar panel? and a hundred of battery? come on... those are just redundant things; aka junk.

I get lag with under 200 parts, even lower if there is a planet in view. On a recent mission to Jool, I assembled a ship in orbit with four probes and four manned landers. How many parts are your probes? Even if we just say twenty parts each for the landers and probes, we're already in lag territory without even considering the ship that got them all there.

[NGTOne]

tho i think ppl who complain about the part count lag are usually doing things wrong and have no sense of efficiency in general; let's face it... you need what? >500parts to starting getting lag? how could you build a station with such low part efficiency? what? 8 lights on every tank? and a hundred of solar panel? and a hundred of battery? come on... those are just redundant things; aka junk.

I'm not one to complain about part count lag, but I'm certainly a terrible repeat offender in terms of causing it. For me, 500 is nothing, 1000 is common, 2000 isn't unheard of (never flew - update borked it and I never picked it back up). I don't want to start an argument here, but sometimes a high part count is, in fact, necessary (for instance, to hold together a large and otherwise very fragile spacecraft that needs to land on Eve, which has almost double Kerbin's gravitational pull). When people complain about part count lag, 90% of the time it's the (necessary, see above) strut spam that's responsible. And even if you're not crazy like me, any stock ship that wants to make it to Moho is going to be half fuel tanks and half struts, with a Kerbal wedged in there someplace.

As for why procedural parts haven't been implemented, it's like other people have said - the game's in alpha, so they're still working the core mechanics and whatnot out. Minor tweaks like that can come much later in the process.

[annallia]

tho i think ppl who complain about the part count lag are usually doing things wrong and have no sense of efficiency in general; let's face it... you need what? >500parts to starting getting lag? how could you build a station with such low part efficiency? what? 8 lights on every tank? and a hundred of solar panel? and a hundred of battery? come on... those are just redundant things; aka junk.

The beauty of this game is that there is no real right or wrong way to play it. Doesn't matter if you go through peppery every planet with landers and bases or if you just keep building rockets that are intentionally flawed so you can watch them go boom, there is no right or wrong way to play.

As to part count lag, that depends on the rig. For you it may very well start at 500. For me it starts a bit higher, about 700. Doesn't get unplayable till 1000 or so but it starts far lower.

Now that station, my average station is about 100-150 parts so I am good there. But what happens when I have multiple ships docked there. Multiple interplanetary ships getting ready for a mission out to somewhere even? I can easy tripple even quadruple my part count and that is for small ships. My average large ship is a bit over 200 parts.