Different approach to rocket diameters

[PDCWolf]

I did some searching and it looks like nobody has approached this topic so far nor has it been approached in the way I describe here.

First, with only 3 part diameters available now to choose from, the results are, although varied, ugly. Also, the stepping between diameters seems to be exponential, going from 0.625m to 1.25m and then to 2.5m, which makes me think the -if it'll ever happen- next diameter is going to be 5 meters. Even so, breaking the cycle and adding a 3.75 diameter would still cause the same ugly effect.

What I suggest is changing the stepping from exponential to a hard base. I believe making the hard base to be 0.625m would give better results.

The new stepping would look like this:

1. 0.625m
   
2. 1.25m
   
3. 1.875m
   
4. 2.5m
   
5. 3.125
   
6. 3.75
   

To make it more visual, here's an example:

Some lines are a bit out of place, but it's understandable. Also, all lines are to scale.

Now that you've -probably- understood what I suggest, let's move onto the reason.

Earlier, I highlighted the word ugly, and if you saw the image, you can already imagine what the next step (5 meter following the logic, or 3.75m in the best possible case) is going to do to the aesthetics. But now let's have a look at real life rockets.

Replicating the Ares 1 as of now is impossible for 2 reasons:

•The SRBs are not varied enough

•It's impossible to replicate it going from 1.25m to 2.5m

Replicating Proton is impossible:

•There's no stepping between 2.5m and 1.25m, so that inset-bevel is impossible to replicate

Replicating Saturn V is impossible:

•Maximum diameter is 2.5m

•If a "small" version is tried, the step between 2.5m and 1.25m is too great and it will never take shape. Other techniques have to be used to cover for the game's lack of variety in diameters.

Not only replicating almost anything is impossible, but the creative process when making a rocket is also hindered, since we can't have those nice shiny curves between soft diameter changes.

That's pretty much it. Thank you for your time.

TL;DR: Change the stepping from exponential to increments of 0.625m for fuel tanks and engines.

Edited October 1, 2013 by PDCWolf

[boomerdog2000]

While it seems like a good idea in theory I think it would add far too many repetitious stock parts to the game, and far too many connecting standards. People would want fuel tanks for each size, then engines, then structural bits, then docking ports.

[allmappedout]

Tweakables should go a long way to resolving this, particularly if length and diameter are changable. Then, hopefully, all the above is solved!

[PDCWolf]

While it seems like a good idea in theory I think it would add far too many repetitious stock parts to the game, and far too many connecting standards. People would want fuel tanks for each size, then engines, then structural bits, then docking ports.

One possible solution is adding tweakables/procedural tanks/customizable tanks.

For the structural parts, you can just make a second config and change the scale values.

[rodion]

I'd personally love to see something more comprehensive and amenable to aesthetic building like this, though it would possibly interfere with the "lego-like" simplified build process that lets newcomers into the world of KSP easily; also, the part menus as they exist now would almost certainly have to be substantially rearranged, maybe into nested tabs by diameter (frankly I'd quite like to see a higher degree of organization like this anyway, since nothing is really grouped properly right now), to accommodate all of these extra parts with their new lengths and diameters, to save every section being 5 pages long. I think the most problematic part of this suggestion is the implied workload, since the game devs don't usually just crudely resize a part when creating one of a specific size; the texture and model is always pretty much brand new. Either they would have to ditch that for the sake of expediting the creation of parts of many sizes, or put in a possibly unreasonable amount of work whenever a part is introduced that benefits from being of several sizes.

[rkman]

Agreed. The issue is that for a given amount of fuel, a small change in diameter of the tank has a large effect on the height of the tank.

So with only a few diameters to choose from, rockets/stages quickly either become to tall or need to be build very wide.

it would add far too many repetitious stock parts to the game

Solution: Procedural fuel tanks (perhaps with a limit on height-to-diameter ratio, and snapping to a few preset diameters) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/46447-0-21-1-StretchyTanks-v0-2-2-%28updated-8-26-13%29

[RankWinner]

While it seems like a good idea in theory I think it would add far too many repetitious stock parts to the game, and far too many connecting standards. People would want fuel tanks for each size, then engines, then structural bits, then docking ports.

That could be fixed by a new UI, imagine only one of each part but with a drop-down menu offering the different sizes (with a 'default' choice that can easily be changed).

[TheAquired]

That could be fixed by a new UI, imagine only one of each part but with a drop-down menu offering the different sizes (with a 'default' choice that can easily be changed).

Although I don't know if we really need this in the game, that is a very clever and practical way to resolve it. I really like that idea.

[PDCWolf]

Although I don't know if we really need this in the game

You mean the parts or the UI?

[Natsarugiy]

I definitely agree with the proposed changes to tank diameters. The game doesn't include fantastic support for unique and creative designs, with the exception of parts clipping. Designs are forced to get too big too fast, due to the currently used exponential stepping pointed out by PDCWolf. Sure, some support exists, but it's extremely limited and I feel in drastic need for an update.

I guess technically everything after this is somewhat off-topic, though still related. Let me know if you would like me to move this to it's own thread. Of course if you feel it is taking the thread towards a positive and appropriate discussion, then there is no problem with it staying here.

I think the tank changes shouldn't be limited to the diameters only, especially due to the ease of rescaling parts via the config file. And a larger change will allow for an opportunity for a UI change as well. I don't mean a complete redesign of the UI, perhaps it can be accomplished with just an extra window that pops out after you select your part. This slight UI change will allow for a complete redesign of the ship building process to accommodate for a more modular in-game approach to rocket designs.

For fuel tanks, it should be extremely simple: you select the design of tank you want from the current in-game UI (design explained later in more detail), a window will then appear instead of the part where the player will: select the diameters of the tank (0.625m, 1.25m, 1.875m, 2.5m, 3.125m, 3.75m), then volume of the tank (small, medium, or large), then the part will appear.

So if you want a small, stock, 1.25m tank for whatever your design calls for, you just select the stock image, then a window can pop up prompting for the diameter (easily done via drop-down menu), and the volume (also easily done via drop-down, or potentially a write-in via an advanced menu). When the window disappears and the part is placed in the workspace, to be attached to your ship as how it is currently done in-game.

Perhaps if this method is used, an "advanced" option can be available so the player can select the diameter of the tank from the list, then type in exactly how much volume they want. The game can then calculate the height of the tank and the weight (which will just be numbers in the config file anyway), then the model will be scaled to fit (again via config) and then placed in the game. Should be technically easy. Would be really convenient stock as it will be innately applied to all parts, be they stock or mods, and will allow for an even more modular approach to ship designs for players interested in using just as much fuel they calculate they'll need for their design. Example: if a player wants to send a probe to Jool, they can guess via small, medium, or large options like how the game currently has it. Or a more advanced player can calculate exactly how much fuel they need to design a rocket that will just get their probe to it's target without any unnecessary fuel or weight. Both options will be available with this design.

This may also support the eventual career mode, as more sizes may be made available via node discovery. Simple menu example: only medium volume is available at first, and after research is completed other volumes are made available. Advanced menu example: A small, medium range of values will be accepted until more research is done where the range will be expanded to a new cap. The same research-limited approach can be applied to other diameters. Perhaps only the current diameters will be allowed at first until more research is completed to allow for the larger variety of sizes to be made available late-game.

Explaining design in more detail:

As for having a variety of tank designs, this is mostly targeted at modders. If someone designs a "Saturn V First Stage" tank, it's mostly just a re-texture of a cylinder. But what if you want a square tank or any other shape of tank? Well I don't think these parts will ever be created as stock, but modders might create them. If there is a custom option in the new UI, you can select different shaped tanks that have their own creator-defined formula for determining scale so that the advanced option of the UI can still be used for these more unique, non-stock parts. To select a different design, you'll just select the image of the tank from the currently used in-game UI. Just like if you install a mod part today, it will appear in the catalog. Once it is selected, it will have the "custom option" in the window where the modder can define their own diameters or other dimensions, and volumes.

For complex models, or parts, with no easily definable formula for volume (or if they are parts like wings and don't have a volume), 3 simple sizes can be predetermined by the part creator and accessed via the simple menu's "small, medium, and large" options. These will be default options in the event where the part doesn't have the advanced part flag (just as an example to suggest how the advanced option will work alongside the basic option).

If there is any interest in this, I can draw up some rough sketches to outline the idea more clearly.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Natsarugiy

[TheAquired]

You mean the parts or the UI?

The parts but for those who are serious about recreating stuff, and i understand this is a pretty scientific community, then I can understand the potential there is in adding the parts.

[Comrade Jenkens]

The stock parts are 0.625, 1.25, 2.5. Mods add 3.75 and 5.0. I suspect if squad continue the parts sizes then it will follow the same pattern which is linear apart from the 0.625.

I'm very keen for larger parts sizes to be added as it currently takes loads of parts to try to replicate Saturn V.

[RoboRay]

The current 1.25m steps, extended to 3.75m and 5m, actually produce reasonable facsimiles of the Saturn V.

[PDCWolf]

The current 1.25m steps, extended to 3.75m and 5m, actually produce reasonable facsimiles of the Saturn V.

Yeah, but you still need tall interstages for the lines to be smooth. Even so, the transition from 1.25 to 2.5 will always look ugly.

Also, if we follow the exponential curve, the next diameter would be jumping straight to 5m. Including 3.75m will already be a change on the logical steps making, in a way or another, this suggestion a reality.

The parts but for those who are serious about recreating stuff, and i understand this is a pretty scientific community, then I can understand the potential there is in adding the parts.

It's not about just replicating. It's about rockets looking bad, it's about variety, it's about functionality.

Edited October 2, 2013 by PDCWolf

[Quantum Jim]

I think this is a great idea for advanced players but way too much for new players. I'd love wider tanks for sure; however you don't want to overwhelm new players... Although, that might be what career mode is for...

[John FX]

I just want procedural parts. Then we need one fuel tank, one payload fairing, one mid craft fairing and wings.

Everything you want and everything I want.

[Bartybum]

I think this is a great idea for advanced players but way too much for new players. I'd love wider tanks for sure; however you don't want to overwhelm new players... Although, that might be what career mode is for...

I couldn't disagree more with this argument. Why must advanced players be punished/limited to a few tanks just because new players may be overwhelmed?

[John FX]

I couldn't disagree more with this argument. Why must advanced players be punished/limited to a few tanks just because new players may be overwhelmed?

Surely the best of both worlds is to reduce the amount of tanks/parts and increase the options by making them procedural? One tank fits all, restrict sizes for new players.

Simples.

[PDCWolf]

Surely the best of both worlds is to reduce the amount of tanks/parts and increase the options by making them procedural? One tank fits all, restrict sizes for new players.

Simples.

The deal with procedural everything is making it intuitive enough for newcomers. That part being taken care of, then it IS the best solution.

[leax256]

The deal with procedural everything is making it intuitive enough for newcomers. That part being taken care of, then it IS the best solution.

simplist(for the player) solution would be a gui with buttons/sliders that change values and a proper totorial about how it works. everyone loves a gui.

[Hyphen]

I think it's worth pointing out that 1.875m parts would allow us to have Gemini, Atlas, and Titan equivalents.

[IvanTehFennec]

While it may sound good, I do think it'll add up to just too many parts to deal with. I feel this sort of thing would go great in a mod-pack.

[Alguien]

While it may sound good, I do think it'll add up to just too many parts to deal with. I feel this sort of thing would go great in a mod-pack.

The "too many parts" can be solved with a procedual system when you choose the stock diameter and then the player choosing how tall the fuel tank is. So you have a total 6 editable fuel tanks (1 per diameter) instead of 4 or 5 fuel tanks per diameter

[Hyphen]

A more comprehensive part sorting/selection system in the VAB/SPH would allow you to have as many parts as you want without any drawbacks.

And, theoretically, career mode's R&D system would introduce new players to the parts library gradually, keeping them from becoming overwhelmed.

So "too many parts" isn't really an excuse.

[John FX]

A more comprehensive part sorting/selection system in the VAB/SPH would allow you to have as many parts as you want without any drawbacks.

And, theoretically, career mode's R&D system would introduce new players to the parts library gradually, keeping them from becoming overwhelmed.

So "too many parts" isn't really an excuse.

And using tutorials to introduce new players gradually, fully procedural tanks, wings and fairings could be included also, which would reduce memory footprint making the game more useable for lower spec players as they would replace many parts with just one.

The drawback with many parts is memory footprint. Everything has to fit in 4GB, including all the parts.