Procedural Parts (The best way to improve the game experience?)

[AngelLestat]

I can see only benefics when I think in procedural parts, for that reason I want to open a discussion.

For me is the only logic way that KSP has to improve the game limits, time to build and reduced count parts that it will traslate to better performance in frames and time to load..

First some examples of what I am going with this.

I guess many of you already know the mods (Procedural fairings, Procedural Wings, Stretchy Tanks and Modular Fuel System).

Now lets start to think, how many parts we need to have all the possible fuel tanks that we maybe need? Now, you need to multiply that amount for the different kinds of fuels.

If we have dimmensions from 1-25 to 5 and then 1 orange tank "large" to the X200-8 Tank "large" you have 16 parts without count different fuels and smaller tanks like those in RCS.

Of course you can have an small tank and then put one over the other until you reach the amount that you want.. But how much performance and loading time are you wasting?

Also wings, how many parts we need to make almost any shape? Even with B9 I cant make the shapes that I want sometimes. "well this guy can said something about it; but this wing structure it does not allow a future improve in the aerodinamic system."

Procedural wings fix all that with just 2 parts. And you can improve the aerodynamic system in the future and it will be easier to adapt.

I guess had a lot of mods just to fill the posibilities of part that we need is not healthy. This will give us hundreds of parts in the whole game.. And if we want to search one from all that it will be very difficult.

Maybe someone can say that is more real if we had certains products between we choose. But is not the case. Becouse factories commonly had many sizes of each product they produce. Also in the space industry almost all is made just for the occasion.

So what I am saying?

I guess KSP must incorporate these mods to the vainilla with some changes.

For example, stretchy tanks it does not use standard sizes. The problem with that is you are loosing the scale parameters with other parts.

A better way to do it it will be with 3 different shapes of tanks. Cilindrical, Spherical and half spherical-cone shape.

In cilindrical you had the width that you can alternate between (0,65 - 1.25 - 2,5 - 3.5 - 5) and large (from 2 times a orange tank to a half X200-8 Tank).

Once you had the tank, you fill it with the fuel of your choice. In this way the cost of the fuel it will be independient from the tank. Also you can choose Liquil fuel, or LF and oxidizer, Or RCS or other kinds of fuels that the game can incorporate into the future.

In carrer mode maybe we can have the option to choose different materials, in this case it will be notice by different textures.

The same for girder segments, or adapters, batteries, anteenas, ladders, parachutes, gears, docking ports, control surface, winglets, solar cells, reaction wheels, decouplers, etc.

In the case of engines maybe it can be implemented in advance mode something like Scoundrel´s suggestion, I dont know..

But just with that, we reduce the count parts from more of hundreds to 30.

The Fairing mod is also a perfect example. That mod is great, maybe we can have a dynamic base plate too and then we reduce even more, from 8 parts (fairing mod) to 4 parts (all posible fairings).

And I guess if the KSP team decide in some moment make a change to all procedural, I guess they can ask help to the comunity and we will be willing to help.

They just need to dictate the norms that they want for each part.

About the tech tree, we can upgrade different sizes parts.

What are you thoghts? Some cons?

Some examples of the part selection, are explained here:

Edited October 9, 2013 by AngelLestat

[sumghai]

For me, the primary purpose of procedural parts would be to reduce part counts by having monolithic components, but I definitely agree that in real life component dimensions are standardized for ease of manufacturing. So for the most part, I agree that procedural parts in KSP should "snap" to these aforementioned standard dimensions.

[Van Disaster]

Not sure about procedural engines; you could certainly have procedural mounting plates for engine nozzles though. On top of that, add in switchable textures so your procedural items don't all look the same, which would get a little boring; but no need for a complete new part for a different style texture. A procedural tank ( as an example ) could either - or all of - snap it's size to whatever it's attached to, be dragged to an arbitrary diameter at one or both ends, or be given a pre-set size from a VAB/SPH menu.

Core code to support procedural items would be a huge step forward, I think. No point half a dozen mod devs reinventing the wheel over and over. I have some ideas for more complicated aerofoil sculpting which would need some work on mesh warping, which I doubt Squad would want to do but it'd be much easier if there was some procedural support in the API.

[Whirligig Girl]

I HATE OP PROCEDURAL PARTS. Stretchytanks are the go-to solution for everything. you could literally delete the other fuel tanks. That is hindering gameplay. KSP is about modular pieces. I do however support procedural fairings, as they are cleaner than KW or NPR fairings and don't replace an extremely large range of objects. A procedural Engine, for example, would replace every other engine.

[Van Disaster]

How on earth is it hindering gameplay? if I need a part a specific size and shape I can just *go and make one*. Now I've just added another part to the game though, and there is a limit to numbers of parts.

If this really was a puzzle game about using a set number of parts to solve space problems, there'd be no mod support & no cfg editing.

[VaporTrail]

The thing about Stretchy Tanks is that they're expensive compared to the regular tanks. A single Stretchy Tank (KI-1000) is 2.5 times the cost of a regular TL800. Until you're using 2.5x the fuel capacity of a TL800, the KI1000 costs quite a bit more. The end-all option, the KI-9000, which can be stretched in both radial and length dimensions, has a cost of 10,000.

But, we don't pay attention to this because we have absolutely no limits on part availability or budget constraints. The entire Kerbal race exists to service the space program, and the entire net global product of Kerbin is dedicated to it. Budget tracking and limited part availability is what would make procedural tanks work with the standard mass produced parts.

My personal thought on the Stretchy Tanks is they should cost even more than they do now (even though it's not doing anything). A TL-800 holds 800 units of propellant and costs 1600 Kr. (Kredits? ) An "un-stretched" KI-1000 holds 300 and costs 4000. That gives us a cost to propellant ratio of 1:2 for the TL-800, and 1:13.333 for the basic KI-1000.

I want the cost of a Stretchy tank to reflect exactly how big I made it... For example, if I expanded the KI-1000 to 800 units (which would put it at a 1:5 propellant to Kr. ratio currently, two and a half times that of the TL-800) I think it should cost about 10,667Kr (the same 1:~13.333, units:Kr.).

An economy system would make you choose what you built with a lot more carefully.

[AngelLestat]

Yeah, like some of you said, Engines and pods seems to be the parts that not allow procedural mechanics. Or maybe thinking out of the box there is a way at least to reduce the count a little. But even is not, the amount of parts that we reduce using other kinds of procedural parts is amazing.

These mods are just good examples of the things that we can acomplish. And all these guys invested time on this mods without know if the people will use them or not, but if you said to some modders "hey, we need procedural parts with these parameters to add them to the game, who helps?

That is something totally different, if you are sure that something will be added in the game, I guess almost all the mod comunity will help.

About the cons mentioned by VaporTrail or GregroxMun , first that is a mod, I am not saying that needs to be added just like that.. And you are misinterpreting the purpose.

First if you had procedural parts like tanks. You dont have the normal parts like the orange tank, etc. After that you will use only procedural. And its cost it will depend on the size of your tank of course.

And it can be compatible with older saves, you just need to make a "case code" when if your old ship had 1 orange tank, then is remplaced by a procedural tank with the same measures. So you get the same part with the new system.

And this is not like you had a tank of miracle material that you can stretchy to the size that you want, this is more like you plain in your hangar how it will be the tank of your rocket, and then you buy it and place it. After that you fill it with your fuel choice with extra cost.

Is like van disaster said, this is not a puzzle game.

Right now almost everybody use different mods to make rockets or airplanes, with this you can have to almost everyone using the same parts to build werever they want.. But the steep needs to start from Squad, to encourage modders to help.

[Nuke]

procedural tanks would make rocket designs more realistic. you dont go get 4 tanks off the shelf and bolt em together, you fabricate a tank of the correct size for the stage.

[boomerdog2000]

If you create procedural parts most of the hard work the devs just put into the tech tree for unlocking new parts would be worthless.

Unless you make it a part unlocked later and raise its cost like VaporTrail said.

[Ernest3.14]

Tweakables?

[softweir]

Tweakables = Part parameters that can be set in the VAB/SPH using right-click menus, much like in-flight part menus.

[betaking]

I would want something to at least make the IVA's and crewable parts more flexible than they currently are. It irritates me how limited the stock selection is.

In regards to proceedural parts, I see 2 forms.

The first is the way proceedural parts are now in several mods..

the second is the way "kerbal dynamics" conceptualizes part making.

Now I think that there should be drawbacks when making parts, that proceedural parts should involve what ammounts to a balancing act by the player, eventually the advantage of scaling something should peak and level out or decrease.

Edited October 4, 2013 by betaking

[AngelLestat]

If you create procedural parts most of the hard work the devs just put into the tech tree for unlocking new parts would be worthless.

Unless you make it a part unlocked later and raise its cost like VaporTrail said.

Not is not. A tech tree is not about "ohh your technology now is better, now you can build a tank with different size :P"

Is about get more ISP efficienct in some engine, in get a nerva engine, get a science instrument to do other kinds of experiments, get a different pod, different materials (more light), It does not have nothing to do with the size of things or their texture.. Like "now you can have a wing with an unicorn draw"

And I can keep throwing examples, there is not any procedural part that can cause problems with that.. Think about it.. If you gain an extra leg (different model), it will come with 3 different sizes. But before you had another one with also 3 different sizes.

I would want something to at least make the IVA's and crewable parts more flexible than they currently are. It irritates me how limited the stock selection is.

There will be always parts that you will think that miss, maybe you are ok with the stock tanks or the stock wings, but what about all other parts when you say "uhh I wish had a reaction wheel bigger, or why there is an adapter 1.5 to 2 and not from 0,6 to 1.5 and so go on...

Now I think that there should be drawbacks when making parts, that proceedural parts should involve what ammounts to a balancing act by the player, eventually the advantage of scaling something should peak and level out or decrease.

Balance?? This is not a 1vs1 fighting game. Or you mean if we had more sizes to choose, then we can build something that NASA cant?

Seriusly, until now I dint read any true cons against procedural. But forget about that, Now tell me, what is the other way to solve all the problems that can be fix it with procedural parts?

The frames performance, the part limits to choose and build, the loading time, the memory, the fact that we need different tanks to choose diferent fuels, etc.

[Vector]

I agree that procedural would help a lot, but there need to be limits on the parts and ranges that it's applied to. For example, part of the challenge with LV-N is that they don't come in all sizes, which means engineering trade-offs have to be made.

If there is a single best solution that applies to almost all problems, then it takes away from the challenge and fun of the game. But that said, there is still a ton of room for procedural parts to simplify designs that are already possible but annoying to construct.

[boomerdog2000]

Not is not. A tech tree is not about "ohh your technology now is better, now you can build a tank with different size :P"

Is about get more ISP efficienct in some engine, in get a nerva engine, get a science instrument to do other kinds of experiments, get a different pod, different materials (more light), It does not have nothing to do with the size of things or their texture.. Like "now you can have a wing with an unicorn draw"

And I can keep throwing examples, there is not any procedural part that can cause problems with that.. Think about it.. If you gain an extra leg (different model), it will come with 3 different sizes. But before you had another one with also 3 different sizes.

I was referring to how the current techtree supposedly locks most parts entirely until you do enough research to unlock them. If you go through the trouble of unlocking all those parts then unlock the procedural one you won't need any of those other parts anymore. Unless there are drawbacks to the procedural part i.e. a higher cost.

[Awaras]

How on earth is it hindering gameplay? if I need a part a specific size and shape I can just *go and make one*. Now I've just added another part to the game though, and there is a limit to numbers of parts.

If this really was a puzzle game about using a set number of parts to solve space problems, there'd be no mod support & no cfg editing.

The only objection to procedural fuel tanks I have is the same objection I have to all large KSP parts (say large orange tank and larger mod parts) - the large parts behave very strange with KSP physics.

[Whirligig Girl]

How on kerbin is it hindering gameplay? if I need a part a specific size and shape I can just *go and make one*. Now I've just added another part to the game though, and there is a limit to numbers of parts.

If this really was a puzzle game about using a set number of parts to solve space problems, there'd be no mod support & no cfg editing.

I guess I have no place to tell you how you play a single player sandbox, but StretchyTank-one-stop-shop type mods should not be implemented, same with procedural wings. I do use them when I build planes, but They do not fit with the modular style well at all.

Procedural Fairings, with a little work, I see as the only good way to implement fairings into the game. I think there should be a new tab for fairings (like Parts, Action Groups, and Crew tabs) and they should be tweakable to the player's whim.

Tweakables themselves is a good way to get the exact amount of fuel you need.

Mods are there not just to solve problems, but add new aesthetics. Stockalike parts are parts that are really needed to fill an empty niche in stock parts. Plugin mods add new features entirely.

[rkman]

Another argument in favor of 'flexible parts' is that a major part of rocketry is about tuning TWR and delta-v, which translates to tuning the amount of fuel and the amount of thrust of a stage/rocket (similar argument applies to airplanes). Arguably that should be a focus of KSP. Custom size fuel tanks help a great deal there, as would custom engines.

On the other hand there is one thing that perhaps should be resolved first, in particular wrt fuel tanks and wings: structures should be able to fail somewhat realistically when design parameters are exceeded.

As it currently is in KSP, at least a stack of fuel tanks can fall apart if exposed to excessive forces, wings can flex and partially break.

With the current physics/damage system that is not possible if those structures consist of a single part.

If you create procedural parts most of the hard work the devs just put into the tech tree for unlocking new parts would be worthless.

With procedural parts there can be limits on performance and size dependent on the techlevel that the player has reached.

Tweakables themselves is a good way to get the exact amount of fuel you need.

Why an exact amount of fuel, but not the corresponding size and dry mass?

Edited October 4, 2013 by rkman

[AngelLestat]

I agree that procedural would help a lot, but there need to be limits on the parts and ranges that it's applied to. For example, part of the challenge with LV-N is that they don't come in all sizes, which means engineering trade-offs have to be made.

Why you think that the size of the LV-N must to be fixed? In the reality they can came of many sizes.

But never mind, I dont have any trouble to not have procedural engines or pods. But is quite illogical not to have them in the other parts.

If there is a single best solution that applies to almost all problems, then it takes away from the challenge and fun of the game. But that said, there is still a ton of room for procedural parts to simplify designs that are already possible but annoying to construct.

But is not like that! You think that when I talk about procedural parts I am saying "keep the old tanks and lets have another part that is procedural?" NO! You remove all the previous tanks and you remplace them with 3 tanks parts that are procedural like I explain in the first post (please read). And you can have extra tree advances that it will let you to choose other kind of materials or parameters like (made for cryogenic fuel) when you are setting your tank, and the cost will calculate depending the size, materials, fuel that you choose.

But if is better to some had 100 tanks parts just to build the same thing with extra loading time, and all other cons, I cant see the logic.

I was referring to how the current techtree supposedly locks most parts entirely until you do enough research to unlock them. If you go through the trouble of unlocking all those parts then unlock the procedural one you won't need any of those other parts anymore. Unless there are drawbacks to the procedural part i.e. a higher cost.

Again, if you have procedural parts then you dont have regular tanks, is a way to improve the game experience. We are talking of tank sizes! it does nothing to do with technology tree or parts unlocks. Damm my english must be very bad to read always the same misinterpretations.

I guess I have no place to tell you how you play a single player sandbox, but StretchyTank-one-stop-shop type mods should not be implemented, same with procedural wings. I do use them when I build planes, but They do not fit with the modular style well at all.

I dont like stretchy tanks, I already explain why in the first post, the idea of get any size with one part is good, but it needs keep relation with the standard sizes and scales. And the game will still be modular even with procedural parts, even with procedural wings you need use many procedural wings to achieve the shape that you want. But you reduce the count parts and is more real at the same time. There is the LEGO mod for those who loves the toy aspect.

Procedural Fairings, with a little work, I see as the only good way to implement fairings into the game. I think there should be a new tab for fairings.

You think that because you still can not figure out the correct way to incorporate other parts, becoz you see only a good example of procedural parts.

On the other hand there is one thing that perhaps should be resolved first, in particular wrt fuel tanks and wings: structures should be able to fail somewhat realistically when design parameters are exceeded.

As it currently is in KSP, at least a stack of fuel tanks can fall apart if exposed to excessive forces, wings can flex and partially break.

With the current physics/damage system that is not possible if those structures consist of a single part.

That is a good point. But it can be solve it of different ways.

Why an exact amount of fuel, but not the corresponding size and dry mass?

What you mean?

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

Another benefic of procedural tanks it will be noticed with the next fix to the aerodynamics drag system.

Rockets with 10 orange tanks at side each other will not work very good. The solution is bigger tanks diameters like the ones used in novapunch mod (3.5 and 5)

Also that will brings more similarity with the real rockets. About how the engine deals with bigger parts like the 5d tanks, I dont find any problem that can not be fixed with 2 or 3 struts, if you need to put the same amount of fuel with oranges tanks you will need more struts than that.

[rkman]

What you mean?

GregroxMun does not want stretchy fuel tanks but he does want custom fuel amount.

[KrazyKrl]

I posted this in another thread, I think it works in this one too.

I'd prefer procedural parts to fill the gaps. There is a reason NASA stuff tends to be hand made.

Procedural:

Fuel Tanks

Girders

Structural Elements

Wings

Fairings

Parachutes

Landing Legs

Wheels

Ladders

Docking Ports

Bi-Tri-Quad Adapters

Batteries

All would be AMAZING to get JUST that part you need.

[boomerdog2000]

But is not like that! You think that when I talk about procedural parts I am saying "keep the old tanks and lets have another part that is procedural?" NO! You remove all the previous tanks and you remplace them with 3 tanks parts that are procedural like I explain in the first post (please read). And you can have extra tree advances that it will let you to choose other kind of materials or parameters like (made for cryogenic fuel) when you are setting your tank, and the cost will calculate depending the size, materials, fuel that you choose.

This goes back to what I said earlier where all of Squad's work on R&D would be worthless, were this to be implemented.

[KrazyKrl]

This goes back to what I said earlier where all of Squad's work on R&D would be worthless, were this to be implemented.

Naa, it would be easy to limit the procedural tanks to set limits depending on your tech level. And, of course, the rigid tanks would be cheaper to use, but contain a set amount of resources. Having procedural tanks and other devices is pretty much a requirement, the part count is already near the point of absurdity for large crafts.

[AngelLestat]

Yeah KrazyKrl , that list is the parts that I had in mind that can work with procedural.

And read from the start, (I already mention this 5 times in this thread!, if procedural parts are added to the game this mean that you dont have the normal parts any more! with except of those that can not be remplaced by procedural like pods or engines.)

boomerdog2000: This goes back to what I said earlier where all of Squad's work on R&D would be worthless, were this to be implemented.

Are you joking? I already answer you this 2 times! Can you please read? Or tell me an example of how this will make worthless the squad´s work.. Please!! tell me..

[softweir]

Calm down people. It's a nice idea, but you can't get ideas across when you get overheated.

I think what AngelLestat is trying to say but not getting across: the Development tree would create technologies that could feed into the procedural engine, plus the creation of new procedural parts would require research and development. So, to create a new 1.25m tank of triple size would require R&D to be able to make any 1.25 parts, plus extra R&D to create each length of 1.25m tank.

Using procedural technologies might allow Squad to create a vastly more detailed tech tree with very little extra model-making work, so long as the constraints on part sizes and costs were well-balanced. After all, there's no point in allowing us to create 500m-long 1.25m fuel tanks!