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

[Duxwing]

Procedurally generated parts can be 'standardized' via a text box that states the current dimensions of the selected part and allows these dimensions to be edited via typing (e.g., as occurs in FAR). Damage from less-than-catastrophic collisions can be modeled by replacing the undamaged part with a part that has the appropriate 'chunk' taken out of it; the part explodes when enough of it is destroyed. Procedurally generated parts will require procedurally generated statistics that range from volume to cost to structural integrity and cause the desired emergent behavior.

-Duxwing

[AngelLestat]

Maybe this is where we are encountering a problem. What I, and I think Outlander, are referring to when we say standard is, not custom-made.

For instance the Falcon 9 launch stage. SpaceX can build 30 of them and then store them to use with custom built payloads later. While the Falcon 9 may have been custom-made at first, now that they plan on using it more often they presumably have assembly-line techniques to speed up the process. This kind of assembly-lining makes the launch stage standard. While since the payloads are designed for a variety of different tasks they are not standard.

Even if you made (or send to made) 10, 30 or 50 parts, is not enoght amount to get a good discount, more when you are not 100% sure that you will use those nozzle in the case that needs some modifications. And having 20 or 30 parts in stock long time is like death money, businessman like to have the money moving, is the best way to generate more money.

And why you need extra parts of that rocket if the main reason is to have a reusable rocket. Then if you make a satellite or space station those parts are not usefull.

A lot of other things (tubes where fuel and oxidiser run, vents, controls, many parts of turbomachinery/gas generators, hydraulics that drives the gimbal etc.) are either standard or something serious manufacturers produce for spaceflight but based on the existing technology

It does not matter if is existing technology, tubes and almost all the other things you mention needs to fix in the intrincate engine design. Maybe a 2% or 5% of the engine is made with standard components.

The same goes for electronics - it's pretty standard; most of it (especially for interplanetary missions) is radiation-hardened but manufacturers did it first for military and only then

I was always agree with electronics, but not in a 100%, Some comunications satellites go up with high end technology and hardware made specially for them.

but made from metal/composite sheets available for almost anyone with enough money. ( Fuels are pretty non-standard, but then Russians use quite standard mixtures of RP-1 and LOX, which is actually the same for Atlas V since they are using Russian RD-180 engines. Did I get my words across this time?

First, you can not mention any kind of raw material like something standard. About the rocket fuel, is Russia selling this? I want to buy some..

I was born there and know perfectly well how things had worked.

Very well comrade.

Energia corporation itself produces a lot of things for consumers because some technologies and process are equally well applied for making both cutlery and rockets (no joking here).

I know you are not joking, USA also used a lot of private companies to develope some parts for the apollo mission. Like astronaut suit to women's underwear company and the electronic memory to a tissue company.

But all this has nothing to do with standard components becouse all them are made it for this purpose!

So if you are in KSP with a procedural part and you select the 5m tank diameter, then you can imagine that you develope that tank with help of a pet company. And everybody happy.

In my case, I want to make a observatory dome to place my telescope. There are many companies who made these domes, but they are too expensive, So I found that it will be a lot cheaper if I do it with the help of my uncle who has a workshop to work with metals.

This is because when a product is not manufactured in amounts greater than 1000 or 100000 (depending the product) the cost remains too high. That is the reason SpaceX build almost all their componets using their own workshop.

And I don't know about you, but Windows 8 showed me that Microsoft lost any resemblance of care for their customer

The rule said that if a current version of windows is "relative" good then you need skip the next one. This rule was always true.

About your tabs solutions and 64 bits, I guess someone already answer you.

I use all my logic to prove you that 1+1=2, you are still determined to deny everything. Our previous interstellar discussion has something to do?

I tend to use one, maximum two fuel tanks for a stage, and pack stages in parallel. Oversized launch vehicles are for wusses anyway

If squad improves the aerodynamic system then you need to said "good bye" to your parallel technique.

And the half of the parts of your next space station will be docking ports.

Nice pictures.

I use 3-4 pWings to make one wing as it is.

I dint use this mod so much, how it behaves in your opinion? what is the real center of mass? I hate the fact that this mod never reach the 1.0 version.

Damage from less-than-catastrophic collisions can be modeled by replacing the undamaged part with a part that has the appropriate 'chunk' taken out of it; the part explodes when enough of it is destroyed.

What are you saying? That when a airplane collision with a large procedural wing you can remplace that model for another standard broken mesh with broken parameters in the moment of the collision?

John FX: What is NTG?

[Van Disaster]

The point is being missed that while the F9 launcher is now a standard mass production item, they didn't ring NASA up and order a bunch of STS external tanks for it. The entire system is a commodity, *not all the components*. The same way as Airbus use ( or used ) common fuselage dimensions and similar cockpits across their airliner designs - they certainly didn't go rummaging in some parts bin in Tolouse, grab a couple of A300 fuselages & some A340 wings and knock out a complete new plane, which is what people seem to want to force us into here.

[cfds]

Personally, I like the idea of procedural parts with snapping to standard diameters and lengths. Apart from the part clutter, it would solve the problems of the wacky lengths that the parts have now...

[John FX]

John FX: What is NTG?

Nuclear Thermal Generator.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Personally I like the idea of procedural parts as it would allow a much greater range of options without clogging up the menus. If there was for example a single 1.25m tank that could be stretched to any desired length and also have the fuel it contains change, (This would change the tanks texture), it would greatly clean up the part list. That would also allow 3.75m parts to be added as all the variations wouldn't cause even more clogging. I also like the idea of them snapping to certain lengths to help keep the craft design neat.

Procedural fairings are definitely important because of the various shapes and sizes of payload which can be made in KSP.

[allmappedout]

Wow, big necro! I'm keen on procedural parts, but I think the idea of having set radius parts will make it easier to ensure interoperability. Whilst I think there could be a 3.75m part, it's verging on real-life size human rockets and given that Kerbals are meant to be about 1/10th the size, it might make things a little bit easy (given, of course, suitably large rocket parts to go with the big fuel tanks) to get off of Kerbin with huge contraptions. One of the key ideas of space travel is limiting returns on increasing size. Adding 3.75m parts just sort of says "to hell with building small!". I'm not against it, just that it shouldn't automatically be put in just because 'why not'.

[xrayfishx]

Ok, this thread already died twice, but the problem is still there so why not revive it?

My idea of procedural parts would be this:

Fuel tanks, structurals etc.

When you add a part for your rocket, you have 3 options:

A) Build a new part

This is expensive, but you can have a part in any configuration you want.

Use a configuration you've used before

This is less expensive, as the part is already developed, it just has to be built again.

C) Take one from the warehouse

Recover parts can be reused. Just needs a few coins for refurbishing and you're good to go. With some techs you can build slightly more expensive parts that need less refurbishing, which eventually pays off if you reuse it enough.

Also, you could have some parts mass produced. You set the speed at which they are produced and since you only need one production line for every part, it costs less.

You have standardized parts, but you can choose what that standard is so it fits you best.

Engines

Many of you think this is a bad idea. I can see why, but I believe that it should be possible to make some changes to them, too. What I mean is that you should be able to sacrifice some Isp for a bit of thrust or increase the sea level Isp at the cost of vacuum Isp. Or add more thrust vectoring at the cost of mass (could also be done by adding engine mounts, which would also remove that ugly fuel tank cap from the engines themselves).

Which settings are standard should be up to you. Changing what is standard would cost you. Building a non-standard engine would also cost extra.

Right now this type of thing wouldn't work. However, when recovering becomes important and things have prices, it would be better than the current way.

This would satisfy the people who think standardization is the way to go, but would also allow the flexibility of custom parts when you need it.

Edited February 2, 2014 by xrayfishx

[Woopert]

I love procedural parts. Procedural Fairings is a must have for me (even though I don't use FAR, i just like the looks). pWing looks awesome too. The other benefits are that they're easier to use and lower part count.

[John FX]

Ok, this thread already died twice, but the problem is still there so why not revive it?

My idea of procedural parts would be this:

Fuel tanks, structurals etc.

When you add a part for your rocket, you have 3 options:

A) Build a new part

This is expensive, but you can have a part in any configuration you want.

Use a configuration you've used before

This is less expensive, as the part is already developed, it just has to be built again.

C) Take one from the warehouse

Recover parts can be reused. Just needs a few coins for refurbishing and you're good to go. With some techs you can build slightly more expensive parts that need less refurbishing, which eventually pays off if you reuse it enough.

Also, you could have some parts mass produced. You set the speed at which they are produced and since you only need one production line for every part, it costs less.

You have standardized parts, but you can choose what that standard is so it fits you best.

Engines

Many of you think this is a bad idea. I can see why, but I believe that it should be possible to make some changes to them, too. What I mean is that you should be able to sacrifice some Isp for a bit of thrust or increase the sea level Isp at the cost of vacuum Isp. Or add more thrust vectoring at the cost of mass (could also be done by adding engine mounts, which would also remove that ugly fuel tank cap from the engines themselves).

Which settings are standard should be up to you. Changing what is standard would cost you. Building a non-standard engine would also cost extra.

Right now this type of thing wouldn't work. However, when recovering becomes important and things have prices, it would be better than the current way.

This would satisfy the people who think standardization is the way to go, but would also allow the flexibility of custom parts when you need it.

I like this. Not so sure on changes to engines though. I`d limit them to under 5% if at all. As you say, it would all work better once money is implemented and we get a benefit from recovering parts.

[xrayfishx]

I like this. Not so sure on changes to engines though. I`d limit them to under 5% if at all. As you say, it would all work better once money is implemented and we get a benefit from recovering parts.

I'd say about 10%. But 150% for thrust vectoring, because 1 + 5% is still too little for shuttles.

Edited February 3, 2014 by xrayfishx

[SilverMethod]

Ok, this thread already died twice, but the problem is still there so why not revive it?

My idea of procedural parts would be this:

-snip-

This is pretty much what AngelLestat was trying to get across.

[xrayfishx]

This is pretty much what AngelLestat was trying to get across.

If that's so, then I understand the s*itstorm in this thread. He should have gotten some friend who speaks better english to write it for him. I didn't see a word about the standardization system that I came up with.

[Galane]

I'd like to see a way to convert a procedural part to a "real" part with model that can be used in a game without needing Procedural Parts installed.

One example. I'm updating PolecatEZ's ReStock cfg pack for Kerbodyne and tech tree compatibility, but none of the stock tapered adapters will scale up to fit right for joining the pack's ThunderMax size tanks to Kerbydyne size. When scaled up enough to for the small end to fit the Kerbodyne diameter, the big end is too large for the ThunderMax size.

I made a conic structural piece with Stretchy SRB and saved it as a subassembly. I assume the same could be done with Procedural Parts and included with ReStock Reloaded, but of course that would require having PP installed.

Does PP use different code than Stretchy SRB for describing parts? Here's the 1 part subassembly.

ship = ThunderMax-Kerbodyne adapter
version = 0.23.5
description = Adapts Kerbodyne to ThunderMax parts
type = VAB
PART
{
	part = stretchyConicTank_4294615838
	partName = Part
	pos = -8.682415,14.88491,-1.494274
	rot = 0,0,0,1
	attRot = 0,0,0,1
	mir = 1,1,1
	istg = 0
	dstg = 0
	sidx = -1
	sqor = -1
	attm = 0
	EVENTS
	{
	}
	ACTIONS
	{
	}
	MODULE
	{
		name = StretchyConicTank
		isEnabled = True
		topFactor = 1.503499
		coneShape = (0.3, 0.3, 0.7, 0.7)
		stretchFactor = 0.9733335
		radialFactor = 1.994498
		tankType = 5
		textureType = -1
		textureSet = Stockalike
		burnTime = 60
		utilization = 0.87
		utilization_UIFlight
		{
			controlEnabled = True
			minValue = 0.5
			maxValue = 1
			stepIncrement = 0.01
		}
		EVENTS
		{
		}
		ACTIONS
		{
		}
	}
}

[brianorca]

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.

But large rockets with many small parts behaves even stranger.

[Ricardo79]

Totally agree about proc. wings

I mean a "one part" wing with modeling capabilities to shape it to our likings. so no more texture inconsistency and extra wobbling because of a nice wing contains at least 6 part....

proc fairings, (if the stockgame gets an aerodinamic rework it would be an absolute must)

also a tweakscale MUST be a vanila function

But for tanks I'd like another idea (like FStexture and FSfuelswitch) maybe one part should be proceduraly "modellable" ingame, but I do like stock tanks in general.

But for their content management... That is a mess. one tank with one size contains this and that. No more options???? I do like the striped 1.25 nasa tanks (black and white) on spaceplanes of 2.5 cockpit...

So tweakscale to resize and modmanager to make it switchable to my favourite xenon... (created futuristic SW like overpowered ION drives so it makes sense to me to get a 20k xenon to a plane)

But anyway these should be stock. (along with KAS,Robotics,Lifesupport,maybe remottech, scansat, and mining, manufacturing) These are real life everyday stuff going on so it is not rocket science. or is it?

[bigyihsuan]

Well, this thread is now relevant again, with the need for fairings for the new aero model, so yes. Maybe some procedural fairings are fine, but only the caps and base are needed, something like Zero-Point Fairings.

[Ricardo79]

Well, this thread is now relevant again, with the need for fairings for the new aero model, so yes. Maybe some procedural fairings are fine, but only the caps and base are needed, something like Zero-Point Fairings.

I don't know what is that "Zero-Point Fairings" but sounds cool

Kinda thinking about something enclosed have no "phisics" on a part basis but the whole thing as one huge thing have its phisics onward while it is not "unpacked"?

I am not english so please go easy on me

[Bill Phil]

I can see procedural wings. The modular ones are a pain in the engine to use. And proc tanks are OK as long as they're balanced well. But I do enjoy putting rockets together lego style.

[Daze]

For me in the stock game there's should be: procedural tanks, procedural wings and procedural fairings. The rest can be "lego style"

[Renegrade]

I generally oppose procedural tanks for KSP as building around their size limits is a big part of the gameplay.

However, I wouldn't be opposed to a procedural tank system that respected that limitation.

For example, if one looks at the 1.25m tanks, one would see the FL-T100, 200, 400, and 800, carrying 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 tons of fuel. By stacking these in various combinations, any fuel value can be attained, to the nearest half-ton. If a procedural system could honor the same limits, it could allow for the same gameplay while retaining the traditional procedural advantages (fewer parts in the parts list, fewer parts in the finished ship, better texture sharing, etc). All it would take is having the size bars (or +/- buttons) snap to the nearest smallest permissible tank size (ex if you dragged a bar to 1.8t, it would snap up to 2.0t, or if it was 1.7t, it would snap down to 1.5t, assuming the 0.5t tank size was unlocked).

Unlocks would be scattered throughout the tech tree, to allow for different diameters and maximum/minimum lengths.

(I'm not sure if the OP was suggesting something of that sort or not, it's unclear)

[Bill Phil]

A procedural tank LENGTH early in the career game would be interesting, with a margin of X% diameter difference from the base tanks.

Like 1.25 meter diameter tanks that are as long as an orange tank. Or maybe 1.5 meter tanks, if 1.5 meters is within the margin (I've been told this "margin" already exists for the plugins in question). Of course, we would then need procedural adapters...

If it's like that, then sure.

[Ricardo79]

I generally oppose procedural tanks for KSP as building around their size limits is a big part of the gameplay.

However, I wouldn't be opposed to a procedural tank system that respected that limitation.

For example, if one looks at the 1.25m tanks, one would see the FL-T100, 200, 400, and 800, carrying 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 tons of fuel. By stacking these in various combinations, any fuel value can be attained, to the nearest half-ton. If a procedural system could honor the same limits, it could allow for the same gameplay while retaining the traditional procedural advantages (fewer parts in the parts list, fewer parts in the finished ship, better texture sharing, etc). All it would take is having the size bars (or +/- buttons) snap to the nearest smallest permissible tank size (ex if you dragged a bar to 1.8t, it would snap up to 2.0t, or if it was 1.7t, it would snap down to 1.5t, assuming the 0.5t tank size was unlocked).

Unlocks would be scattered throughout the tech tree, to allow for different diameters and maximum/minimum lengths.

(I'm not sure if the OP was suggesting something of that sort or not, it's unclear)

Just like a STOCK/VANILA tweakscale with "hardcoded" stock values even in size and in amounts of resource in it. The current available mod is a little wierd I think or maybe it counts the good amount by correct mathematical formula and thats why ending about 22k a 2.5m xenon tank When the base part 0.625m was about something like 400 ...

But for a stock one incorporated to a game can be much more "stockalike" and balanced. I do missing the other feature though about tanks.

They don't contains "resources" they contain only that 1-2 thing which is hardcoded. So for instance I need MP to a specific spot where the x tank looked kinda nice but that tank contains LFO hardcoded that kinda sux... I have to make maybe 3-4 stack of the MP tanks instead of one Jumbo to match it"s size... Which weren't a too big problem unles this stuff is a huge station...so that is the die of the idea because of partcount FPS lag... And kinda instability problems about ?joints? of a for tank instead of one.

So as for the sake of procedurality I think these should be incorporated into the core game. Variable sizes with correct scaling (I mean standard diameters and fixed height ratio), and availability to be anything-container (at least decided and stored kind in VAB/SPH) But for full reusability I think emptied thank types should be changed on the fly.

If you take home some petrol in a gascan after it eptied out you shouldn't but can fill it with anything for example sand.

So in my oppinion modular/variable tanks WITH planned integrated mechanism on the ratios/sizes Should be stock/vanila option.

[Heavens]

I'd really like to see procedural tanks and structural parts.

To keep the R&D "balanced" I'm against scaling their diameter just the length in multiples of X.

Having just one base tank per diameter would help reducing unnecessary clutter in my opinion.

Same thing with wings and structural parts, while I do like tinkering and LEGOâ„¢ strapping multiple wings together to get the same effect as one procedural wing looks rather silly and causes physics issues as joints start to wobble around.

Totally against scaling engines though as this is, at least for me, one of the most important parts I have to work around and like their "flavor".

I'd also like to see scaling costs of course

[pandaman]

As Heavens said above. Keep set tank diameters but adjust length in set steps, upto a maximum limit.

if the smallest was say half the capacity of the current smallest for each diameter and the size is then increased in multiples of this, up to maybe 16 times. This would give a range upto twice the current max size for a given diameter.

Existing ships would then still work as the existing tanks already fit within those proportions. The current smallest being at 2 times and the largest 8 times the suggested base size.