Move Monopropellant tanks from 'Propulsion' to 'Control'

[ialdabaoth]

Seriously, the Propulsion tag gets REALLY crowded, and the Control tab is practically empty. Shouldn't RCS tanks go with their thrusters?

[JimmyAgent007]

I agree with this, helps keep things sorted.

[Serratus]

Agreed! I'd also like the ion engine and xenon tanks to go to propulsion (yes, I know ion engine isn't technically an engine, but it does propel stuff).

[Kasuha]

Yes, and I'd put xenon and ion engines under Control as well, leaving Propulsion only to liquid fuel and oxidizer related parts. I know the logic is disputable but it would make all parts easier to access.

[panzerknoef]

Agreed, it's just confusing now, rcs thrusters here, rcs fuel there. And yes ion should be moved

[Atoning Unifex]

How about re-doing the entire list of all items into a more organized system to make parst easier to find?

The first thing that comes to mind is a system using some sort of tags. Parts would have tags based on things like type, size, fuel etc and then you would simply select one or more tags to filter your list by, hence being able to easily find a monoprop 2.5m tank, or a radial science part etc.

Not sure how much work it would be game wise to implement but it could give us greater control over finding parts.

[coolitic]

Why are xenon and ion in utility? Should be in propulsion for logical reasons.

[JimmyAgent007]

Id like to have the most used parts filtered up to the top so you arnt always clicking to the next page for something you use all the time.

[lajoswinkler]

The whole list needs to be re-sorted. Engines and tanks are all randomly thrown in it. There's no order whatsoever and it's highly annoying.

[ZodiaK]

OP: agreed. (10)

[Claw]

Yes, and I'd put xenon and ion engines under Control as well, leaving Propulsion only to liquid fuel and oxidizer related parts. I know the logic is disputable but it would make all parts easier to access.

Agreed, it's just confusing now, rcs thrusters here, rcs fuel there. And yes ion should be moved

I'd have to disagree with moving xenon and ion engines into Control. They are still propulsion devices (although I get that they are a very different kind).

I certainly agree that the propulsion tab needs redone. Maybe even just an "engines" tab and a "tanks" tab would help. Or perhaps by type (nuclear, liquid/oxidizer, monopro, ion), but I don't think there's enough of each type yet to justify that many tabs.

[DJRWolf]

+1 to this idea (and the ion engine as well).

[ialdabaoth]

Regarding engines / tanks: What would be really nice, would be to actually implement sub-categories, even if only as a sorting system for which parts show up higher in their category lists.

If you wanted to get really fancy, you could have a second set of tabs appear under the first set, to filter by. In which case, might I propose:

Pods

0.5m Manned

1m Manned

2m Manned

0.5m Unmanned

1m Unmanned

2m Unmanned

Propulsion

0.5m Fuel

0.5m Engine

1.0m Fuel

1.0m Engine

2.0m Fuel

2.0m Engine

Control

0.5m SAS

1.0m SAS

2.0m SAS

0.5m RCS

1.0m RCS

2.0m RCS

Structural

0.5m structural

1.0m structural

2.0m structural

small plates and beams

medium plates and beams

large plates and beams

Aerodynamic

0.5m fairings & cones

1.0m fairings & cones

2.0m fairings & cones

small fins

medium fins

large fins

Utility

Lights

Batteries & Generators

Docking Ports

Wheels & Legs

Crew Accomodations

Storage

Science

Sensors

Experiment Housings

Transmitters

Edited February 19, 2014 by ialdabaoth

[Kasuha]

I'd have to disagree with moving xenon and ion engines into Control. They are still propulsion devices (although I get that they are a very different kind).

RCS is a kind of propulsion, too. You can get to orbit using RCS. Scott Manley uses RCS for some substantial dv in his series, too. So instead of Propulsion/Control it can be renamed to High impulse/Low impulse categories if it makes you happier. Either way it makes more sense to me than xenon in utility.

[Superfluous J]

Agreed on most of the points in this thread. Especially about ordering.

Rockets should be at the top of Propulsion, then tanks, then "other stuff" like fuel lines and whatnot. Then stuff should be sorted all large radius parts, then medium, then small, and finally within those sorted downward power-wise or fuel-amount wise. So it'd go mainsail, skipper, poodle, that engine with 215 isp, the 200 isp one, etc. Fuel would start with orange and go to half-orange, quarter-orange, etc.

The game should just do this so when you mod parts in they just work.

[Red Iron Crown]

yes, I know ion engine isn't technically an engine

How is it not an engine?

[WhiteWeasel]

Why are xenon and ion in utility? Should be in propulsion for logical reasons.

I disagree, it is in the utility tab for logical reasons, it's in there with the peripherals (batteries/solar panels) it needs to run, or any sane person would use when building an ion propelled ship.

[lttito]

I agree to move RCS tanks to control (I usually search them first in control and later realize they are in props)

[SuperWeegee4000]

I do agree with this, as well as possibly moving fuel lines to Utility. It's time-consuming to find what you need.

[Rakaydos]

Personally, I would love to see batteries, generators, and Solar panels moved to Science. The science tab is almost as empty as the control tab, and would make the science tab useful in Sandbox mode.

[Greenspan]

It would be nice if there was a way to filter parts as well.

[JumpsterG]

This was exactly my inspiration for making a tool to reorder these things. If you're feeling adventurous, you can give the tool linked in my sig a try. It's windows only (sorry! May work with emulation software?) and is an external tool (not plugin). It lets you do all of the things suggested (change categories, sort into subcategories, change sort order) to your tastes. PLEASE backup your save AND gamedata folders before using it, as I have had at least one report of kraken attacks. I currently use it myself without any trouble (Stock, RemoteTech2, Kethane, IP Launchpads all working), but I have not tested it thoroughly with mods.

Currently, there is no intended order within each category by the devs. Parts are loaded based on their alphabetical/numerical order in the gamedata folders. Whichever part KSP sees first, it loads first into the list (i.e. Mk1cockpit only comes right before Mk2cockpit because "Mk" is similar and 2 comes after 1). My sorter works by moving part .cfg data over into a sorting folder in Gamedata, and sticking them in numbered folders to reflect the desired order.

Categories can be changed pretty easily by anyone who's interested, just by adjusting "Category = " in each part's .cfg file.

Maybe useful tip: Want to hide a part from VAB but not destroy vessels in flight with the part? Set "Category = -1". The part will be loaded for vessels, assemblies, and .crafts using it, but it won't be visible in the VAB parts list.

I hope KSP devs will eventually develop some nice way to organize parts in different ways from within the VAB view.

[KvickFlygarn87]

Agreed! I'd also like the ion engine and xenon tanks to go to propulsion (yes, I know ion engine isn't technically an engine, but it does propel stuff).

It isn't? Explain yourself!

[Nuke]

id also move ion engines to propulsion. its still propulsion even if its really slow propulsion. id actually like to see some small mono propellant engines for probes since the number of probes in our solar system run on hydrazine exclusively is not 0. thrust is thrust, even if it comes from an rcs thruster. id like to see the lines between maneuvering thrusters and engines more blurred rather than more defined. i already use them interchangeably.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Nuke

[Claw]

RCS is a kind of propulsion, too. You can get to orbit using RCS. Scott Manley uses RCS for some substantial dv in his series, too. So instead of Propulsion/Control it can be renamed to High impulse/Low impulse categories if it makes you happier. Either way it makes more sense to me than xenon in utility.

I can see this too. Although I'm not sure RCS was meant to be a means of propulsion. Whereas ion engines were created for the purpose of propulsion, although they can serve control purposes as well.