With new parts, should we say that less is more?

[Jouni]

I also don't like procedural parts. The essence of kerbal aesthetics is that their rockets are built from parts that fit badly together and are always a bit too big or a bit too small. If we take that away from the game, it becomes just another generic space program.

Besides, creativity is all about restrictions. Take the restrictions away, and creativity goes with them, making rocket building just boring optimization.

[John FX]

I don't like procedural parts but I wouldn't minds something like TweakScale being stock to reduce part overload. Personally, I think that's the best of both worlds approach. I mentioned it in another thread but tweakables for fuel and other things need to be "cumulative" too, that would reduce parts for fuel vs LFO. Basically if you reduce oxidizer to 0, you should be able to put in more fuel than if you had oxidizer and fuel, eliminating the need for dedicated jet fuel tanks.

I like this. Myself I`m only looking for procedural tanks and some fairings. Most of the other proc parts I wouldn`t use.

[Vindelle_Sunveam]

Well, actually, I think that struts should at least have a mass scaling. So a 1m strut would weigh 0.005T, and a 5m one, 0.025T. I know this would be a minor, almost negligibe change, but it would just feel sensible. I know about suspention of disbelief, but I don't feel like using it there. I like that it counts as a single part, and a function that calculates mass over lengh wouldn't raise the part count as in the "fixed lengh struts" you propose, while needing the player to think about what they are doing with the space tape. And of course, even with the new joints, fixed lengh struts would be wobbly as Kerb, reducing their purpose to ashes.

I'm not against procedural parts as a principle, I just want them to fit better into the game. As far as it goes, it is not well implemented, wether is is the stock procedural pipes or the modded stuff. I know this is a lot of work to make very sensible procedural parts, but IMO, it is essential work to be made if we want a game that doesn't feel like it is a myriad of gameplay concepts that weren't thought to be together in the first place.

As for now, this is obviously not the case when it comes to procedural parts integration into the building phase, they work very well in flight (as said, part count, robust because no joints).

I agree with you on the subject that we should ask for the parts we desire without restriction. The devs are smart enough to know what will be good for the game.

I also disagree on the zombie parts. I wouldn't mind these either, as well as I don't mind parts that I don't use but are in the game, but I think that players should have no say as to wether squad should keep parts in the game or not. If they decide, after an update, that a part has no place in the game anymore, it is their right and privilege to throw it into oblivion. For those who really want to play with the old part, there will be mods.

And yes*1000 for a stock cumulative tweaking system.

[SciMan]

I don't really think the game needs more parts that do the same stuff other parts can do currently.

However, I do think the game needs more parts that do things that no other stock part in KSP can do.

I don't think the game needs more fuel tanks, or more LFO engines.

The RAPIER engine can switch between acting like a jet engine and acting like a rocket engine.

The Ion engine uses an inert propellant (Xenon) and electricity.

The LFO RCS thruster(s?) in 0.24.x will be able to use two different propellants at the same time.

The monopropellant engine(s?) (also from 0.24.x) will be able to run on a single fuel.

Despite being fuel tanks and LFO engines, the ARM parts are 3.75m, so they also have something unique to make them stand out.

The ARM 2.5m LFB combines a fuel tank and an engine, which nothing else does.

Basically, I don't want just "More parts". I want "More DIFFERENT parts." That being said, 2.5m Jet engines and intakes should be considered the next time the spaceplane parts are gone over. Even if that's only to reduce part spam, I'm more than fine with that.

I mentioned the RAPIER, and that made me think of something.

There's no technical/engineering/physics based facts preventing the construction of a jet engine that would work in Eve's atmosphere. It would be KSP's first Tri-propellant engine however. That's because it would need both LiquidFuel AND Oxidizer as fuels for it to run, as well as an intake for whatever kind of atmosphere it encountered. The intake would produce something like "IntakeAtmo" instead of IntakeAir, so that you couldn't use it to run regular jet engines.

Because of the added plumbing and the somewhat roundabout heat-transfer method, it would only be capable of Basic Jet Engine performance levels, and would weigh more than the RAPIER engine does. That would make it still quite a challenge to make an Eve SSTO. Right now it's impossible to do that unless you use Ion engines, and event then there's probably not enough payload capacity.

Less may be more, but there's still places to fit new parts that would have unique capabilities.

[Master Tao]

I've seen the non-oxygen jet engines suggestion before, but this time I had a chance to read through the differences between turbofan and rocket jet engines. My understanding is that it wouldn't work with the RAPIER because it is a rocket motor that happens to collect it's own oxidizer while in an oxygen rich environment. It's also possible to build a turbofan-like engine that burns both jet fuel and oxidizer. For efficiency reasons, a non-oxygen breathing jet engine should use a different kind of reducer, and it would have a different structure than typical jet engines. It's unclear whether the efficiency gains are worth bringing a completely different engine and fuel type.

[RidingTheFlow]

Well, actually, I think that struts should at least have a mass scaling. So a 1m strut would weigh 0.005T, and a 5m one, 0.025T. I know this would be a minor, almost negligibe change, but it would just feel sensible.

It will be negligible change because struts are mass-less (physics-insignificant) part at the moment. Their "declared mass" has no effect on actual spacecraft mass at all.

To make their mass have effect, this will have to be changed first.

[Vindelle_Sunveam]

It will be negligible change because struts are mass-less (physics-insignificant) part at the moment. Their "declared mass" has no effect on actual spacecraft mass at all.

To make their mass have effect, this will have to be changed first.

We have another thread dedicated to this topic right here :

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83508-Don-t-completely-discard-mass-of-physics-insignificant-parts

[Pthigrivi]

Put me in the no procedural tanks or fairings camp. I love the KW fairings and would be pretty happy with them stock when the aerodynamics get updated. Part of the challenge is carefully constructing payloads to fit inside fairings. I'd likewise love to get cargo bays and some of the B9 parts stock, like a couple of MK2 and MK3 LFO and RCS tanks. Id also love a larger Xenon tank. That would just about do it for me though. Honestly there are already so many parts. I can see the reason for wanting to keep things as limited as possible.

As for parts that could be updated or scrapped:

Radial engine body: Pretty pointless at present.

ASAS: Ditto.

LFB KR-1x2: I'm cool with the cluster but wish the tank wasn't attached.

LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine: Its just too close to the LV-T45 and feels redundant.

Rockomax Mark 55: I feel like this engine is for something I don't do. Is it a retro-rocket for atmo landings? The ISP just feels really low.

Probodobodyne OKTO: Im cool with the octagonal probe option, but why is the torque lower than the OCTO2? Shouldn't this be the other way around?

RoveMax Model XL3: I'm all for a having a big wheel but this is ridiculous, right? Its literally 16 times the size of the next largest wheel. It just need to be redesigned. At the very least there should be something intermediate underneath it.

RoveMax Model M1: This one on the other hand feels redundant. Im also not crazy about the aesthetics. Maybe the solutution is to redesign both of these, with a larger intermediate wheel and a redesigned platform mover that makes more sense.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Pthigrivi

[LethalDose]

I'm guessing you play sandbox, because the tech tree provides plenty of use for most of these. So, just to provide an alternative point of view:

ASAS: [Pretty pointless at present.]

I use ASAS a lot for space planes because the high weight makes it easier to shift CoM where I need it. Love. It.

LFB KR-1x2: I'm cool with the cluster but wish the tank wasn't attached.

The tank is staying, but it's being rebalanced with the Mainsail in the next patch. The Mainsail will be more efficient, the LFB will be more powerful

LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine: Its just too close to the LV-T45 and feels redundant.

The T30 has higher thrust and now gimbal and is great for LF boosters. The T45 is gimbaled, making it more useful for main engines. Also, the T30 is what you start with, and you can unlock 1/2 - 2/3 of the tech tree without unlocking the T45 (this would be a very heavy spaceplane/probe game, which may become much more popular play style in 0.24)

Rockomax Mark 55: I feel like this engine is for something I don't do. Is it a retro-rocket for atmo landings? The ISP just feels really low.

It's a niche engine like aerospike. It's good for just stupid raw power for low tech launch stages, LFBs, and as you stated, heavy landers. It's also got the highest gimbal range in the game.

Probodobodyne OKTO: Im cool with the octagonal probe option, but why is the torque lower than the OCTO2? Shouldn't this be the other way around?

OKTO is available before the OKTO2 on the tech tree, so the OKTO has a weaker reaction wheel.

RoveMax Model XL3: I'm all for a having a big wheel but this is ridiculous, right? Its literally 16 times the size of the next largest wheel. It just need to be redesigned. At the very least there should be something intermediate underneath it.

Even though there's a gap, that doesn't mean this piece needs either to be scrapped or updated.

RoveMax Model M1: This one on the other hand feels redundant. Im also not crazy about the aesthetics. Maybe the solutution is to redesign both of these, with a larger intermediate wheel and a redesigned platform mover that makes more sense.

Again, the M1 is available before the M2, which really is a hands-down better wheel.

The radial engine body, however, does nothing. It's not clear if this part will hold LF and intake air like the nacelle (as Harvester just announced).

[Pthigrivi]

I do not play sandbox. People take things like the current balance and tech tree as some kind of weird canon. KSP is by all accounts still in the raw stage of development totally open for things moving up or down the tech tree or being removed or replaced entirely. I'm not emotionally invested in any of these parts, my main concern is having the maximum range of range of play and having parts at any given level of tech development that are useful. This includes when the tech tree is complete. You would agree Im sure that it makes more sense to have 3 engines that service a range of needs than to have 3 engines that are practically identical. Thats all Im identifying--parts that are either too similar or not useful enough to really warrant their existence. Most of these parts, like the ASAS, are basically vestigial. They had a use many, many versions ago and because of changes to the game have become obsolete. If they are used at all, they are being used in clunky, niche ways that don't have much to do with their original purpose. In cases like the T30 I'm not even calling for its removal, just suggesting it would be more fun if it were more dissimilar from the T45. It seems a shame to unlock a wheel that is just objectively better, rendering its predecessor a dead part taking up space in the parts tab. Better would be if the wheels could be designed and arranged in the tech tree such that they unlock new and different opportunities for design. If the M1 was replaced with a wheel that was heavier, but had say twice the diameter of the M2 and higher impact tolerance, all kinds of new possibilities for rover-landers would be opened up, and no one would mourn the M1 for a second.

I take your meaning though on the Mark 55. Maybe I just haven't thought creatively about how to use it...

[Jouni]

I like the LV-T30 and the LV-T45 as they are (except that their Isp figures should match the Skipper). The LV-T30 is almost always a better choice, but because it lacks thrust vectoring, the LV-T45 finds its niche as a core engine in early career mode.

[Red Iron Crown]

I rarely use the T45, a T30 plus a reaction wheel is lighter and has more useful control authority as the wheel works whether the engine is burning or not.

I basically never use the Mk.55, there's almost always a better choice. Which is too bad, because I like it aesthetically and I use a lot of radially mounted engines.

Interesting news about the radial engine body, it will be an intake+LF tank. Much more useful than before.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Now with proper punctuation!

[Comrade Jenkens]

The main problem with removing parts is some players designs use them which will break craft files.

Also just because you personally don't use a part doesn't mean no one else will.

I even use the radial engine body sometimes purely for aesthetics.

[Tw1]

-snip-

This is exactly right. Every part has a use.

I play sandbox style mostly, and all of these parts have their uses- some are lighter, some heavier, some will be cheaper, etc.

The M1 makes a better choice for smallish rovers, where the TR-2L would be too large, yet the M1 to puny. I find the wheels nicely balanced, though some could to with a little more oomph. Perhaps the ability to fold the M1 would give it further usefulness.

Plus, there are many things that would not be possible without the huge, XL3. I've even needed to cluster them sometimes to support crazy machines.

There are some good points raised about the Lv-45 and lv-30. Perhaps the differences between them should be exaggerated a little. Perhaps cost could come into it- it could be wasteful to put reaction wheels on boosters where a bit of thrust vectoring would provide sufficient control.

But I agree with Pthigrivi on the tech tree issue. It was intended as an introductory stage of the game- once it's done, all parts are available.

It would be better to make the whole set valuable during post-tech tree play.

As a player of long term endeavours, I much prefer them to adapt parts rather than scrap them. But if they do, there's always the option to re-add the part yourself.

If it turns out the MK3 cockpit gets redone, I may keep a copy of the old model- its angular shape suits some of my rovers.

[Laie]

LV-T30 Liquid Fuel Engine: Its just too close to the LV-T45 and feels redundant.

Recentenly had a design where I had no use for the gimbals, so I chose the T-30 instead of my default T-45. Surprise: the performance boost was quite noticable. Not huge or tremendous, mind you, but obvious even without advanced data displays like KER or Mechjeb.

I rarely use the T45, a T30 plus a reaction wheel is lighter

I never thought of that. Thanks!

[karolus10]

When it comes to "procedural" parts, in most cases I think about tweaking and adjusting features of existing part so you don't need tens of variants of fuel tank of one type, but I don't see that without some limitations - for example some fairing or fuel tank would had own standard values (unchanged part you take from catalog ) as well as maximum and minimal length so you can adjust it in reasonable extent so you would still had few different variants of tank or fairing that offers different properties.

Other possible example would be a different converters, structural parts or engine cluster assemblies (like adjusting amount of engines in 3.75m cluster from ARM update )

Saying that adding adjustable parts kills creativity seems to be pretty counter-intuitive to me as how having more choices and control over your design can limit creativity ?

Also I would not worry much about content until all essential mechanics are already in place, adding as little content as possible makes a lot of sense if there is still possibility that it becomes obsolete with next updates.

Edited July 12, 2014 by karolus10

[Jouni]

Saying that adding adjustable parts seems to be pretty counter-intuitive to me as how having more choices and control over your design can limit creativity ?

Creativity means doing something beyond what could be reasonably expected with the tools at hand. The better tools you have, the harder you have to work to be creative. Instead of breaking the boundaries and creating something novel, you spend your time mastering the tools, creating yet another obvious design with a routine application of the tools.

[xrayfishx]

Creativity means doing something beyond what could be reasonably expected with the tools at hand. The better tools you have, the harder you have to work to be creative. Instead of breaking the boundaries and creating something novel, you spend your time mastering the tools, creating yet another obvious design with a routine application of the tools.

So you're saying with better tools people become less creative? People will just be able to push the tools further. According to your logic humankind should have run out of creativeness long ago, but we still get new cool ideas all the time, things we could have never done with the early metal tools (which you got to admit was a very creative move that let us go a lot further). Good luck making a smartphone with some cast metal tools.

I am all for procedural and/or having more parts. Currently I need a few (read my sig) mods to keep me happy, but while I know that Squad will never add all the things I have thanks to the mods (I wouldn't even want them to), there are some things that have to be implemented.

Here are the main anti-procedural arguments so far:

"It reduces creativity/makes things easy"

Read the above. It does not make things easy, it just lets you get the same result with less parts. Most likely Squad would still implement procedural so that it'd have steps, you could not make a 4.324325m long fuel tank, you'd have to go for either 4.25 or 4.5. That would not change much, it would only reduce part count.

"It would be difficult to understand for new players"

Which already conflicts with the above argument. If something is easy, then that's good for new players, right? But more seriously, they don't immediately have the grasp of how much fuel they'd need even with fixed size tanks, they would still have to get the feeling through experience.

"You'd create yet another obvious design with a routine application of the tools." - Jouni, slightly edited.

No, that's the way it is right now. Think about your average Mun lander. There's the well-known Toyota Corolla of Mun landers which I don't even have to describe here for everyone to know what I'm talking about. But what if you didn't have that standard fuel tank? You'd have to guess what would work, you don't know what experiments you can get there by replacing the tank on that standard lander.

"Kerbal rockets are supposed to look like they're scrapped together from different parts found laying around"

That's your definition of the Kerbal way. In my eyes Kerbals are good engineers and even though they are a bit more excited about explosions than us humans with our space programs, in the end of the day they still want to go to space instead of watching explosions and they don't therefore just slap something together, they build a proper rocket like us humans do and hope it'll see space.

That's mostly it. Now, back on the topic that OP wanted us to talk about.

My view is that adding more parts now is a bad idea indeed, they have to update each and every one of them when some important feature updates or appears. However, when they get to polishing the game, tons more parts is a must. Again, it does not stop creativity, it just expands what we'll achieve with that creativity. The hard part will be making sure that it's all balanced, but once it is, having more parts will not make things worse in any imaginable way. If you really believe that having more parts stops creativity, go ahead and delete all but one engine, one fuel tank, one structural part, one wing, you get the point. I promise you, it will be fun for a moment to see what you can achieve with that, you will indeed have to be very creative, but in the end you will want your parts back.

[LethalDose]

Interesting news about the radial engine body, it will be an intake+LF tank. Much more useful than before.

Was this confirmed for the radial engine body? I think it's reasonable to assume it was included, but in his announcement, Harvester said "Engine Nacelle" and "large grey parts". He didn't name he REB though.

It's a fiddly, picky little point, but based on Squad's history of insanely vague and unclear communication, typically followed by "no, no, that's Not exactly what we said" retractions, I can't feel it's really safe to assume that the REB is getting that update, especially since it doesn't also act as an intake currently (the Nacelle does).

[Jouni]

So you're saying with better tools people become less creative? People will just be able to push the tools further. According to your logic humankind should have run out of creativeness long ago, but we still get new cool ideas all the time, things we could have never done with the early metal tools (which you got to admit was a very creative move that let us go a lot further). Good luck making a smartphone with some cast metal tools.

No. I'm saying that creativity isn't just about creating something. It's about creating something novel. Something that's not obvious to a person who's competent and experienced in that particular field. The better tools you have, the harder you have to work and the longer you have to learn to become competent and get past the obvious.

It used to be that great mathematicians did their best work in their 20s. These days it's usually 30s or 40s. Not because the mathematicians aren't that great anymore, but because thay have to work harder and study longer, before they get to the point, where they can hope to create something truly new.

That's your definition of the Kerbal way. In my eyes Kerbals are good engineers and even though they are a bit more excited about explosions than us humans with our space programs, in the end of the day they still want to go to space instead of watching explosions and they don't therefore just slap something together, they build a proper rocket like us humans do and hope it'll see space.

That obsession with explosions is something I don't understand. Kerbals are cartoony figures whose rockets look about as silly as the kerbals themselves, but they're also good engineers. Because they are good engineers, their rockets almost never explode (it was another story before 0.23.5) - real rockets are much less reliable.

[Sky_walker]

When it comes to "procedural" parts, in most cases I think about tweaking and adjusting features of existing part so you don't need tens of variants of fuel tank of one type, but I don't see that without some limitations - for example some fairing or fuel tank would had own standard values (unchanged part you take from catalog ) as well as maximum and minimal length so you can adjust it in reasonable extent so you would still had few different variants of tank or fairing that offers different properties.

Other possible example would be a different converters, structural parts or engine cluster assemblies (like adjusting amount of engines in 3.75m cluster from ARM update )

That's pretty much exactly how I imagine *good* procedural parts in KSP.

Saying that adding adjustable parts seems to be pretty counter-intuitive to me as how having more choices and control over your design can limit creativity ?

And what does creativity have to deal with it?

Procedural parts like these you described got 3 major roles:

• Make life easier in the editor (less time spent looking for parts, less time spent replacing them when mistake is made, more combinations available which otherwise would have to be "hacked around" repetitively, so: less tedious work)
  
• Lower parts count (some things right now need to be hacked around with multiple parts - procedural components solve that nicely increasing game performance)
  
• Lower maintenance time for SQUAD (=more time spent up front, but much less in a long term. Instead of 6 or more parts to keep up to date: you have just one (eg. "adapter" instead of "X-Y adapter" times the number of combinations) )
  

It used to be that great mathematicians did their best work in their 20s. These days it's usually 30s or 40s. Not because the mathematicians aren't that great anymore, but because thay have to work harder and study longer, before they get to the point, where they can hope to create something truly new.

So.. in your mind world would be better if we'd discover the same things over and over again?

Or in the case of KSP: Do the same hacks around missing parts / combinations over and over again?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Red Iron Crown]

Was this confirmed for the radial engine body? I think it's reasonable to assume it was included, but in his announcement, Harvester said "Engine Nacelle" and "large grey parts". He didn't name he REB though.

It's a fiddly, picky little point, but based on Squad's history of insanely vague and unclear communication, typically followed by "no, no, that's Not exactly what we said" retractions, I can't feel it's really safe to assume that the REB is getting that update, especially since it doesn't also act as an intake currently (the Nacelle does).

I get where you're coming from. Here's the exact quote:

<strong>* Repurposed Engine Nacelle parts:</strong><br/> Those grey, largely useless engine body sections are now given new purpose as combination air intake + fuel tank units, making them a lot more useful for building spaceplanes.

You could be right I suppose, but the "largely useless" part makes me think it's the radial engine body. Now that I read it through the lens of literality, it wasn't specifically said that it was an LF tank rather than an LFO tank, I assumed that where it's paired with intake it would be LF but it could very well be LFO. We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

[Jouni]

So.. in your mind world would be better if we'd discover the same things over and over again?

Or in the case of KSP: Do the same hacks around missing parts / combinations over and over again?

Where do you get ideas like that?

Look at art, for example. Modern artists generally don't try to beat the old masters in their own game, even though they have much better tools and opportunities for it. Composers usually don't write symphonies and operas. Most painters avoid doing realistic oil paintings. Everyone is trying to do something different, because the old masters raised the bar for creativity too high in their fields.

We could have flexible tools for building rockets in KSP. Start with a procedural command pod, and tweak it until you have room for three kerbals. Add procedural heat shields, reaction wheels, and parachutes. Then it's time to design a procedural service module, complete with a procedural fuel tank, a procedural engine, procedural RCS, procedural solar panels, procedural batteries, a procedural decoupler, and procedural whatever. Repeat the same process for the upper stage, the lower stage, and the boosters. In the end, you're not being creative - you're just working as an accountant.

KSP forces you to be creative by not having the parts you need. It doesn't give you the engine of just the right size, with just the right amount of thrust, at the right part of the Isp/TWR curve. Instead of giving you the ideal engine for the ideal rocket, it gives you a selection of engines that are kind of right, while having one flaw or another. When trying to build something new, you can't just play the accountant and build the ideal rocket, but you have to figure out new ways of doing things and try something different. That's the essence of creativity.

[regex]

KSP forces you to be creative by not having the parts you need. It doesn't give you the engine of just the right size, with just the right amount of thrust, at the right part of the Isp/TWR curve. Instead of giving you the ideal engine for the ideal rocket, it gives you a selection of engines that are kind of right, while having one flaw or another. When trying to build something new, you can't just play the accountant and build the ideal rocket, but you have to figure out new ways of doing things and try something different. That's the essence of creativity.

On the other side of the creativity coin, procedural parts help you make what's in your mind's eye without having to use eighteen different parts to achieve the same look as one without the often accompanying (and thoroughly annoying) graphical fluttering, reducing parts count, physics load, and load times giving an overall smoother and more enjoyable game experience. Incidentally, this also allows for bigger, more imaginative craft because the parts and physics load on the "average" craft have been reduced so much.

Also, I can't wait for someone to make Procedural Engines, that would slay loading waits.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

At everyone talking about procedural parts -

Whenever you unlock a new tech you won't get a new part. You would get a pop-up saying "good job. You can now make this engine 2.5 meters". Instead of - Wow! A whole new part, I wonder what this can bring to your experience!

You wouldn't need half the parts you get now. All it would be is about one engine, one fuel tank, one structural strut. One intake, One docking port, one RCS thruster. One SAS unit. One antenna. One command pod, and finally one probe body. This would make KSP less interesting

Edited July 12, 2014 by TheCanadianVendingMachine