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

[Vallius]

It seems like every day, there are calls for all kinds of new parts for the game. I've been playing KSP for around 6 months now, and always enjoy seeing peoples new ideas here in the forums, but I'm starting to get concerned. Some people get impatient with SQUAD for not implementing their ideas for parts in stock, but I would argue that Harvester and Co. are being very wise.

Consider the following. What if SQUAD introduced a new part that they later decided was a bad idea? (Maybe they've had this experience with the "ant engine".) Could they remove it from the game? What would that do to the thousands of people who are using it already in their saves? As KSP continues to evolve, there are bound to be some ideas that seemed great at the time, but later on just don't work for the build, or become redundant content.

Do you think we should try to hold back a little on our enthusiasm for thousands of new parts?

Are there any parts that are in stock that you wish weren't put in?

What would you like SQUAD to do if they started implementing an idea in one release they found out later was just not going to work later?

[vexx32]

It's happened before, though usually parts that are removed are simply replaced with something else. It's not very uncommon for an update to break compatibility between versions for save files, or craft files. If they wanted to make the loading sequence backwards-compatible, they'd likely try to replace all removed parts with a 'dummy' part that is defined as the size between the other attachments on it (so it would stretch to fill the space between two or more attached nodes or other parts, or have a preset site if it was just slapped onto a surface with no other things attached to it). I would assume this part had some kind of code to prevent anyone launching a craft that contained it, so they'd be forced to remove the part when next they load the craft and replace it with something else.

[LethalDose]

I think there's a lot less clamoring for just raw parts now than there was before. The complaints about Squad not listening seems to be more about absent game mechanics than absent parts.

Though that being said, there seem to be some glaring omissions from the Mk2 & Mk3 lines, e.g. cockpits, LFO tanks, etc. I really fail to see how building a spaceplane plane without round tanks is a bad idea as you've described.

Also, what's the problem with the LV-1®?

[vexx32]

A lot of people think the LV-1R is too weak for practical use, I think. I don't use it myself, but even I can come up with a fair few situations in which it is at least decently useful.

[LethalDose]

A lot of people think the LV-1R is too weak for practical use, I think. I don't use it myself, but even I can come up with a fair few situations in which it is at least decently useful.

Yes, but it hasn't been removed, and it was useful even before it got buffed in 0.23.5.

I think trying to draw the conclusion that "Squad thinks/thought the LV-1 was a bad idea" is a really really far stretch, to the point of absurdity. As is the hyperbole about the community's "enthusiasm for thousands of new parts".

[problemecium]

I'm totally on board with the concept of ditching outdated parts.

For one thing, people are already aware that updates are liable to break their saves.

For another, there's no law that says you have to delete your old installation when you update, or that you have to update at all. And it's trivial to make a parts pack that sticks old parts back in the game if you really want them.

For a while now I've been thinking (and I have mentioned this already in other threads, I admit) that KSP needs to change its paradigm for things like fuel tanks - adopting resizable tanks and simply having a few different "types", e.g. a light but weak tank or a strong but heavy one. Something similar could apply to wings, probe cores, structural parts, and perhaps engines to a degree.

[Sky_walker]

There are no outdated parts. There are just parts that YOU can't find a use for.

It's your personal problem, not a problem with the game.

[regex]

I think SQUAD avoided putting in all the parts evar because of career mode. Balancing some, what, 200+ parts provides a good baseline for a somewhat painless effort; adding more just means that much more to bring up-to-date during a second pass. After career mode has been fleshed out they can get a good idea of how a new part will fit in with the current samples and go from there.

What I'd really like to see is procedural parts, like fuel tanks. It just makes too much sense, IMO, and would remove a ton of duplicate parts while allowing an even greater variety of craft.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll see a great variety of extra parts in the coming versions. Maybe... Either way, SQUAD shouldn't worry about breaking saves along the way, especially in a game under development where all the features still haven't been completed.

[Frank_G]

As long as parts are somewhat unique and useable in creative ways, Squad can add as many parts as they like. And i am sure, they will add much more content as was pointed to in one of the last articles concerning the .24 update.

What i dont like, and that counts for most of the mods out there, are parts that turn creative construction into a puzzle game with almost always identical outcome. That is so boring, because it takes the reward of creative design away from the player. In contrary to that are the parts that Squad puts in the game. They allow a massive amount of creativity and things people achieve with the few standard parts are most impressive, both in engineering and visual presentation. So i bet we wont be disappointed by things to come.

And as long as the game is under development, i dont care for broken saves. Its just part of the process.

[Justin Kerbice]

Harvester wrote in a previous devnotes that too much base parts is quite hard to maintain in a dev point of view (especially when there are some changes or tweaking like the cost for 0.24 update).

Why not making a base pack which will be very limited (one part of each kind), but easy for devs to deal with and additional part packs people can download and use at their very own risk (may be not well balanced in many parameters like thrust/Isp for engines, mass for fuel tanks, cost for all, ...).

The base pack will always be released with updates, the others could be released later (especially when things have cooled down).

[Sky_walker]

Harvester wrote in a previous devnotes that too much base parts is quite hard to maintain in a dev point of view (especially when there are some changes or tweaking like the cost for 0.24 update).

The further we go in development the less of a factor it becomes.

Patch 0.24 will be a major milestone in that regard - after that there will be... might be areodynamics (depending if it'll require any changes to parts or not) and that's pretty all we know about in terms of a large changes that require maintenance of a whole parts repository.

Why not making a base pack which will be very limited (one part of each kind), but easy for devs to deal with and additional part packs people can download and use at their very own risk (may be not well balanced in many parameters like thrust/Isp for engines, mass for fuel tanks, cost for all, ...).

I don't see a point of it - if I'd like limited parts packs that I am suppose to use at my own risk and are not balanced well with the game - I'd download one of the mods.

If they'd release proper, well-balanced, official parts packs, be it as a DLCs or Expansion Packs - I'd pay for it.

(especially when things have cooled down).

If things cool down then it means people lost interest in the game - and then there's no point in releasing few more parts as it'll change nothing in getting them back to the game.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Red Iron Crown]

The stock part lineup is reasonably complete, there's a few omissions that I'd like to see rectified (0.625m and 3.75m reaction wheels, 3.75m docking ports, bigger nuclear engines) but none of them are game-breaking. Most missions are achievable with stock parts only. (Note I'm a rocket guy, I know the plane builders are a bit more starved for parts in stock.) The policy of gradually adding parts, a few with each update, has worked fairly well so far.

That said, of course I would like more parts to choose from, maybe after scope completion the devs might do an update where the parts roster is really fleshed out.

I'm on the fence about procedural parts. It's good to be able to make exactly the tank/wing/etc you want, and they do reduce part clutter in the building UI. On the other hand, I feel they detract a bit from the building block style construction and are a bit more challenging to use properly, especially for new players.

[Vindelle_Sunveam]

As far as new parts will go, I hope we will not have procedural ones. I like using mods with parts when I think they lack in the game, but after using procedural fairings, I can tell that for me, these conceptually endless parts take quite a bit off the design challenge. I'm a Lego guy and the limited aspect of the parts is what kept me awoke at night in the VAB. I like limitations and wouldn't play KSP if it became a "psychedelic dream rocket builder" in which parts can be whatever you wish.

Thinking with only what's in the box doesn't prevent from thinking outside of it.

[Sky_walker]

As far as new parts will go, I hope we will not have procedural ones.

Sorry to crush your hopes, but we already do have procedural parts.

[Red Iron Crown]

Sorry to crush your hopes, but we already do have procedural parts.

Pretty sure he meant in stock. The only procedurals in stock are fuel lines and struts, both are a bit of a special case.

[Laie]

I'm on the fence about procedural parts. [...] they detract a bit from the building block style construction and are a bit more challenging to use properly, especially for new players.

Interesting point; I didn't see it that way. However, I always assumed that many parts would scale in discrete steps. Ladders in units of rungs, of course, or tanks in 1/8th increments.

[Sky_walker]

Pretty sure he meant in stock. The only procedurals in stock are fuel lines and struts, both are a bit of a special case.

Yep, I mean in stock too.

There are fuel lines, struts and on-engine fairings (these that appear when you add decoupler on a bottom of an engine).

Precedence is set and... it works extremely well with the game, never creating any situation "in which parts can be whatever you wish" like Vindelle_Sunveam implies. (and TBH: I can't see how he came up with that after trying procedural fairings - but in any case: a lot depends on a specific implementation and so far Squad got quite a good record in that).

[Red Iron Crown]

Are the engine fairings procedural? I thought there was a set design associated with each engine.

[vexx32]

Yeah, they're modelled in with the engines themselves, I believe.

[Vindelle_Sunveam]

Yep, I mean in stock too.

There are fuel lines, struts and on-engine fairings [...] never creating any situation "in which parts can be whatever you wish" like Vindelle_Sunveam implies. (and TBH: I can't see how he came up with that after trying procedural fairings.

Well, I went a bit lyric, that's all, the point being :

As far as my experience with procedural parts goes (which is limited to fairings) I think that the procedurally generated ones are something that doensn't fits my tastes at all. I've seen terribly large payload fairings, as the payload was very badly arranged inside of it, to the point it felt a bit dumb. With fixed fairings, such as the KW ones, the player, at least, have a limit on cargo girth, which makes him think about how he is going to design it.

My impression is that would also give players more of an incentive for orbital construction,; because even if they fit a whole station in a ridiculously high fairing, they still would have to rearrange the parts in orbit if they wish their station not to be a giant tubelike structure.

AFAIK, this wouldn't prevent the WhackJobs from doing their work too, as they would also have to circumvent the same rules as everyone, like they already do, but in their own fashion.

Edit : I do not think the engines fairing models are procedurally generated, since even the Mainsail and the Skipper have distinct designs where there could be a simple rescaling from one to another.

[Sky_walker]

I've seen terribly large payload fairings, as the payload was very badly arranged inside of it, to the point it felt a bit dumb.

That applies by far more to the stock areodynamics (pancake rockets, more boosters rule, etc.) than it ever did to fairings.

With fixed fairings, such as the KW ones, the player, at least, have a limit on cargo girth, which makes him think about how he is going to design it.

Procedural fairings can have limits applied to them just fine. Word "procedural" doesn't stand for "infinite size".

My impression is that would also give players more of an incentive for orbital construction,;

Whatever fairings are procedural or not - got nothing to deal with that.

because even if they fit a whole station in a ridiculously high fairing, they still would have to rearrange the parts in orbit if they wish their station not to be a giant tubelike structure.

They wouldn't use fairings at all and just: add more boosters.

Problem you have got very little if not nothing at all to deal with whatever fairings are procedural or not - it's all about aerodynamics. Proper aerodynamics would migrate unproportionally large or awkard cargo and proper aerodynamics would encourage orbital construction.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Vindelle_Sunveam]

I agree, I've been focusing too much on a symptom of what bothers me. Your witty critisism was good at getting me out of my blinkers.

[regex]

Since we've already been derailed... A big reason to use procedural parts over others (pFairings vs. the KW fairings, for instance) is part count. I get the whole "Lego" design-challenge aspect but when I want a 5m fuel tank I don't want to construct it out of 10~14 parts and have weak joints compared to its size. A more realistic aero model like FAR would also go a long way towards reducing "payload girth" as has been said. Ridiculous payloads are a natural outgrowth of the unrealistic systems in this game.

[John FX]

As far as new parts will go, I hope we will not have procedural ones. I like using mods with parts when I think they lack in the game, but after using procedural fairings, I can tell that for me, these conceptually endless parts take quite a bit off the design challenge. I'm a Lego guy and the limited aspect of the parts is what kept me awoke at night in the VAB. I like limitations and wouldn't play KSP if it became a "psychedelic dream rocket builder" in which parts can be whatever you wish.

Thinking with only what's in the box doesn't prevent from thinking outside of it.

If we follow your logic you would prefer having fixed lengths of strut and fuel pipe compared to the `any length you like under a fixed limit` solution we have now.

I`m pretty sure that is not the case. You probably like `some` procedural parts but not others.

You could always just not use or remove the parts if they ever get added, then procedural parts would get tech support (the main reason for being stock) and you could still play lego-style.

The limitations you like could be ones you impose upon yourself only without having to impose them on others.

Everybody wins.

i`d like procedural parts but very late in the tech tree, then new players get used to building craft without them but advanced players get the building options they want for beautiful craft. Like may controversial parts or features, adding them very late in career would mitigate the issue of new players learning `bad habits` or having the game simplified to the point of eliminating the game itself.

Again, everybody wins.

EDIT : As has been said well, with a proper aerodynamic model a lot of the unrealistic craft simply would not fly.

It seems like every day, there are calls for all kinds of new parts for the game. I've been playing KSP for around 6 months now, and always enjoy seeing peoples new ideas here in the forums, but I'm starting to get concerned. Some people get impatient with SQUAD for not implementing their ideas for parts in stock, but I would argue that Harvester and Co. are being very wise.

Consider the following. What if SQUAD introduced a new part that they later decided was a bad idea? (Maybe they've had this experience with the "ant engine".) Could they remove it from the game? What would that do to the thousands of people who are using it already in their saves? As KSP continues to evolve, there are bound to be some ideas that seemed great at the time, but later on just don't work for the build, or become redundant content.

Do you think we should try to hold back a little on our enthusiasm for thousands of new parts?

Are there any parts that are in stock that you wish weren't put in?

What would you like SQUAD to do if they started implementing an idea in one release they found out later was just not going to work later?

To get back on topic I would say

Do you think we should try to hold back a little on our enthusiasm for thousands of new parts?

No, not really. It is our job to desire and the job of SQUAD to evaluate our desires and choose appropriate parts to include. The more thousands of parts we desire, the larger the base of options SQUAD has to choose from. What we should not do is get too precious about any particular parts or to not have certain parts as it may or may not be implemented that way.

Are there any parts that are in stock that you wish weren't put in?

Again no. There are parts I do not use but I can see they all have uses in certain situations.

What would you like SQUAD to do if they started implementing an idea in one release they found out later was just not going to work later?

Mostly nothing. I`d be OK with some `zombie` parts. If they did remove parts which had been available for a while and people had saves with many craft with them in then in absence of any other `save breaking` features I would expect a `save game adjuster` which would replace that part with a dummy part.

They already have started on an idea (resources) which they decided would not be as fun (for the expended dev time) as other options so they shelved it before release. I can see this happening much more often than a feature getting released then being judged to be a bad idea.

Edited July 8, 2014 by John FX

[Alshain]

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.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Alshain