So... Spaceplane Plus is added to the game!

[regex]

*hopes for procedural fairings to make it into the stock game*

Yeah, those and the rest of the procedural parts really need to be stock. So many more options...

You'd be more likely to see KW Rocketry style fairings than procedural fairings.

It most certainly is the "easy way out" compared to procedural stuff...

[Alshain]

It most certainly is the "easy way out" compared to procedural stuff...

Being an "easy way out" was not what I was referring to. It's sort of the same way Spaceplane Plus "fits" with the stock game, I don't think procedural fairings, as good as they are, do actually fit. The game design is that you piece together parts to make a craft, procedural fairings does all the work for you while KW's fairings sort of "fit" better with the stock game. Don't take this the wrong way, I use procedural fairings and not KW Rocketry, but if I try to think about it in a more unbiased way and compare existing content, I can't see Squad adding any kind of procedural part, ever.

[regex]

I can't see Squad adding any kind of procedural part, ever.

It's a shame, really.

[NoMrBond]

I can't see Squad adding any kind of procedural part, ever.

I'm pretty sure I remember Max saying that some procedural parts would be ok, like girders/trusses but not fuel tanks

Now if I could only remember which Squadcast he said that on

Not that it means Squad would be adding them I guess

[Tiberion]

Yeah, those and the rest of the procedural parts really need to be stock. So many more options...

Yeah no thank you to that. Procedural parts are fine if thats your thing, but to me they just remove most of what makes KSPs part system actually cool - you need to design your ship using what you have, not just push a button and have the exact part you need. Having the perfect rocket every time with no real penalties is pretty silly.

[Alshain]

I'm pretty sure I remember Max saying that some procedural parts would be ok, like girders/trusses but not fuel tanks

Now if I could only remember which Squadcast he said that on

Not that it means Squad would be adding them I guess

Would be nice, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Yeah no thank you to that. Procedural parts are fine if thats your thing, but to me they just remove most of what makes KSPs part system actually cool - you need to design your ship using what you have, not just push a button and have the exact part you need. Having the perfect rocket every time with no real penalties is pretty silly.

I don't use them to make it easy, I use them to make sure I don't have to use Active Texture Management for 600 thousand parts that all do the same thing in 5 different sizes. It's all about the part count, not how easy it is to make them.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Alshain

[Javster]

I think I used that mod once (as in one time, not in a time long past) but since I don't use spaceplanes much, it wasn't fun.

The IVA will set a high standard for the rest of them, and while we talk of IVA, WILL THE LAB FINALLY GET IVA (I've been waiting since December!)

[regex]

Yeah no thank you to that. Procedural parts are fine if thats your thing, but to me they just remove most of what makes KSPs part system actually cool - you need to design your ship using what you have, not just push a button and have the exact part you need. Having the perfect rocket every time with no real penalties is pretty silly.

This argument is basically a not-so-subtle way of claiming that you're better than people who advocate for procedural parts by implying that they're uncreative and/or "cheating"; it's not constructive in the slightest and relies on the other person's guilt to make a point.

I like procedural parts because they help reduce part count and allow me to design to my spec.

[Wanderfound]

I like procedural parts because they help reduce part count and allow me to design to my spec.

And I like Procedural Fairings because there's no such thing as a stock fairing at the moment, and I don't want to go to the hassle of fighting with B9 bugs just for a couple of parts. I don't care whether they're procedural or not, I just want to be sure that there'll be stock fairings in the final game, of a wide enough size variety that you can use them for what they're used for in reality, e.g. getting your horribly unaerodynamic Moon/Mun lander off the launchpad.

I don't use Procedural Wings, but that's mostly just a matter of aesthetics; I prefer the look of the SP+ bits. I also find clipping together a couple of pre-shaped wing panels takes much less time, thought and effort than fiddling with PWings settings.

Regex and Alshain have got it right about part count, though. Not all of us have a flashy new specialist gaming rig.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Tiberion]

This argument is basically a not-so-subtle way of claiming that you're better than people who advocate for procedural parts by implying that they're uncreative and/or "cheating"; it's not constructive in the slightest and relies on the other person's guilt to make a point.

I like procedural parts because they help reduce part count and allow me to design to my spec.

Yeah don't put words in my mouth, boss.

For each rocket launch, it is ludicrous to say "Hey, make this tank 5 meters shorter, and extend that fairing panel 3 meters so this cargo will fit." Doing that should incur MASSIVE R&D, testing, and manufacturing penalties, such that any procedural part would be multiple timers more expensive than a pre-fabricated part like the stock, KW or NP part (et al)

Now if someone were to expand on procedural parts and add a system where you can save designs and re-use them, where if the dimensions are unchanged you only need to pay the manufacturing "cost" again, then it would have some semblance of balance built-in, but thus far I haven't seen anything like that so I maintain they cheapen the whole process, and you won't convince me otherwise.

And I won't even get started on how it would homogenize the visual design of KSP if everyone was using procedural parts. Very unappealing.

I don't buy the part count business either, if you can't find big enough tanks/fairings out of one of the large rocketry partmods, then you're doing something wrong.

I really don't want to continue this argument any further, I am just saying its a firm "No thank you" to stock procedural parts from me, unless the system is much more indepth when implemented.

[Linear]

Yeah don't put words in my mouth, boss.

For each rocket launch, it is ludicrous to say "Hey, make this tank 5 meters shorter, and extend that fairing panel 3 meters so this cargo will fit." Doing that should incur MASSIVE R&D, testing, and manufacturing penalties, such that any procedural part would be multiple timers more expensive than a pre-fabricated part like the stock, KW or NP part (et al)

Now if someone were to expand on procedural parts and add a system where you can save designs and re-use them, where if the dimensions are unchanged you only need to pay the manufacturing "cost" again, then it would have some semblance of balance built-in, but thus far I haven't seen anything like that so I maintain they cheapen the whole process, and you won't convince me otherwise.

And I won't even get started on how it would homogenize the visual design of KSP if everyone was using procedural parts. Very unappealing.

I don't buy the part count business either, if you can't find big enough tanks/fairings out of one of the large rocketry partmods, then you're doing something wrong.

I really don't want to continue this argument any further, I am just saying its a firm "No thank you" to stock procedural parts from me, unless the system is much more indepth when implemented.

Seriously is there any difference between clicking together a couple parts or extending one? Don't act the bad man, either. You're both stating opinions - up until then sensibly.

[regex]

For each rocket launch, it is ludicrous to say "Hey, make this tank 5 meters shorter, and extend that fairing panel 3 meters so this cargo will fit." Doing that should incur MASSIVE R&D, testing, and manufacturing penalties, such that any procedural part would be multiple timers more expensive than a pre-fabricated part like the stock, KW or NP part (et al)

It is similarly ludicrous to say that "we cannot build a 6.75m by 20m tank because these are the only parts we have". Rockets are built to spec, you don't grab parts off the shelf and say "Soyuz!", or remove one of the small tanks you're using on the bottom, reattach the engine, and then launch with a smaller payload.

I don't buy the part count business either, if you can't find big enough tanks/fairings out of one of the large rocketry partmods, then you're doing something wrong.

Mind telling me where I can get 15m and 20m tanks in the correct lengths to build something like this: http://imgur.com/a/xXECc ? I'll need thrust plates to handle the nineteen engines as well.

When/if we get improved aerodynamics you're going to want fairings and fairing bases in all sorts of sizes to handle any payload and having the game load up payload fairings in 0.625m, 1.25m, 2.5m, 3.75m, 5m, etc... is going to get silly. Not to mention the problems with sorting through all of that. Plus, there's launch part count to think about. With Procedural Fairings you can have as little as three parts for any given fairing. With Procedural Parts, I can have one fuel tank for a stage instead of multiple.

[Laie]

Yeah no thank you to that. Procedural parts are fine if thats your thing, but to me they just remove most of what makes KSPs part system actually cool - you need to design your ship using what you have, not just push a button and have the exact part you need. Having the perfect rocket every time with no real penalties is pretty silly.

Depends, really. The three-rung ladder is the prime example of a part that could and should be procedural.

[Tiberion]

Mind telling me where I can get 15m and 20m tanks in the correct lengths to build something like this: http://imgur.com/a/xXECc ? I'll need thrust plates to handle the nineteen engines as well.

Something like that is indeed a fine use of procedural parts, but you can't honestly think that building huge parts like that should be a requirement of the stock game. The procedural mods exist and satisfy that need, but that does' mean the whole game should work like that when it causes oversimplification of the game mechanics and major balance issues.

TL-DR version: Plenty of valid uses for procedural mods, should not supplant core gameplay.

Let's actually talk about SP+ again or something.

[Red Iron Crown]

If I can mention procedurals again while bringing it back to spaceplanes, Procedural Wings are fantastic. Fixed part wings are far more limited in shape, are less structurally sound, increase part count, and look terrible if you're trying to do anything other than the way they're "meant" to be used. And unlike other procedurals I've tried, they're actually as easy or easier than multipart wings, I've spent some frustrating time trying to get attachment points of stock wing parts to let me make the wing I want, and then it is floppy unless I strut it. Not to mention the reduction in part clutter, the entire line of aerodynamic surfaces could be replaced by just three parts.

[Franklin]

Depends, really. The three-rung ladder is the prime example of a part that could and should be procedural.

For sure, that thing is the worst and racks up the part counts like nothing else.

Of course they were just to add 'ladder' foothold strips down one side of all tank parts, similar to the Mk1, Mk2 and Mk1-2 cockpits/pod have, we wouldn't even need the 3-rung ladder part.

[gutza1]

Congradulations Porkjet! Also, I hope that this update will also include aerodynamics that actually make sense.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I'm not getting my hopes up. They 'Implemented' the stock expansion pack, minus the interesting parts (radial oxidiser and liquid fuel tanks specifically), so I wouldn't be surprised that the cockpit or better pods were cut from the main version

[Tortoise]

How do you make Kerbin look beautiful like that?

[Wanderfound]

How do you make Kerbin look beautiful like that?

Bit hard to tell who you're referring to here, but probably: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55905-0-23-5-7-3-EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements-NEW!-VolumetricClouds!

[Vanamonde]

The pros and cons of procedural parts are best left to other threads, please. This one is about Spaceplane Plus.

[Liowen]

After seeing these part, or at least the mod they are based on, in action I might actually build a space plane, I honestly built I think 3 but lost interest in them. Now though they could be used as crew transfercrafts for space stations, or maybe a lunar tour bus LOL.

[NoMrBond]

After seeing these part, or at least the mod they are based on, in action I might actually build a space plane, I honestly built I think 3 but lost interest in them. Now though they could be used as crew transfercrafts for space stations, or maybe a lunar tour bus LOL.

I'm doing all the rescue from kerbin orbit missions via SSTO spaceplanes now, they cost more to launch than a regular capsule-style rocket equivalent, but the overall cost of the mission after recovery is only a little bit of fuel

[Tortoise]

Bit hard to tell who you're referring to here, but probably: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55905-0-23-5-7-3-EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements-NEW!-VolumetricClouds!

I was referring to the creator of the thread I am commenting on.

Thanks.

[Sky_walker]

The pros and cons of procedural parts are best left to other threads, please. This one is about Spaceplane Plus.

Looks like I opened Pandora's box by mentioning procedural fairings. lol

Poor discussion got pushed off course.

I'm not a big fan of a procedural parts, but fuel lines, struts, and procedural fairings are certainly an exception to that rule - I love them.

After seeing these part, or at least the mod they are based on, in action I might actually build a space plane, I honestly built I think 3 but lost interest in them. Now though they could be used as crew transfercrafts for space stations, or maybe a lunar tour bus LOL.

I made several spaceplanes and atmospheric planes trying to convince myself that they're nice things... but in the end: rockets are my thing, I don't care much about aerospace. Still though - addition of a hangar bays is a huge thing, regardless of what one thinks about wings.