Squad why cant we keep the old wing parts?

[andrew123]

I'm sorry, this thread is hilarious.

I didn't help much. My over-caffeinated brain is screaming.

[problemecium]

I disagree. More parts is better whichever way you look at it.

Oh no, not at all! Not only can I think of a way to look at it that doesn't make more parts a good thing, I actually disagree with the idea that more parts are necessarily better.

Currently several categories in the part menu have multiple pages to scroll through in order to find a specific part, many of the parts in those categories are near-duplicates (e.g. I-beam and I-beam pocket edition). Add in any significant mods, and the menus bloat out to ridiculous sizes very easily.

Now yes, there are other mods which help organize the parts, and there's even the option of deleting unwanted ones, but both of those are merely treating the symptoms and not the underlying problems - and the latter is the opposite of what I'm sure most KSP players want.

IMO having a smaller number of parts, which can be adjusted as needed, would be much more practical.

[boxman]

Yeah sure they are not a shiny as the SP+ parts but what's wrong with having more options?

I am sure it is about the memory footprint.. Keeping them in means more memory usage which is not a good thing if they plan to add more stuff in later. I personally think they should just release them as a free dlc/official part mod.

[White Owl]

I was so annoyed with the old parts, I long ago stopped even trying to make decent planes with them. Now I'm building planes (in stock!!) and loving it, looking forward to recording some (stock!!) how-to-spaceplane vids soon. Kinda like coming full circle, or something. Used to be the only spaceplane parts were mods. Now the stock game has better plane parts than the old mod!

[VirtualCLD]

Again, sigh.

He said they are 'better', a totally arbitrary term.

The fact that the new parts are worse for small builds is a fact!

I have tried. I have tried to replace the new parts in place of the old ones and they are larger and therefore

Not as good for small builds.

Do you see how that works?

Geez...

<sarcasm>Until I see a detailed analysis, in MATLAB, with TWR, LWR, probability density functions, angle of attack plots, maximum loading, take off and landing performance charts, then I call shenanigans! (wow, Chrome spell checker actually recognized shenanigans as a word, I never knew that)!</sarcasm>

Seriously though, I feel (opinion) the newer parts are better for smaller spaceplane designs as I seem to be having an easier time making them now then I did with the old parts (where I had to strap wings on at odd angles and in weird locations just to get it to fly). I mean, the some of the new parts seem to be, quite literally, smaller than the old ones, including the control surfaces. Is there a thread that shows this comparison in more detail?

Edited October 8, 2014 by VirtualCLD

[andrew123]

Oh no, not at all! Not only can I think of a way to look at it that doesn't make more parts a good thing, I actually disagree with the idea that more parts are necessarily better.

Currently several categories in the part menu have multiple pages to scroll through in order to find a specific part, many of the parts in those categories are near-duplicates (e.g. I-beam and I-beam pocket edition). Add in any significant mods, and the menus bloat out to ridiculous sizes very easily.

Now yes, there are other mods which help organize the parts, and there's even the option of deleting unwanted ones, but both of those are merely treating the symptoms and not the underlying problems - and the latter is the opposite of what I'm sure most KSP players want.

IMO having a smaller number of parts, which can be adjusted as needed, would be much more practical.

Procedural parts would be a godsend, but might created some issues for sharing craft. I'll be closely watching these developments.

[Squelch]

So a legacy parts pack would be some of the older stock parts back?

But you seem to be contradicting yourself there as you say having all those parts would create a memory issue..

And its not a case of having to 'step outside my comfort zone' when building it is a case of, I cannot build as detailed craft because the new parts are so large.

I know how to build anything in KSP, I just don't like having options taken away from me.

Respectfully, that is a contradiction itself. A parts pack will give the option to those that want it, but won't take away the option of loading due to limited memory on some machines.

If the only argument is about the looks, then please also consider the function. The parts need to work in unison with everything else, so if the meshes and attachment points conflict, what should be changed? every other part to suit a legacy part, or simply deprecate the old part?

First make it work, then make it pretty.

[Majorjim!]

Yes, I see that you are using subjective terms, and ignoring that they are in fact, subjective terms - and then extrapolating your subjective statements to be factual ones. I can't help it if you don't see it.

Listen, the new winglets are bigger, and thicker. Meaning that you cannot do as much with them in small builds.

I have tried replacing the new ones in place of the old ones and they are, again, sigh,

Not as good for small builds. It's not subjective it's a fact.

Saying the new ones are better and giving no reason is subjective.

I won't say this again it's boring repeating myself for the hard if hearing.

SIGH.

[Jonnyp]

The fact that the new parts are worse for small builds is a fact!

No, Opinion.

Here is a nice little example of a small plane built using new parts, and it looks lovely. Given the parts have only been out for a day I expect many people to find many imaginative ways of making interesting ships. Just like they did before the update.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95780-Reapers-Dutch-Designs-%28mini-arrowhead-vtol%29-my-first-0-25-craft

[Majorjim!]

Until I see a detailed analysis, in MATLAB, with TWR, LWR, probability density functions, angle of attack plots, maximum loading, take off and landing performance charts, then I call shenanigans! (wow, Chrome spell checker actually recognized shenanigans as a word, I never knew that)!

Seriously though, I feel (opinion) the newer parts are better for smaller spaceplane designs as I seem to be having an easier time making them now then I did with the old parts (where I had to strap wings on at odd angles and in weird locations just to get it to fly). I mean, the some of the new parts seem to be, quite literally, smaller than the old ones, including the control surfaces. Is there a thread that shows this comparison in more detail?

I am talking about aesthetics not performance.

Quite clearly a larger part is not as good for small builds.

[Majorjim!]

No, Opinion.

Here is a nice little example of a small plane built using new parts, and it looks lovely. Given the parts have only been out for a day I expect many people to find many imaginative ways of making interesting ships. Just like they did before the update.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95780-Reapers-Dutch-Designs-%28mini-arrowhead-vtol%29-my-first-0-25-craft

Ugh...

A smaller part is better for small builds, that's all in saying. You can't argue that a smaller parts isnt better for small builds than a bigger one. It madness.

Anyway enough on this it getting really boring.

[andrew123]

Ugh...

A smaller part is better for small builds, that's all in saying. You can't argue that a smaller parts isnt better for small builds than a bigger one. It madness.

Anyway enough on this it getting really boring.

Agreed. I'm just going to sit back and watch the threads spiral into madness.

[EdFred]

I am talking about aesthetics not performance.

Quite clearly a larger part is not as good for small builds.

That is eleventy zillion percent subjective!!

"What is your favorite color?"

"Blue."

"Wrong, blue is a stupid color, and that's a fact!"

Thanks, I needed the laugh this morning.

[Alshain]

I tried converting this plane and it looked absolutely horrible. Those swept wings no longer have control surfaces that fit on the wing. I've seen a lot of neat biplanes and such made with those wings, I'd hate to seem them fall into uselessness. Having multiple styles gives us much more design flexibility so all our planes don't look identical. I don't want the old cockpit, or tanks, or even the old modular wings back... I just want the control surfaces back, and that is it.

[andrew123]

That is eleventy zillion percent subjective!!

"What is your favorite color?"

"Blue."

"Wrong, blue is a stupid color, and that's a fact!"

Thanks, I needed the laugh this morning.

Doesn't that imply that you don't care about other's opinions?

I tried converting this plane and it looked absolutely horrible. Those swept wings no longer have control surfaces that fit on the wing. I've seen a lot of neat biplanes and such made with those wings, I'd hate to seem them fall into uselessness. Having multiple styles gives us much more design flexibility so all our planes don't look identical. I don't want the old cockpit, or tanks, or even the old modular wings back... I just want the control surfaces back, and that is it.

http://i.imgur.com/MClnTlW.png

Agreed! :)

[VirtualCLD]

I am talking about aesthetics not performance.

Quite clearly a larger part is not as good for small builds.

My apologies if I wasn't clear, but I was being sarcastic with the first part of my post. I'm not sure I follow you; are you saying that the new parts are bigger, aesthetic-wise than the older parts? It seems to me that while the some of the new parts are about the same size as the older parts, they also offer a lot more smaller parts, aesthetically speaking, then the older parts.

[andrew123]

My apologies if I wasn't clear, but I was being sarcastic with the first part of my post. I'm not sure I follow you; are you saying that the new parts are bigger, aesthetic-wise than the older parts? It seems to me that while the some of the new parts are about the same size as the older parts, they also offer a lot more smaller parts, aesthetically speaking, then the older parts.

But their larger size makes them restrictive when building smaller craft.

[EdFred]

Doesn't that imply that you don't care about other's opinions?

No it means, that opinions are just that: Opinions. Opinions are not fact - unless of course, they are Jim's opinions it seems.

[Alshain]

I just want the old control surfaces back. I don't care about the old wings or the old cockpit and tank textures. The new control surfaces simply do not replace the old ones. It's just two parts, it's not going to make that big a difference.

[Majorjim!]

I just want the old control surfaces back. I don't care about the old wings or the old cockpit and tank textures. The new control surfaces simply do not replace the old ones. It's just two parts, it's not going to make that big a difference.

This!

What's the harm in having that back?

[r4pt0r]

Sometimes, you can't focus on catering to the lowest denominator of computer hardware if you want to deliver the best experience.

Squad isn't developing KSP as a console port (at least that we know of), which should give them more leeway in terms of performance and optimizations.

Sometimes, you can't focus on catering to the lowest denominator of spaceplane builders if you want to deliver the best experience. Old parts are will be gone, New parts are already here to take up the soon to be vacancies.

[VirtualCLD]

I tried converting this plane and it looked absolutely horrible. Those swept wings no longer have control surfaces that fit on the wing. I've seen a lot of neat biplanes and such made with those wings, I'd hate to seem them fall into uselessness. Having multiple styles gives us much more design flexibility so all our planes don't look identical. I don't want the old cockpit, or tanks, or even the old modular wings back... I just want the control surfaces back, and that is it.

SNIPPED Pic

I'm at work so I can't try and remake that plane with the new parts, but do you have a pic of the remake for comparison. Otherwise, I would say, in my opinion, that the plane doesn't look all that great to begin with, because of the stock parts before 0.25. The swept wings look okay (and only okay), but the control surfaces and air intakes look horrible. Again, not blaming your design, but what you have to work with. I would think you could make a sleeker, equivalent plane that looks very similar to this one, but with the new parts.

[andrew123]

Sometimes, you can't focus on catering to the lowest denominator of spaceplane builders if you want to deliver the best experience. Old parts are will be gone, New parts are already here to take up the soon to be vacancies.

Unfortunately, that 'lowest denominator' of spaceplane builders isn't as insignificant as you may believe.

[VirtualCLD]

But their larger size makes them restrictive when building smaller craft.

Again, I don't understand, I'm saying that the new parts are smaller, not larger. Is there a comparison showing this to not be the case?

[DYJ]

Haha nondynamic wingparts, get on my level.