Stock fairings: Procedural or not?

[BudgetHedgehog]

Just make it symmetric, hide it under fairings, and don't let the angle of attack grow too high.

So, pretty much every single FAR launch ever, gotcha.

(symmetric isn't necessary, just make sure the CoM is in line and doesn't move and you're golden).

[Capt Snuggler]

I am so in that league, i personally would make almost anything that remotely makes sense to be procedural, into a procedural part. How nice would removal of the 10-20 different wings be, if we could change that into 1-4 procedural wings with maybe different end styles, rounded corners, vs sharp corners, ect ect.

I'm coming around to the idea of procedural wings. It does make sense that an element so big should be made of a few adjustable parts rather than 57 small pieces.

I also would love procedural fuel tanks

I think would be a step too far and you would end up stifling creativity with every craft being a boring rigid tube with little variation.

Fairings and wings I'm ok with but not tanks their good the way they are.

[KSK]

Procedural vs non-procedural fairings have already been debated fairly extensively here.

[Frozen_Heart]

Not a fan of procedural parts. Partially as unplanned disassembly wouldn't be as interesting if the rocket or aircraft was only made up of a few parts.

Procedural fairings would also drive me up the wall. It just look ridiculous with the fairings being larger than the rocket half the time.

[Tuareg]

It just look ridiculous with the fairings being larger than the rocket half the time.

you mean like this?

[sal_vager]

Procedural vs non-procedural fairings have already been debated fairly extensively here.

I thought I'd seen this before, thought I was going madder

[Yakuzi]

I'm coming around to the idea of procedural wings. It does make sense that an element so big should be made of a few adjustable parts rather than 57 small pieces.

Fairings and wings I'm ok with but not tanks their good the way they are.

I believe were on the same page, sir (EDIT: though not in this thread it seems).

With MK3 and 3.75 diameter aircraft/shuttles I prefer not the play the slideshow to orbit and back game because I have to add 50+ wing parts and a equivalent number of struts connecting them. Contrary to somewhat popular believe, this will not make all fixed-wing craft look the same and will still provide enough parts for interesting kersplosiuns...

Edited February 15, 2015 by Yakuzi

[Jouni]

you mean like this?

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Delta_3.jpg

That's just a rocket that looks ridiculous. The payload fairing starts above the orange band.

[Capt Snuggler]

I believe were on the same page, sir (EDIT: though not in this thread it seems).

With MK3 and 3.75 diameter aircraft/shuttles I prefer not the play the slideshow to orbit and back game because I have to add 50+ wing parts and a equivalent number of struts connecting them. Contrary to somewhat popular believe, this will not make all fixed-wing craft look the same and will still provide enough parts for interesting kersplosiuns...

My opinions posted earlier in this (now merged) thread were from some time ago. as I said, I am coming around to the idea of procedural wings.

in regard to the explosion/break up thing, having the whole wing snap off at the base would be kinda boring. if there could be procedural "fault lines" or breaking points that could be better. wings could still be made up of multiple parts, but larger and more dynamic in shape, helping to reduce overall part count.

[Superfluous J]

you mean like this?

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Delta_3.jpg

Yeah I'd like to see THAT fly with realistic aerodynamics.

[regex]

Procedural fairings would also drive me up the wall. It just look ridiculous with the fairings being larger than the rocket half the time.

Maybe you should make your payloads smaller than the rocket. Just saying...

[cpast]

Maybe you should make your payloads smaller than the rocket. Just saying...

Or build a superpowerful rocket to lift it. While I think there should be a mass penalty for huge fairings (something sticking out really far is actually going to have to be sort of heavy to stay in one piece), if you can launch a mushroom more power to you.

[panzer1b]

So, stock fairings have been recently confirmed, and I heard that they were most likely going to be procedural. However, I personally would not like to have procedural fairings versus fairings that are made of parts a la KW fairings. Most rockets irl have the same fairings for each mission. It is a nice challenge to get something to it in a fairing. However, I can see why most people would prefer procedural fairings.

What do you think?

Personally id actually pay money if squad included more procedural parts in the stock game (wings, fuel tanks, structural things, ect). Procedural fairings are a great 1st step, but until at a bare minimum wings and fuel tanks become procedural in stock game, i highly doubt we can deal with teh biggest issue KSP now has: performance.

Procedural does 1 thing that the game badly needs: cuts down on part count and physics calculations. My relatively high end rig cant handle much more then 600 parts at any one time (without slowing the game to a crawl), and aside from those with supercomputers, i think less parts is always better for everyone (+ its not like you cant use many procedural parts if you insist on making a wing out of 10 different wings).

I also never understood why anyone would want to impose more limits on the game, creativity and thinking outside the box is half the fun. Yes getting things inside a preset fairing is a challenge, but if you want a challenge, then give yourself artificial limits to say mass, size, profile, ect. I dont feel these limits should be mandatory for all, especially for those that dont find cloning 100% realistic craft, or replicating real world vessels to be the main goal. If you guys that are against procedurals want limitations, they limit yourselves, and dont impose those limits upon everyone, you can post a challenge with limits of say volume the fairing has, or specify a specific size of the fairing, but let those that wish to have a non standardized fairing still have it.

[FishInferno]

I hate to be blunt, but you could just install the procedural part mods and let people who prefer the stock game do their thing. Procedural parts cut down on the creativity IMO.

[Jouni]

I also never understood why anyone would want to impose more limits on the game, creativity and thinking outside the box is half the fun.

Those are precisely the reasons why limits are a good idea.

Limits are what make a game a game. If you can always do what you want, it's a power fantasy, not a game. Limits also make creativity possible. If there are no limits, you can't think outside the box and do something unexpected, because the box doesn't exist.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Procedural parts cut down on the creativity IMO.

Limits also make creativity possible. If there are no limits, you can't think outside the box and do something unexpected, because the box doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but what? Take, for example, procedural wings. If I have a particular wing shape in mind, I can either: use 3 procedural wings to get the exact shape I want, or I can use 50 fixed shape wings with various clipping to get the exact shape I want. Guess which hurts my framerate more (I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with mixed grape). And the end of it, I have my exact desired wing shape but one way bloats part count and can possibly introduce weird wing interactions where there shouldn't be any and the other way does not.

I could argue that procedural wings increase creativity, allowing shapes and designs that are entirely impossible in stock (RE: that huge Kerbin Cup Mun entry thing that was made with them. Go try and make that with stock wings and then tell me limits are good.). While procedural fuel tanks may be a step too far and each rocket ends up being slightly differently sized and textured tubes, procedural wings just makes sense and it boggles my mind that people think it limits creativity when it demonstrably does not.

As for "If there are no limits, you can't think outside the box because the box doesn't exist", you're literally saying there are no limits to what you can create. It's been a while since I heard 'man, these unlimited possibilities sure stifle my creativity'.

Edited February 15, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[regex]

I hate to be blunt, but you could just install the procedural part mods and let people who prefer the stock game do their thing. Procedural parts cut down on the creativity IMO.

I hate to be blunt, but Squad could just make procedural fairings in the stock game and people who want to "increase creativity", or some other such nonsense, can just build inside their limits. That's the best of both worlds, IMO.

As for "If there are no limits, you can't think outside the box because the box doesn't exist", you're literally saying there are no limits to what you can create. It's been a while since I heard 'man, these unlimited possibilities sure stifle my creativity'.

This, and I always get the sneaking suspicion that "stifling creativity" is just some passive-aggressive way to insult how other people do things. Edited February 15, 2015 by regex

[Tuareg]

I'm sorry, but what? Take, for example, procedural wings. If I have a particular wing shape in mind, I can either: use 3 procedural wings to get the exact shape I want, or I can use 50 fixed shape wings with various clipping to get the exact shape I want. Guess which hurts my framerate more (I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with mixed grape). And the end of it, I have my exact desired wing shape but one way bloats part count and can possibly introduce weird wing interactions where there shouldn't be any and the other way does not.

I could argue that procedural wings increase creativity, allowing shapes and designs that are entirely impossible in stock (RE: that huge Kerbin Cup Mun entry thing that was made with them. Go try and make that with stock wings and then tell me limits are good.). While procedural fuel tanks may be a step too far and each rocket ends up being slightly differently sized and textured tubes, procedural wings just makes sense and it boggles my mind that people think it limits creativity when it demonstrably does not.

As for "If there are no limits, you can't think outside the box because the box doesn't exist", you're literally saying there are no limits to what you can create. It's been a while since I heard 'man, these unlimited possibilities sure stifle my creativity'.

this^^ haha, u made my day m8, i like it yeah. actually limits are there to kill creativity... and if some things it different, its alright, but as many of us said already, they could still set limits for themselves but leave us alone pls..

[Jouni]

I'm sorry, but what? Take, for example, procedural wings. If I have a particular wing shape in mind, I can either: use 3 procedural wings to get the exact shape I want, or I can use 50 fixed shape wings with various clipping to get the exact shape I want. Guess which hurts my framerate more (I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with mixed grape). And the end of it, I have my exact desired wing shape but one way bloats part count and can possibly introduce weird wing interactions where there shouldn't be any and the other way does not.

Option 3: You can be creative and build something that doesn't require those wings.

Creativity is about creating something new and unexpected. If you already have a fairly good idea of what you want, building it in KSP isn't particularly creative. Finding a novel way to fulfill your goals, while circumventing the limits imposed by the game, could be called creative.

[Tuareg]

Option 3: You can be creative and build something that doesn't require those wings.

Creativity is about creating something new and unexpected. If you already have a fairly good idea of what you want, building it in KSP isn't particularly creative. Finding a novel way to fulfill your goals, while circumventing the limits imposed by the game, could be called creative.

well, u have a weird and different view on creativity, what is alright, but keep it for yourself, live by that and dont want to force ur view on others. if you "have a fairly good idea of what you want" is already the creativity. the creativity is not how you build a dream in a restricted world but the dreaming itself...

[cpast]

well, u have a weird and different view on creativity, what is alright, but keep it for yourself, live by that and dont want to force ur view on others. if you "have a fairly good idea of what you want" is already the creativity. the creativity is not how you build a dream in a restricted world but the dreaming itself...

Ditto for you. Both of you are presenting valid views on creativity; however, you seem to not understand that you're advocating your view on creativity just as Jouni is advocating his. The game will have one approach or the other, but "just impose the limit yourself" is not actually equivalent to "here are the constraints, do wonderful things with them." You're trying to force your view on creativity as well, you're just acting like you aren't.

As for "restrictions make a game a game," I don't think anyone here seriously disagrees with that. KSP already restricts you rather substantially - for instance, you have to build your rocket with lots of fuel in order to orbit, you will find it extremely hard to go from Moho to Eeloo in a day, you have to either launch your craft at around the right time for a transfer to a planet or build a very, very, very powerful craft, etc. Those are all constraints. Everything there is a rule the game imposes on you, and what distinguishes the game from a 3D modeling program. So stop pretending "no limits" has anything whatsoever to do with KSP or how it should work. KSP should have limits. Building a ridiculously wide rocket should be hard, because it should have a lot of drag with a decent aero system. You shouldn't be able to lift a 50-ton station into orbit with a single small engine and fuel tank (the rocket equation? That's a constraint). If you don't think fairing limits are a good constraint, that's one thing. If you don't think constraints should exist at all, your imagined game has little to do with KSP.

Edited February 15, 2015 by cpast

[BudgetHedgehog]

Option 3: You can be creative and build something that doesn't require those wings.

Well, I'm pretty sure planes need wings. I didn't realise I had to specify that the wings were designed to be used as wings.

And there's an overall limit imposed by the game and that's part count. Yes, you achieved the exact structure for your interplanetary battle cruiser, but at what cost? Struggling with 2 seconds per frame and a constantly red MET clock. Part count is king, you can't avoid it, you can't circumvent it. It ultimately dictates everything you do in KSP. Yes, I could make a habitat shell with structural hardpoints and radial intakes but I would hate being near it due to it being anything over about 500 parts.

Also, with 0.90 editors free offset and rotate gizmo, building limits don't really exist any more. You're given unlimited freedom of rotation while still being attached and, within a certain proximity, unlimited placement so making a little ledge slightly wider is simply a case of slapping a rover body on and clipping it inward or slightly widening the procedural wing it's made of. Guess which one unnecessarily increases part count and brings you closer to that ultimate limit.

[Jouni]

well, u have a weird and different view on creativity, what is alright, but keep it for yourself, live by that and dont want to force ur view on others. if you "have a fairly good idea of what you want" is already the creativity. the creativity is not how you build a dream in a restricted world but the dreaming itself...

It's the standard definition of creativity. A construction worker who builds a house isn't being creative. An architect who designs yet another apartment block isn't being creative. A KSP player who builds the kind of spaceplane he/she wants isn't being creative. Imagining something is just imagination. Doing something that you can be reasonably expected to be able to do is just technical ability. When you use your imagination and technical ability to do something you didn't expect to be possible – that's creativity. If you don't surprise yourself, you're not being creative.

If you want more freedom to build whatever you want in the game, then say it. Just don't call it creativity.

[Red Iron Crown]

There's two kinds of creativity going on, I think. There's the type of creativity that involves adapting a finite series of parts to meet some goal, the type used so far in stock KSP. Then there's the type that ignores those sort of limitations for greater freedom of expression, the type to which procedural parts cater.

It's the difference between making something out of Lego and carving something from wood. Both are creative endeavors, just slightly different kinds of creativity.

[Daze]

There's two kinds of creativity going on, I think. There's the type of creativity that involves adapting a finite series of parts to meet some goal, the type used so far in stock KSP. Then there's the type that ignores those sort of limitations for greater freedom of expression, the type to which procedural parts cater.

It's the difference between making something out of Lego and carving something from wood. Both are creative endeavors, just slightly different kinds of creativity.

Nice point this one.

Actually i'm for procedural for parts like wing or fairings, because this two can "" satisfy everyone"". I'm sure that procedural tanks would cause a big number of people to be upset (sigh )