From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Version Change updates

0.14 parts

I've added the new stock parts for 0.14, though they should probably marked in some way as paid version only. I've also moved the Isp/effective exhaust velocity figures to the fuel tanks; Isp will vary with choice of fuel tank, but not with engine. In the future, a discussion of how Isp in KSP varies with both tankage and engine choice may be necessary.

0.15 parts

Okay, 0.14 revisions are fully done (and 0.15 ones are started), but the extra complexity of 0.15 means that the page will ultimately need a major reorganization.

0.16 Parts

0.16 changed the way Isp works, so it's probably a good time for the re-org. To avoid having too many columns, it's probably best to just list the Isp values in seconds at 1 atmosphere and in vacuum.

Somewhat -- currently we've got parts calculating Isp 3 different ways (SRBs/RCS/old-style LFEs, Jet engines, and new-style LFEs). I'm starting to think that we need to reorganize this by part type and completely ignore VAB/SPH tabs. Also, split off Demo parts, so they reference their own LV-T45, RT-10, RCS tank, tricoupler, etc.
Demo parts split off, though they'll need a new partbox. Oh, well. It's a start.

Updated Isp on solid boosters to use s rather than m/s. I prefer m/s, but it's confusing to have s for liquid engines and m/s for solids, and the part.cfg files list Isp for liquids in s. Entroper (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

0.18 Parts

Updated stats so that they match what is in game as as of 0.18.1. As the game now seems to quote flow rate in t/s I used this when calculating the new rates using: T / (g * Isp). It's marked as (≈t/s) as the in game values seem slightly different but in the same ball park. ExoticSausage (talk) 23:20 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Stats for the landing strut LT-1 (Which is wrongly listed as "LT-2(1)" are incorrect. Couldn't figure out how to fix this. Additionally, on all specific pages, parts summary at the bottom list LT-2 twice, without mention of LT-1. Again, I'm not sure how to fix this :? BillDerwent (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

0.19 Parts

Well, I added them in with screenshots I took and then cropped. Hopefully I didn't make anything blow up in the process... Ninenineninefour (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2013 (CDT)

Thank you, but I think you forgot the wheels. --Crush (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2013 (CDT)
Yeah, I uploaded screenshots but I didn't know where they would go or how to make a new category. Ninenineninefour (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2013 (CDT)
I added a rover wheel sub-category under utility and entered the basic stats. Now the articles themselves have to be written. --Crush (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2013 (CDT)

I'm new to wiki editing so I couldn't find this on my own. Can somewhere point me towards where I should edit in order to update the stats for the parts that were changed in 0.19 (i.e. Sepratron, RTG, Gigantor XL)? --Varses (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2013 (CDT)

That depends on the type of part. You should simply edit the page and look if it uses a template (when it uses {{…}}). If it is {{:sth}} it uses the Article named sth. Without the colon ({{sth}}) it uses Template:sth. Then you have to look there what it uses (if you have to go one layer deeper or could it add directly) — xZise [talk] 20:18, 28 March 2013 (CDT)

0.21 Parts

So, I wanted to make some updates to the parts list for 0.21, specifically adding the electric generation for engines and that same requirement for pods, but I can't figure out where the template for the pages is located. The instructions above either don't work (any more?) or I'm completely misunderstanding how its laid out here. I do work on a wiki at work that uses templates, so I'm familliar with the fact that {{page}} is actually Template:page, but that syntax is getting me a 404 (no page) or an option to create the page, depending on what specifically I'm trying to view.

On the same note, while going over the data (and building a spreadsheet ;) I've noticed that a few of the engines that I would expect to include Electricity Generated per minute do not. I'm new to KSP so if there is an easy way to pull the data from the files I'd appreciate it. ;) The list of parts that don't have the info displayed in the VAB are: LV-909 Liquid Fuel Engine, Rockomax 48-7S, LV-1 Liquid Fuel Engine, LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor, LV-1R Liquid Fuel Engine, Rockomax Mk 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine, Sepratron I, Rockomax 24-77, RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster, Rockomax BACC Solid Fuel Booster, and Toroidal Aerospike Rocket. -- krenshala (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2013 (CDT)

On electric charge is a list of all rocket and jet engines which generate electricity. Also if you want to edit. Do you want the infoboxes of the different articles? Or in the table here? In the table here the engines have already to many columns to displayed nice on smaller displays. To edit the infobox simply visit a page like LV-T45 Liquid Fuel Engine and you have a “Infobox” button on the left. That infobox you can edit, but it doesn't support electrical generation (yet). You have to edit Infobox/Part/Engine/Liquid (or Infobox/Part/Engine too, to support all enginetypes) to add a row for the electrical generation. — xZise [talk] 04:05, 26 July 2013 (CDT)
I was attempting to add the electricity requirements for all the pods, since they all need power (as of 0.21) both to apply torque to the craft and just to operate. -- Krenshala (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
Okay now pods? Infobox/Part/CommandModule is your template of choice. Although this should be reworked because rotpower, rotforce and linpower are now gone, but added (Pitch,Yaw,Roll)Torque. — xZise [talk] 15:41, 27 July 2013 (CDT)
I updated the template for the new SAS. Also all infoboxes for the command modules should display those new values. — xZise [talk] 11:41, 28 July 2013 (CDT)

0.23 Parts

Hybrid Engines. Does it make more sense to put the hybrid engine in both the jet and liquid sections, or create a new section for it? Do we think there will be more hybrids? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogface (talkcontribs)

I would suggest to keep it as it is. So we could show the different engine properties without having an extra long table. And as this is the only one I guess it isn't that big of a problem. — xZise [talk] 18:39, 3 January 2014 (CST)

0.25 Parts

The pictures of parts are ready.

  • The name of the standard and the small control surfaces has changed. Will their pages' names change too?
  • The category of cargo bays?

NWM (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2014 (CDT)

Jup those name will change, unfortunately does the bot not recognize two identical parts if both their part configuration file has moved and the part name has changed. I'll need to move those manually. — xZise [talk] 02:40, 16 October 2014 (CDT)

We need to create a page of each of the new parts, that don't already have a page. That would mean making a template, adding pictures, and text. --HamShanky (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2014 (CDT)

There is still no place for the cargo bays. Should we make an own category, or add to the habitat module renaming it to "transporting-storing modules"? (in this case the capacity in 4Crew or diameter1.25x0.625 m... (I should add a diameter sign to the marks) NWM (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2014 (CDT)

I don't think we should add those to the habitats as they work completely differently. In the hope that Squad will introduce more parts like cargo bays or even fairings I'd go for the option to add a new section named cargo bays. Oh and btw I usually use the Danish “ø” (AltGr+o on my Linux computer) to get a diameter sign :D — xZise [talk] 16:50, 26 October 2014 (CDT)

1.0 Parts

pretty much all of the ore-related parts are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gendalf (talkcontribs) 12:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Long term plan for this page

At the moment, the game only has a relatively small number of parts as this grows, I can see this page becoming very large. It might be wise to simply make use of the category specific pages, and leave this page to simply function as a bit of a hub page, perhaps linking to pages that break down the parts by function. Thecoshman (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I would think that it would not be unbearable, there is something called the scroll bar, table of contents, and "to top of page". I see no problem in the future.--HamShanky (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2014 (CDT)
That's true, but large pages might need longer to load on slower internet connections (e.g. via the mobile network) and the browser might have a hard time to handle it. But currently that is not a problem and if it becomes really big I would suggest to have a list of all parts in a page like List of parts and make this as an hub page. So for everyone who wants to scroll through all parts it is still possible, but it's also possible to have a list which links to the different types like ladder or command module. — xZise [talk] 03:45, 23 September 2014 (CDT)

And where is the Interstellar Mod Alcubierre Drives/Antimatter Parts?

Energy Capacity for Drone Pods

So far the Pods section does not have the catagory. I will add it. --HamShanky (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2014 (CDT)

Template-ise the sections

I have started work on moving this tables in templates, so far I have done the RCS fuels and Thrusters. This will make it a lot easy to update this information as the new version come out. It means that one template can be edited, and then this page will be updated, the propulsion page will be updated, the RCS system page will be updated etc. Thecoshman (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have got most of these done so far, and will be finishing it off soon Thecoshman (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I have completed 5 sections with tolerance and the such. It is extremely tedious. I will do the rest at another time. --HamShanky (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (CDT)
I have finished ALL of the single heading templates, complete with impact tolerance and the such. I will not do the double heading ones(eg fuel tank) because I do not know how to. --HamShanky (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2014 (CDT)


In an effort to make this wiki even more awesome I'll try to do about 2 images a day! (thumbnails too!) User:Zyziz (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (EST)

Many parts have only a low-res thumbnail (taken from VAB menu). I think I could upload a few new high-res PNGs (with transparent background) every couple of days, I guess they are preferred. Except I'm not sure about structural and wing parts - they are mostly white/grey and might be poorly visible on the table background, but they surely need better images than they have now. 8MMW (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2014 (CDT)

High resolution PNGs with transparent background are great! But on a side note, if you didn't know this yet, but when there is already a low-res png thumbnail feel free to overwrite it with your high-res variant. Below the file history is a link named Upload a new version of this file which you can use for you convenience. If there are thumbnails then left over I'm deleting them. — xZise [talk] 03:58, 30 May 2014 (CDT)
What is the policy about transparent frame / whitespace concerning part PNGs? Most of the PNGs that were present here before have it (transparent frame around the non-transparent pixels). The PNGs I'm uploading have no whitespace (image size trimmed to non-transparent pixels). What is the preferred style? The whitespace makes the parts look better in the table, but since they're not JPEGs with fixed white background, the transparent frame in PNGs is unnecessary, the same effect could be probably achieved with table cell margins. 8MMW (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2014 (CDT)
Yes, I'm with you on this. I'm not sure if CSS/HTML does support that, but I'm thinking about saying that each row in the table needs to be at least 60 px high (that is the maximum height of the images in the tables). The problem with additional white-/transparent space is, that on the infoboxes it looks poor when there is unnecessary buffer above and below the image. — xZise [talk] 08:18, 1 June 2014 (CDT)
Then I'll keep uploading the new ones as I did before. Should I also remove the transparent space from existing images, when I'll have more time? --8MMW (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2014 (CDT)
I don't know actually. I mean it would make sense, but maybe somebody else has a better idea/argument. By the way, if my bot is running (currently the computer is not working), it should remove the "no thumbnails please" templates automatically. So you don't necessarily need to remove the marker. — xZise [talk] 11:27, 2 June 2014 (CDT)

Physical Dimensions

Should this wiki use diameter (in meters) for stacked parts like fuel tanks and engines rather than "tiny"/"small"/"large"? This seems like the obvious place to put that information, which I haven't been able to find elsewhere. Qartar (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2013 (CST)

Considering that there are only three standard diameters, I believe that the current tiny/small/large distinction is much more helpful for the player. Especially considering that the physical dimensions of a craft or the parts are an information which isn't visible anywhere in the game. For trivia purposes you could add the exact meaning of "tiny", "small" and "large" to the top of bottom of the page, but please don't change it in the tables. By the way: A much more useful information, in my opinion, would be when the lengths of parts would be listed here. --Crush (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2013 (CST)
I disagree, I don't think tiny/small/large are any more informative than physical dimensions and I don't believe any parts in game make use of those descriptors anyway. Furthermore several mods use physical dimensions for their parts and it's much easier to compare when physical dimensions for stock parts are readily available. I agree that lengths would be useful but I don't expect anyone would think to put tiny/short/medium/tall there so I'm a bit confused why you think the same sort of thing is appropriate for diameter. Qartar (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2013 (CDT)
But what are the diameters? There is no official definition and afaik the values in the part files are differ from the real size ingame. —XZise (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2013 (CDT)
I have tested this before. 'Tiny' parts are 0.5m in diameter, 'small' are 1m, and 'large' are 2m I think. (maybe 2.5, I forget, but I think they are 2m) -stikfigz (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2013 (CDT)
I created an own article which is linked in the part box (when the radial size is given). So everybody could look up what “large”, “small” or “tiny” means. — xZise [talk] 20:25, 12 April 2013 (CDT)
A simple notice for the template - Would the size numbers of 0,1,2,3 be more practical in the template? NWM (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2014 (CDT)
Hmmm, what about something like Small (1)? — xZise [talk] 12:41, 8 July 2014 (CDT)
Not exactly, I mean only "|small"="|s"="|1" equality in template. (As you modified) Fictional: numbers remains same with arrival of 5m parts, but int this case 2.5 become rather "average" or "normal" instead of "large". So the practical use of template writing 1, reading "small". The sign "(1)" may be disturbing for the reader. NWM (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2014 (CDT)
Okay I think I understand what you mean. But the problem then is, isn't it confusing when you change the text at some point and say that the old "large" is then "small"? But it would be easy with the numbers (but unfortunately the numbers aren't used yet). — xZise [talk] 12:15, 9 July 2014 (CDT)
Surely the easiest thing would be to use the ingame practice of using S3 to describe the NASA parts, S2 (from the NASA adapter) for rockomax parts, and extending that with S1 for standard parts and S0 for the smallest parts. This is also the way the node size is defined, just without the S. On further though, alternatively the current system could be extended such that say 5m parts would be XXL to prevent having to rename everything if we do get larger parts, although personally I find the lack of a medium size somewhat counter-intuitive THEMUNROVER 1602 26/11/2014 (GMT)

Errors fixed/requiring fixing

Pending: The BACC SRB is listed as weighing 7.85 T instead of 7.875 T. Unable to update as edit link just links to subtables(?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahlzun (talkcontribs)

Yep, it is a little bit more complex to change it. You have to edit Template:Stats Table Solid Fuel Boosters which is included in the section you tried to edit. — xZise [talk] 03:02, 17 May 2013 (CDT)
That has already been fixed! Yay. --HamShanky (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2014 (CDT)

Landing legs wrong info?

Both the medium and large landing legs have the wrong info, they are switched. The Lt1 is the smaller one, the lt2 is the larger one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamShanky (talkcontribs) 21:08, 24 September 2014‎ (UTC)

I can confirm that. I just started 0.24.2 and the LT-2 is the larger but there was no error. You edited the part pages and used the wrong images. — xZise [talk] 17:33, 24 September 2014 (CDT)

Not in proper table

FTX-2 External Fuel Duct is in propulsion in game - and structural in Wiki! Anybody has solution? - NWM - 28. may 2014

If you have a suggestion in which table it could be placed. At the moment it would stand alone as none of the other tables really support it. Also you can automatically sign posts (including time and time zone) via the sign button (3rd from the left in the bar above the edit box) or using ~~~~ (the button also adds two hypens: --~~~~). — xZise [talk] 05:51, 28 June 2014 (CDT)
a second: The Radial Engine Body - Game: Aero <->Wiki: Stuctural.
And PPD-10 also has not right place among the docking ports... NWM (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2014 (CDT)
Okay I moved the PPD-10 into a separate section. But I would leave the "Radial Engine Body" in the structural section, because there is nothing special about aeronautics other than the appearance. — xZise [talk] 08:30, 6 July 2014 (CDT)
It is better now, but I think the simple "modules" instead of "habitat modules" would be more general (and could cover more parts in the future...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talkcontribs) 19:46, 6 July 2014‎
I choose habitat modules because there is currently a habitat module. Modules itself is also very general which could more or less mean anything. We'll see which parts are added, and could change it accordingly. — xZise [talk] 16:38, 6 July 2014 (CDT)
OK, but I've just wanted to solve the problem before its arrival avoiding the linking problems. A general "more or less mean anything" name also make that category work as a trash bin for the "Radial Engine Body"-like uncategorizeable junks among the "Utilities". NWM (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2014 (CDT)
But the tables are there to categorise them. For example the Radial Engine Body is (from my viewpoint) only a structural part and I'm fine with the current placement. The problem with that part is only that it's in Aero the game but not here. But the PPD-10 isn't in Aero so if you move the REB to the table with the PPD-10 your issue that it isn't in Aero wouldn't be fixed. The same applies to the FTX-2 fuel duct, so there aren't more than one part in each category which don't fit into any existing category. — xZise [talk] 12:47, 8 July 2014 (CDT)

Torque Units

Does the game use newton-meters for torque? If so, it should be labelled in the header for the parts as "Nm" or "N·m" (or "N-m" if you're stretching it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan-K (talkcontribs)

o.O why would you use N-m? I'm also not sure how we could measure it. — xZise [talk] 10:24, 17 August 2013 (CDT)
Okay I figured it out and it appears to be kNm. I used the Probodobodyne OKTO and placed a PB-ION Electric Propulsion System on a The Not-Rockomax Micronode which is connected to the command module and M-Beam 200 I-Beam Pocket Edition. I mirrored the complete construction, so that the center of mass was at the geometric center of the craft. The total height is 4 m and I could throttle one engine up to about 30 % (< 0.15 kN): 0.15 kN·4 m ≃ 0.3 Nm, so it fitted pretty well. I also used one OKTO and two Probodobodyne OKTO2 on the left and right (again to position the center of mass), deactivated the reaction wheel on one, and got 0.75 kNm (actual value is 0.8). — xZise [talk] 15:58, 20 October 2013 (CDT)

Speaking of torque, the values for the torque of the probe cores differ between the table and their pages. Futrtrubl (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2014 (CDT)

That's because they get from time to time changes without any noticing. You can update {{Stats Table Command Pods}}, but use only the part configuration definition from the stock 0.23.5 install (as some part.cfg here might be outdated). — xZise [talk] 06:47, 8 April 2014 (CDT)


I was trying to add a torque column to the Stats Table SAS template as it's probably the most important stat for them and the the table isn't all that big but I'm too new to wiki editing let alone templates to do it. Futrtrubl (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2013 (CDT)

Mass-Less Parts

This page currently makes no mention of "mass-less" parts, that are not used in physics calculations within the game. Examples include the cubic octagonal struts, landing gear, OX-S, and Z-100 batteries.

One approach may be to add another column with this info. Probably more efficient would be to add an asterisk or cross flagging the special characteristics of these parts. Donfede (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2014 (CDT)

I think that another column would make the tables only wider and harder to read. There is massless part which lists all of them and some infoboxes, like EAS-4 Strut Connector, do show this massless “feature”. I'm going to update the infobox to simply adding “massless=yes” which adds the additional information. And I could get to like the asterisk idea. This would at least not add an additional column. — xZise [talk] 03:08, 23 April 2014 (CDT)
Looking (and using search) over the page, I see no existing asterisks or crosses used. However, there are some foot/super-notes, such as those used by the RAPIER and combo-booster-engine. Using footnotes to mark the massless parts (with the footnote text linking to the massless page) seems like it should fit in well.Donfede (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2014 (CDT)
I agree with Donfede. Footnotes should do the job. --HamShanky (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (CDT)

Some more "multilingual" issue

Is it allowed to make a short template, for example {{p}} which signs "." on pages of English and other decimal point using languages, and "," on pages of decimal coma using languages? (Useful in tables)

And making the part infobox multilingual by using a template ~pp or whatever (part-parameter). For example the "pp|mass" writes the translation of "mass" depending on the localization of the page.

similar with parts names, science node names, celestial parameters...

is it possible to give them a switch, which writes the in-game English names behind or under? NWM (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2014 (CDT)

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but there are already templates (for some features at least). {{DS}} is returning the decimal separator depending on the language. But it only supports English, German and French currently and defaults to “.” if not supported. But it's not used everywhere (usually it's not). For example on Mk1 Lander Can/de it's used only on the monoproppellant value (it's obviously 15 liters and not 15 m³). Problem is that you always need to use {{#formatnum}} which doesn't allow a variable number of decimal places. And on version numbers the decimal separator shouldn't be applied obviously.
I don't understand your second request with that “part-parameter” template. There are Dictionary templates which might do that, but they don't support all values in the infobox. But those dictionaries are usually only used if the text is used multiple times. If it is only used once the template itself does that:

|{{#expr: {{{mass}}}+({{{lf|0}}})*0.005+({{#if: {{{ox|}}}|{{{ox}}}|{{#if: {{{lf|}}}|{{{lf}}}*11/9|0}}}})*0.005+({{{mp|0}}})*0.004+({{{sf|0}}})*0.0075+({{{xg|0}}})*0.0001+({{{ia|0}}})*0.005}} t {{{mass note|}}}{{#ifeq: {{lc:{{{physics insignificant}}}}}|y|{{#tag:ref|The mass and drag are from the part.cfg, but the game handles it [[Massless part|massless/dragless]].|name="phyinsig"|group="{{{nref|N}}}"}}}}|{{#if: {{{lf|}}}{{{ox|}}}{{{mp|}}}{{{sf|}}}{{{xg|}}}{{{ia|}}}|{{{mass}}} t}}

This is the command which generates shows the line containing the total and dry mass. As you can see there are translations (but incidentally not for Hungary). But most of that is translated, except for microbes proper names like technology tree nodes or part names.
Now displaying the English name near the translation is maybe possible (although tedious) but there are some problems with that: First of all templates like {{Infobox/Body}} are already enormous. And this would more or less double the height of it if the English name is written below. Now in theory English names might be only written near proper names, because otherwise I don't see a reason why you want to do that because you are visiting a translated page at all. If you want to know the English terminology for that use the English page. (On a non English Wikipedia the infoboxes are not in English)
But there is also something like that for the body names at {{Body data/full name}}. An example is Synchronous orbit/hu where there is the Mun with Umlaut and without shown. Now I'm not sure if there is a Cyrillic example, but if that page would be Russian, all names would be shown in Russian transcription and with the original English names in parenthesis. — xZise [talk] 09:56, 12 July 2014 (CDT)
OK, I've made the template:DS multilingual, now supports every languages used in kerbalwiki (except microbes'). I've started to translate the infox's templates, but it seems, something pushes the text out of the text box. -long naming? I'll solve it. I've to learn these...NWM (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2014 (CDT)
Where do you have a problem with the width? Maybe I can take a look, although at least the part infobox needs to be wider. It looks so crammed, especially if there are lines with “fuel consumption”. — xZise [talk] 05:39, 21 July 2014 (CDT)

Signs of units of measure

maybe we can use "fund" sign as the unit of the costs, like in everyday $, Ł marks - and in other pages the prestige "star" and the science "atom-model" can be useful. /or maybe - a small lightning-like mark as the unit of electric charge, a jerry-can-like mark as unit of fuels, a balloon for air.../ NWM (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2014 (CDT)

I added the ¤ before funds where added, and it's a generic currency symbol. Problem about the current unit is that it doesn't appear to be a existing currency and I don't think there is a unicode letter for that. And I would oppose adding images for that. But for science seems fitting (of course the font has to support it). The star for reputation could be . But the question is where to we need the science symbol and reputation symbol. I don't know of any infobox require it, and in the text itself it might be better to write it out as not all fonts support all unicode characters. — xZise [talk] 10:42, 13 August 2014 (CDT)
Science and reputation marks can be used only in "science" and "contract" pages. The fund (Fund.png), and as the resized prograde-like marks .svg-s (default) used in several articles as characters, maybe a kind of .svg-s can be used for this purpose(s) too. NWM (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2014 (CDT)
Test: (Fund.svg)(Fund.svg)
Needs some rework...(?) NWM (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2014 (CDT)
Much better, but it seems, there is only 1:1 ratio... Any solution or idea? NWM (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2014 (CDT)
You could simply change the size of the svg to be in 16x24 ratio. As it's an text file you could change it there or when you used a program like Inkscape it should allow that to (but I don't know where exactly, I think you needed to show the XML tree or so and edit that). The reason why I haven't really worked on a svg for that because I'm very bad at color (and gradients). — xZise [talk] 15:29, 3 September 2014 (CDT)
I've just tried it. Works (and I'am just started to work with this inkspace)! I'll rework that fund mark, with a more definitive border. And maybe I'll start work on the stylized thunderbolt, jerry-can, gas-tank, balloon. (The jets' air consumption of 1-2 litres/s scares me!) - and a notice: the measure Stall Threshold is not kN, but %!
And an another notice: the tables cannot handle the {{DS}} and <br>-ed (like wet/dry, max/stall) data as number (but the 1,300 = 1300 works!), and as result sorts them in alphabetic order. And is there any kind of "thousands" separator? I mean 1300 looks en:1,300 ; xx:1 300 ... NWM (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2014 (CDT)
Close, but not cigar! Resized to 16x seems usable as a character, but bicoloured icons seem fuzzy in this size... NWM (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2014 (CDT)
You could add a sort parameter manually (if you mean that this can't the table handle) or use {{Formatnum/SortCell}} (which also handles the thousands separator). Of course this doesn't help or two numbers because the order for one of the numbers might be different then the order for the second.
I've been using the thin nonbreaking space for all thousands separators, because nobody should use them as a decimal separator so they are unambiguous.
About bicolored: It looks like the border got thicker, which might make it more fuzzy. — xZise [talk] 09:09, 11 September 2014 (CDT)
Ouch! The "Sortcell" hits! Out of template texts are ignored, so no more problem with br-s an ()-s. I've just reworked the command pod template. Has it got an "invisble" brother to regulate the radial sizes? NWM (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2014 (CDT)
There is simply not enough pixels for both green inside and borders. A simple black should be used as a character, the bi-colored remains a reserve for bigger places...
Updated the radial size templates. Now it works perfectly. Now I've started to make a {{mark}} template.
fund (Funds), science (⚛), prestige (★) are included, there are some other like crew mark (Crew), and some for the units:
unit of fuel (Units of fuel), electricity (⚡), xenon (Xenon unit), air (Air unit)
and the navigation marks, like prograde: (Prograde)
The fuzziness - it seems the browser makes a pixel-map from the .svg-s, and stretches that pixel-map at resizing. The browser developers are dorks!
Using of 16x12px native sized .pngs would make better results, because they suffer only one conversion instead of two... NWM (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2014 (CDT)
Let see the svg-png relation (Fund char.svg-Fund char.png) - fuzziness or pixels... NWM (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2014 (CDT)
Hmpf, it's a shame! But afaik when you use the size ([[File:Fund char.svg|16x12px]]) the MediaWiki software generates a PNG image of that exact size so the browser doesn't need to resize anything. — xZise [talk] 19:11, 17 September 2014 (CDT)
I mean, the browser resizes that .png, when you zoom in. Generating an new image from the .svg would decrease the relative fuzziness. The native sized .png-s would give better results (lack of grey "aura") as fake "fonts". The .svg-s are better at resizing. And there is an another problem with these "fake fonts" at line-breaking. NWM (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (CDT)

Making the tables more compact

Maybe, the two line hight headers should be standardized for the narrower cells, avoiding the too wide tables.
for example now:
Price (Funds) - and - Required crew/energy
in narrowed cells:
Price - and - Required crew/
(Funds) energy

Ejection Force unit

I don't know the kerbalic experimental measurement of the ejection force, but I know there is a SI unit of 10 Newtons. 10 N = 1 daN— Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talkcontribs) 06:44, 29 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Yeah the SI prefix “da”, which is super uncommon. I can't remember that it was used anywhere (along with “deci” and “hecto” although sometimes I hear “hectolitre”). — xZise [talk] 14:14, 29 September 2014 (CDT)
The SI prefix "deca" or "deka" is one of the most common prefix. Each recipe book gives uses deca-gramms (dkg) for weight of the ingredients in traditional SI countries. (And the booze is measured in decilitres (beer, wine) and centilitres (for the pan-galactic gargle blasters) in the inns, hectolitre is for the barrels).
In many area daN simply replaced kp (kilo-pound) when the former CGS was retired for the SI. Many times the max. load of the offsets, platforms, holders and ropes is given in daN too, because X daN means carrying capacity of X kg - and there is no risk of conversion mistakes. It is a legal SI unit. (Once I'd met already kdaN (kilo-deca-newton) too - which is totally wrong!) NWM (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2014 (CDT)
One is sure: multiple prefixes (like kdaN or dkg) are not SI conform. The SI base unit for mass is kg, but the kilo is an actual prefix so it's always dag or Mg etc. Now I personally (who is from continental Europe and quite familiar with the SI units *looking at you US/UK*) never encountered deca- (except maybe in school when we had those units), but I don't cook much so I don't get in touch with many recipes (unless they are in Python *cough*). And yes decilitres and centilitres is actually common but centi- is without a doubt the most common of those 'odd-non-thousand-multiple-prefixes'. And by the way I didn't doubt you that the prefix doesn't exist ;).
Now regarding the question how common the deca- prefix actually is, we can only answer our personal experiences. I asked some people and most of them (who are unfortunately German too so not much variety) didn't know what daN means. — xZise [talk] 08:08, 2 October 2014 (CDT)
I don't know about Continental Europe but in the UK deci- (0.1), deka- (10) and hekto- (100) are not used nowadays, although I believe they were very common say 40 years ago. I think I'm correct in saying that those prefixes and centi- (0.01, still used in everyday life in UK eg cm, occasionally cl) are not SI units, or at the very least are not in general use scientifically. They are archaic now. I say this as a Physics student. I would not recognise daN either. As an aside, in the UK imperial units are still in common public use alongside metric (eg weight in kg or stones (st) and pounds (lb), with g or ounces (oz) for cooking, height/length in cm or feet and inches (eg 6'0" is 6 feet 0 inches), distance miles or km. For volume ml or l are normal, occasionally pints. Everything else is metric. Although for speed mph is always used, never km/h) --THEMUNROVER 15:38, 26/11/2014 (GMT)

Introduction cost in the tables?

Is the "Intoducion cost" worty for an own column? NWM (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2014 (CDT)

I'm not sure. But as some tables are already so wide already, I would say no. — xZise [talk] 19:52, 9 October 2014 (CDT)

Cost in parentheses

There is a cost in parentheses. E.g. "2 200 (2 191)" for the MK1 Cockpit. But there is no explanation of what this indicates.

I think it is the value for fuel tanks to show there value without fuel, so that you have some idea of how much a fuel tank is worth in recovery. I am not sure what the value means for other non-fuel tank items though.

At least for fuel tanks the meaning of parentheses should be noted somehow. I'm not sure best way though. Maybe a footnote from the column header.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronLS (talkcontribs) 04:31, 26 March 2015‎ (UTC)

There is a Tables of parts sequence containing this sentences:
"Many parts has some resource storing capacity, which makes the mass and the cost different in full and empty state. In this case the full is shown as normal, and the empty values are in round brackets under the full values. Some properties, like the entry cost, are not included, but can be found in the part-box on right side of the part's page."
So, we can make a dictionary template to attach these sentences to each table, although I don't see the sense, but wiki is for the readers, not the editors...NWM (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2015 (CDT)
All tables could use the same annotation (so using a dictionary or similar isn't necessary). — xZise [talk] 09:03, 27 March 2015 (CDT)

1.0 Needed

1.0 has just come out, and we need someone to add and change parts as needed. Could someone with the knowledge and experience that I don't have do this? Thanks everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmond Kerman (talkcontribs) 23:14, 30 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Simple question: the aerodynamic model has changed, rendering the drag value to the less important category. Shall we abandon these (except of aero-parts, of course), for the more informative things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talkcontribs) 12:37, 6 May 2015‎ (UTC)
Again I'm wondering: Why has suddenly the drag coefficient become unimportant? — xZise [talk] 20:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The "drag" of the part is not an important value for the new aero-model, as the whole drag is not a weighted average now. It is not shown in the game too (and most cases, it has a same value for the parts in a same category) - NWM (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
As of 1.0.2, the "Drag" statistic doesn't even appear in parts' info boxes in the VAB, and Harvester said, "That's deliberate. Those values didn't really represent anything with the new aero model. It would be misleading to keep them." With the exception, maybe, of the parachutes, I think we should get rid of the values from the stats tables entirely until we can figure more out about the mechanics of the new drag simulation. VariousMetals (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Not only do we need to add the new parts, but the whole parts table needs be updated cause very few values at all are correct compared to their respective parts page. Its just a huge mess right now : / — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virror (talkcontribs) 14:09, 8 May 2015‎

max thrust & fuel consumption values are a mess

All of the "max thrust" and "fuel consumption" (including hover-over) values are completely different on the each individual engine page compared to this list. -- Gendalf (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay I assumed the thrust given in the part configuration is the value at 1 atm but it's the value in vacuum. The thrust in the infoboxes (e.g. the infobox on the left in LV-1 "Ant" Liquid Fuel Engine) should now be correct for the engines except the jet engines. I'll take a look into the fuel consumption too. — xZise [talk] 13:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Antenna data

Communication parts data vary too. Also their working principle is very confusing (not obvious which part is better and why). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gendalf (talkcontribs) 08:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a long standing bug in the game, where the displayed bandwidth is incorrect for all antennas, the maths used to display it are wrong. Frankly, I'm astonished that Squad have never fixed the bug calculating the displayed bandwidth, as it's clearly extremely trivial, quick, and easy to fix. They are literally multiplying where they need to divide, or dividing where they need to multiply. It is very likely a single character that needs to change in the game source, between '*' and '/'.
The short answer is that the more advanced antennas are faster, despite the game clearly telling you they are slower (that's the maths bug), but use more electricity. None of them are "better", only slower and faster (and cosmetically different), they all do the same job more or less equally well. Since transmission speed is rarely an issue, I mostly choose based on aesthetics alone.
I'll have a look at the article and see if I can improve it.
--Murph (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is what is confusing? The article has experienced quite a rewrite in the last days so maybe could you check if it's easier to understand? And tbh the Communotron 16 is in most cases the best as it has the lowest mass of all antennae and uses (along with the Comms DTS-M1) the lowest amount of electric charge per Mit. If the electric charge per second is important (because you can't generate enough electric charge) then the Communotron 16 is better suited. It'll take longer but your craft won't run out of electric charge as fast. Although the question is compared to the Comms DTS-M1 if that is actually a problem as both basically need the same amount of time to transmit if they don't use batteries (otherwise the Comms DTS-M1 is faster as long as it runs on batteries). I'd be interested in the order the game selects the antenna for a transmission (if you're mean that with “which part is better”). — xZise [talk] 14:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Parts lists should be expandable

The number of parts in the game exploded starting around version 0.25.0 and the integration of the Mk2 spaceplane parts, later followed by the Mk3 parts, adapters for all those parts, additional wings, heat shields, fairings, mining parts, etc. The Parts page is getting unwieldy and we haven't even finished adding all of the parts from 0.90.0 and 1.0/1.0.2 (not to mention the images for those parts). I think we should collapse all of the sections containing the parts list templates and make them expandable in order to keep the size of the page under control. And I'm definitely posting this here because I want feedback on it and not because I don't know how to make items collapsible. VariousMetals (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The page is really too large and unwieldy as is, before the new parts have been added. I'm not sure that collapsable sections is the best solution, as it become too large and unwieldy again once you have a few open.
I'm wondering if it should really be split into a number of sub-pages, probably one for each category used in the in-game parts chooser? Is there any real benefit to having all parts listed on a single page? Would there be a downside to removing all of the stats tables from this page, pushing them onto per-category sub-pages instead, and turning this page into a fairly short overview which links to the sub-pages? Remember that we have MediaWiki's categories and search functionality, for large lists of parts and searching.
--Murph (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that could work. We could reformat this page to just having a small expandable table for each category of parts, with minimal statistics, and then a "Main article:" link at the top of each section.VariousMetals (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, also, I just figured out how to do FlipBoxes, so I'm gonna do that for all the categories until we decide whether to make individual pages for each category.
We usually have articles about the different types of parts (e.g. fuel cell) so I think it might make more sense to use those pages. Those should've the part lists from here anyway. I don't think there is much need for making those collapsible then. I'm also not quite a fan of it when it's there to make the complete content collapsible and tbh I'd leave it as it is instead of making the lists collapsible (as suggested originally). Searching in those is worse and you'd need to open them to view the content anyway. And if you know “oh I'm interested in the command modules” wouldn't they first search for it and got to command module? — xZise [talk] 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for a mass ratio field for liquid fuel tanks

The mass ratio of a fuel tank describes its efficiency at holding fuel and can be quickly used to compare between differing tanks. Mass Ratios = Mass of full tank / Mass of empty tank.[1] An example usage of a fuel tank mass ratio would be comparing Rockomax_Jumbo-64_Fuel_Tank with mass ratio 9 and Mk3_Rocket_Fuel_Fuselage_Long at 9.333 (now outdated). This is a simple way of showing that the Mk3 variants are (used to be) more efficient at storage. In a way, it is very similar to Thrust to Weight ratio of engines, which is already on the page. Therefore, it makes sense to add it to the liquid fuel stats table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazy (talkcontribs) 20:17, 17 May 2015‎

Cannot update the page

I cannot update the page "=submit" any solution? NWM (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with '=submit'. That is not a valid page I think (I don't even know if MW allows such a title). — xZise [talk] 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I had the same problem a while ago with this same page. After writing an edit and clicking the save page button, my browser got stuck on a page with "action=submit" appended to the end of the URL. The page would either be a blank white screen or a new edit page without the changes I'd made, with no indication of the information in the edit having been sent. I never figured out what the problem was, and eventually it just started working again. I'm fairly sure that whatever the problem is, it's probably client-side, so I don't think there's anything we can do to fix it for everyone. My advice is to restart your browser and hope for the best. VariousMetals (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
When you save a page the 'action' will be set to submit (by clicking on the button) so there is nothing special about that (the same is when you edit a page that 'action' is 'edit'.
What your problem(s?) might be that with the update (I think) the location of the files have been moved. While previously everything was in the 'w/' subdirectory it's now in the root directory. So instead of http:// it was http:// and that doesn't work anymore (although that shows to me a 404 error). So if you had a page open for editing and then visited it later after the update again the path wouldn't work (man was I confused at first why I only got 404 errors). — xZise [talk] 09:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

All current parts added

I'm happy to announce that this page now contains at least one instance of every stock part in 1.0.2 listed in its proper category (with some hybrid parts duplicated in other categories where appropriate).

So, yeah. Hooray.

fires confetti cannon

VariousMetals (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well done, great work! Kudos++ (or κῦδος, if you prefer) for you. :-) --Murph (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I added most of the parts up to v1.11 (except for the cargo parts), but I don't know how to add them to the lists that are named "Stats Table _". For example, MPO_Probe should be added to "Stats Table Command Pods". --Electrollama (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that the MPO has been added; not sure if I've missed any other v1.11 parts. AlpacaMall (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated parts

Shouldn't the parts that were removed in 1.4, but still hidden in the game for bakwards compatibility, be still listed for reference? Maybe under a "deprecated parts" sub-heading. Much as how there's available info of how parts behaved in other older vesions - or the spaceplane that was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I agree that we need a good plan to distinguish the deprecated / Legacy Parts. As of my writing that page doesn't exist, only showing up as a category on Template:Parts. My suggestion would be to flesh out that page with descriptions and a similar listing to Parts. Unless there's somebody who's "in charge" who wants to weigh in on it, I'll try to work on that when I have time. - Jumpjet2k1 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Equations failing to parse

... And I don't know how to fix 'em. I know the equations, but not the code. Anyone have any suggestions? -Slashy

The page Fuel_tank#Dry_mass_and_wet_mass has an example of equations. Also, there is a button when writing a comment to sign your name with a timestamp like this: --Electrollama (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Organizing Making History parts

With a ton of parts being added in the expansion, and ArnePeirs setting up all of the part pages, do we have a general strategy for organizing them? Of course we already have Template:Making History parts set up separate from the normal Template:Parts, and I think in general it's wise to keep the part sets separate. My initial suggestions: 1. Create Making History parts as an overall page like Parts, with the same structure, subsections for part types, data tables, etc. 2. Edit Parts (opening description) to make it clear that the page lists parts in the current stock game, and not any Legacy Parts, Making History parts, or parts from other mods. Move the "Units of Measure" section to a new page - it doesn't really belong where it is.

But what to do with the part category pages, e.g. Fuel tank? Do we add the Making History tanks to that page? In a separate sub-section, or alongside the rest with a label to indicate they're from the expansion? Or do we make a new "Making History fuel tanks" page? I don't think we really want to do that - would be a lot of new pages. For the sake of not having a parallel structure to the existing parts pages, I would suggest we add them to the existing ones somehow, but it would be prudent to plan ahead for consistency in that effort.

Depending on what's decided, Template:Making History parts will need some link revisions too.

Would love to hear some other thoughts on this. - Jumpjet2k1 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The page on mobile

This page looks really weird on mobile due to the tables extending past the page width Snow417 (talk)

Why are there two values for maximum temperature of pods?

There are two values for "Max. Temp." for all pods. I can't make any sense of it. For example the Mk1 Cockpit has "2 000 (1 100)".

Some text near the start of the parts list says "Many parts have some resource storing capacity, which makes the mass and the cost different in full and empty state. In this case the full is shown as normal, and the empty values are in round brackets under the full values.".

This makes a lot of sense if you are talking about the mass of the part. But how on earth can running out of MP drop the pod's max. temp. by about 1000 K?

Those are the limits for Internal Temperature (due to drilling) and Skin Temperature (due to reentry). The part info in the VAB shows both values. --Electrollama (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)