NoMrBond

Please consider adding stackSymmetry = 3 To the 'Crossroads' .cfg (UDKLD_Hub_1_Configuration) under the attachRules, as this will let you use 4-way symmetry to populate the Crossroads part

Unfortunately the button for this is clashing with the SubAssemblyLoader button for me [Edit] There is a different SAL patch in this thread intended for low-resolution which actually puts the SAL button under the part/action buttons rather than off to the left. [Edit2] Nope, the low-res SAL just gave me a small red square '?' under the VAB buttons. Alas the other patches all put the SAL button in the same spot clashing with the PC button :\

It's pretty reasonable on my Q6600/G0, I don't think the whole station tops 400 parts? The last version was a way over-engineered strut-fest with a mountain of fuel/RCS that it never needed, it was crippling to be near with another vessel even though it was smaller. Launching the central module/docking-stubway was way, way, way worse than even the finished station (25 engines in 5 individual ASP blocks with 20 SRB's as well). The solar modules for example are only 17 parts i think (3 station hexways, 4 seniors, 4 balka truss, 2 rmax adaptors, 2 wings and 2 struts)? The cupola and docking booms are a bit worse

Rock solid with all three senior clamps docked even with all 15 NV's burning, I think if i'd burned for longer the imbalance in the weight distribution might have done bad things with shifting the center-of-mass. I could spin and torque the ship as hard as possible with RCS and/or the Cupola's+CM and didn't manage to break anything off but the actual KSS Trident is bigger than my testing mockup. I'll make tonights one full size with two intra-stage sections + play around with the fuel lines, swap the tails for fuel lines etc so it's closer to the given layout. The ASAS torque fight between the cupola's and the command module was actually the worst thing, it made the whole ship jiggle if I left the ASAS on (those cupola's can wag the whole dog). I might pull the crew out of those into one of the central HHC's so they stop working/fighting. I guess the other option could be to swap the cupola's for something else with windows but no applicable torque? But that probably would mean a mod though, not sure on the stance with those since this seemed like a stock effort.

Assembled a testbed about as close as possible, except with only one intra-section Test burn worked as described, one stack pulled from the top tank under the cupola, and the other two pulled only from their directly attached tanks. Is this an existing game engine limitation? You can manually shunt fuel around, but that seems annoying (can't even action-group the transfers), not sure if balancing fuel lines might work as a kludge, annoying if it needs those extra parts. Will test again tomorrow.

I made one which had a central 'thrust-plate' with all the engines, and almost all the fuel was hanging between/underneath, or off the side connected by docking ports with piping all over the show, and all the empty tanks were dropped off using action groups on the docking ports (undocking would also pop the struts). It was an entirely bizarre experiment, super wide too.

I would switch over to the other craft (using [ or ]) after I'd seen the section snap on, then click the three clamps in the new linkage and make sure each one had the 'Undock' option (meaning it was properly docked).

I remember I had to short range shot-put some space-station sections at each other to get all three clamps/seniors to dock, get it lined up and moving slowly into dock, and as soon as the sections started to mag-grapple I would jettison/decouple it from the orbital tug and it would snap-on by itself while I watched on from the tug But, if I guided it in all the way to docking while the truss/section was still attached to the delivery tug, I would frequently get problems with only getting 2, or even 1, out of the 3 clamps mating.

You should be able to dock multiple ports at once, I remember one of the first tutorials I watched was using 4x Clamp-o-tron's on top of a Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 as their standard heavy docking connector (maybe StompThompson?) Still at work for 2 more hours, but I'll have to check this now when I get home

My latest space station uses 3x hexway hubs w/docking ports side-by-side for docking, so yeah, absolutely doable. I did it for extra strength (3x ports) and so that part rotation (on docking) would be exactly where I wanted it. The catch is getting the ports exactly spaced for the docking to work (which is why I used 3x hubs, so that the layout was completely reproducible). Occasionally when I lined up a docking strip then got to the mag-grapple, one of the ports wouldn't 'catch' and I'd end up with 2 mated couplers and 1 which didn't but when you have the docking magnets from 3x ports pulling together it didn't happen to often and I could always decouple, pull the section out with the tug and redock. Side-on docking sounds like it will need to be done with RCS translation though

Version VI of Kerlympus Station Although you can probably see I omitted a few of the 2.5m /Senior docking ports on a some of the hexway surfaces I never thought I'd use, and well I'm really regretting that now so I might start again (take 7!). Using Kosmos-TKS SSPP, FusTek Karmony Module and the stand-alone Docking Cam from Romfarer The large hexways are the Rockomax HubMax Multi-Point Connector with 'rescaleFactor = 2' to make them 2.5 size, and stackSymmetry = 3 so that the side nodes actually work. If I do remake it I'll probably use the 2.5m hexways from the udk_lethal_d0se Large Structural/Station Components pack

Tumbler wheels! incoming Batmobile in 5, 4, 3....

OK great, I just thought I should caveat any suggestion regarding editing .cfg files, since this seemed like a very easy way to break your game. I especially wasn't sure what any model changes would do if the docking/stacking/radial nodes where not in exactly the same places (after scaling)

If you're really keen for the optimisation, you can sort of DIY it by cribbing the number of models down and just moving the part.cfg files around but you'll need to add the correct rescaleFactor line into each part.cfg you move across. E.g. The Vesta VR9D and the Maverick 1D are similar (dual chamber rockets), so if you want to optimise this by sharing 1 model across both, you could copy the part.cfg from the vVR9D directory to the m1D directory (as, perhaps partVR9D.cfg so it doesn't overwrite the m1D one already in there), since the VR9D is a 2.5M and the m1D is a 1.25M, you would need to add rescaleFactor = 2 into the partVR9D.cfg. Similarly you could copy the decoupler/shroud part.cfg's down to a single model and add the appropriate rescaleFactor lines depending on which model you've kept Similar is not identical though, and this sort of playing around might break any number of things in your game, especially any ships saved with the full compliment of models.

The Kosmos SSPP has a very nice looking monopropellant engine (30 power) from memory. http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/kosmos-tks-spacecraft/