Search the Community

Hello! I use KSP 1.3.1 with RSS, FAR and KJR and a few other mods. I want my game to be as realistic as possible. I don't use Realism Overhaul because it doesn't support every mod I have. I've made an airliner that is a little smaller than the Airbus A318. I tweaked Squad engines to get rid of fuel and use Electric Charge instead. It uses SXT and some other mods. I just want to have flutter to make it even more realistic. I disabled autostrut and rigid attachment on the wings and there's still no flutter. I'm pretty sure it's because of KJR. I'm not sure it is a good idea to uninstall KJR because I'm afraid structural failures will happen. Is it a good idea to uninstall KJR? How can I get realistic flutter on my wings? Thanks

My ship had no shaking problems last night but when I load today on any of my 3 or 4 saves with this ship it shakes itself to pieces. Very repeatable. Nobody appears to have a solution on the forums so I guess I have to relaunch. I needed to modify the ship anyway. I used autostrut on almost everything and set it to various modes. I also used rigid assembly on a lot of the ship. The following was written before I encountered the shaking. Ion engines can be useful. I meant to build a rocket with some ion engines to fine tune navigation, but I ended up with nothing but ion engines for three quarters of the trip to Laythe. Set a course near Kerbin with the last of my big fuel engines and then found I was 800,000,000 meters off. The sun was pretty dim. I had 20 ion engines and about 12 gigantor solar that were actually getting sunlight. I could leave all the engines on for about 20 seconds and then the batteries would be totally drained. It seemed to take about ten minutes to recharge after turning the whole ship 90 degrees to get a little more light on the panels. Then I'd have to turn the ship back before the 20 second burn. That got very tiresome so I noticed that I was constantly moving closer to my target even with a little thrust in the right direction. Seemed like if I could just keep thrusting a tiny bit for a little more than an hour I'd be able to skim the atmosphere. I ran the engines at about ten percent power and got the ship on course. Dealing with this kind of problem and rationing my thrust seemed very real, very immersive. Very satisfying when my fiddling about actually got me the precision insertion that I wanted. Too bad I didn't know enough about Laythe's atmosphere. As my course got closer I shut down all but one engine in each pod of five engines, but that was still too much power. I wanted to hit at 15,000 feet because I didn't want to come back out of the atmosphere and smash into Jool which was huge and right in my path. I shutdown all but one of the ions. Oddly, as I thrusted towards my target I was moving away. The engine wasn't on the centerline of the ship so I guess it was rotating it and pushing me in the wrong direction. I activated the other engine across from it and started moving closer to 15,000. Got it to 14,986. That's what the ions are good for, setting up your encounter with the atmosphere and controlling your entry within fifty feet instead of 50,000 feet. I close the solar and communications dish and inflated the heat shield, pointed it prograde. Not very exciting in real time, even when you're between the two huge bodies. I got closer and things went very fast. The heat shield turned red and then the whole rocket turned sideways. Everything started blowing up and blowing away, but then I slowed down and popped one chute. I was heading for the ocean. The chute slowed me down enough for a water landing where I could watch the sky for a few days. Jool took up a huge part of the sky, but I only saw one, tiny moon. It appeared to be circling, but I don't think that's true. Not sure which moon it was. It popped up behind Jool, a small bead, and moved almost vertically. If I was going to do it again, I'd go for a higher orbit, maybe 25,000 meters or more, maybe even 40,000. try to slow down and get caught in orbit, but not land. Experimenting with this might have been nice but the ship shakes itself to pieces every time I reload now. I don't think it did that last night. Pretty sure I reloaded last night. Originally, what I intended to do with this rocket was control my final stage with a mixture of fuel and ion engines. I'd set the engines to different action groups and when I needed a precise atomospheric insertion, I'd turn off the liquid fueled engines and just use the ion engines. Maybe another action group to turn off all but one ion engine. I started work on that but got all confused by fuel flows and the game changing numbers that I'd tediously entered and doing things that weren't intended or making any sense.

I got KSP when the 1.2.2 update began. I expected to be able to use auto strut so I didn't need to make a big mess of my craft but it never gave me the option to. I looked at the files but it said 'AUTOSTRUT:' and something after it. I don't know how to fix it.

Preface - I've performed a perfunctory search and come up with - Lots of landing legs and auto-struts are probably not clever. So this question is kind of a two part-er. Background - I am designing a stock base+ system, largely aimed at Duna and to be developed et released as a scale-able, fun, and user friendly way of building up a permanent presence on the red planet. I've done it before, but not for general release. Issues - I am experiencing phantom torques that wildly spin the modules apart when about 3 or more are joined. When 2 or more are joined it tends to float over the surface or just jiggle in it's place. Explosions. Lot's of explosions. Also it irritates me that I am not forced to build in a realistic way - The assembly vehicle is "glued" to the module and floats due to auto-strutting, and feels very cheaty. Part 1 - Can you help me understand the "why"? Part 2 - Can you help me get around, over, or under the problem. I'm not really looking for an answer that is simply "Just don't use landing legs" here, unless it is genuinely the only way forwards at this time. If it is, then I'd also love to hear whether this is on the cards to be fixed at all soon? I've read bits and bobs about unity bugs and the requirement for auto-struts until unity fixes something, so it concerns me a little that base building might be kinda borked for the long term . My thoughts - I'm sure there is a way to mitigate this, and I'd love to know what. Should I just use half the legs so for a base module to be supported it needs two modules joined? This still wouldn't allow me to build nearly as big as I want. It doesn't strike me that my auto-struts are too long, but when you join two modules together, half the struts from one module flick the next as the heaviest part becomes nearer. I wonder if this is the main cause. Perhaps there's some clipping with the landing leg that I have missed. I really hope that base building with landing legs is not a lost cause as I felt I was onto a good design streak here. Let me fill you in on the details. Firstly, the two modules: Module 1 - When 2 are joined it floats and jitters, when 3 or more are joined it experiences wild spinning, explosions, and general tomfoolery. 4 means insta-Kraken if you can get that far. Module 2 - Joining this to the structure just turned the base into a Catherine wheel. So, are the days of epic bases gone? Have I just pointed out something that has been discussed to death, talked about extensively in KSP weekly and my searching prowess needs work? Is a fix as close as the very next update? I hope there's a potential route to me being able to do this again, because it's a huge part of enjoying this game and I'd like for that to not be over SM

I wasn't paying attention when 1.2 came out with the autostrut and Rigid Attach features so I don't know much about it. 1. Are there any disadvantages to using Autostrut or Rigid Attach? 2. If there are no major disadvantages, can I get it to default to on without having to push the button on each part? 3. What is the difference in gameplay among the various Autostrut modes?

I did a search and no one else seems to be having this problem. But, i'm right clicking parts in the VAB and i'm not seeing any autostrut options, on anything; engines, SRB's command capsules, nothing. Did I miss something or did Squad remove them?

This has already been mentioned in several mod reports but from what I understand it's an issue that extends to most, if not all, mods that deal with attaching/unattaching parts and vessels together without using docking ports. Basically, if a part has been auto-strutted, and the ship that part is attached to is linked to another ship via, say, the KAS connector ports, the auto-struts re-configure themselves if they are set to "heaviest part". Whichever ship has the heaviest part, the auto-struts on the other ship will link to those instead. The problem, however, is that the re-configured auto-struts remain in place linking the two ships together even if the ships are later un-linked, meaning that you have two ships that are visually separate but invisibly attached together, making it impossible to move the two apart. Which wouldn't be so much of a problem if wheels and landing gear weren't already configured so that they are locked to auto-strut to the heaviest part. I'm not sure why these are set and locked that way, but we need to be able to change that so as to avoid this happening. The option to change autostrut even appears on the context menus for landing gear, but it does absolutely nothing - why even put the option there if they are hard-coded to strut to the heaviest part? This is making planetary and moon-based surface operations nigh on impossible for me since I rely on KAS links to refuel landers and pass harvested resources between entities. I've had to on-purpose destroy several landers that became locked to my base upon unlinking, because they would not move upon takeoff. Either we need more flexibility in changing auto-strut options, or we need better recognition when two ships are separate.

Now that's not right. Those wheels were attached with Symmetry. Lets take away the tank on the end. Tenacious ain't he? Let's take the next one off too. Don't like to let go do they? I think I'll just throw that one away. Dropped it in the bin and it thinks it is still attached. This is where it finally threw an Exception.

I assume autostrut works like an standard strut however invisible and it can pass trough other items. Options are heaviest part, root and grandparent part. However does anybody know how strong they are compared to standard struts and does they eliminate standard struts for most uses? Yes I see settings where normal struts are better, mostly to avoid bending, Will heaviest part change as tanks run dry? at least on loading ship again.

How often do you use them?? i use them when i build big vehicles and realising i got too much parts for a mission. i personally really enjoy them as a new feature and i think its pretty cool. what are your thoughts?? -Alan

Has anyone seen AutoStrut behavior degrade after moving a part with the Offset gizmo? I had a big, complex craft in which AutoStruts were used to help secure the boosters to the heaviest part. I put it on the launch pad and it would stay together. Then I reverted back to the VAB, and offset (very slightly) a few of the boosters using the gizmo. When I relaunched, it would fall apart. Then I reverted to the VAB again, and clicked each booster's AutoStrut button 4 times to cycle through the settings back to the original one. Didn't do anything else. When I relaunched, it worked. On that particular craft I was seeing behavior like this fairly consistently, but it was a wonky craft which had a few other unusual things going on. I tried reproducing with a simpler test setup and wasn't able to. Just wondering if anyone else has seen anything like this, or if there are any known issues with the AutoStrut that might explain it.