Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'autostrut'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website


  • Developer Articles

Found 9 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. How often do you use autostrut??

    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
  9. 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.