New Editor Tool

[NoobTool]

I have an idea for a new tool for the VAB/SPH editors. We'll call it the adoption tool. The adoption tool would allow you to change a selected part's parent part without changing that part's position or orientation relative to the root part or the rest of the craft. The tool would work similarly to the root tool. After selecting the adoption tool tooltip, you would select the desired part on your craft. The part would then be highlighted, along with it's parent part (perhaps the parent part would be highlighted a different color). You would then change the parent part by selecting the new parent part.

There are any number of scenarios where such a tool would be useful. I'll list a couple of examples that spring to mind.

When building aircraft whose wings are assembled from multiple wing segments, those segments are often rotated on multiple axes. These parts might also be rotated in order to impart angle of incidence to the wing. When attaching engines, or multi-engine nacelles to these parts, it can be difficult to correctly orient them parallel to the fuselage. The adoption tool would allow you to place them on the fuselage, using angle snap rotation and shift+offset to orient and position them, then change the parent part to the appropriate wing part. 

If you wish to replace a part on a craft, say to change a fuel tank from LF to LF+O or visa versa, you often find that several parts are attached to the part to be replaced. These attached parts might also be rotated and offset to their desired position. Using the adoption tool, you could simply change the parent part for all of these attached parts, instead of having to replace, re-orient, and re-position each part individually.

Feel free to list other scenarios where such a tool would be useful, or point me to mods where such a tool exists, or tell me I'm an idiot and that such a tool would be superfluous.

Edited November 17, 2018 by NoobTool

[Gargamel]

1 minute ago, NoobTool said:

or tell me I'm an idiot and such a tool would be superfluous.

Not an idiot at all, very interesting idea, but I have some issues.

First off, I think this just might break physics in the game.   The game calculates stresses from one part to the next, and if you have disrupted the sequence of the tree, the physics will get calculated differently.  This may result in high drags, or even just the game crashing outright.   I think there are lot of major hurdles to having the game accept a restructured part tree.

5 minutes ago, NoobTool said:

If you wish to replace a part on a craft,

Then I can just grab the next part in line, and set it aside.   I can do this for any parts coming from the part in question.   I can then replace the part, and then put stuff back on.   But if the stuff doesn't line up right, I can just use the offset tool.   Now If I re-parent the parts after it, and the new part is not the identical size and shape, then I still have to remove them all and re-attach.  Plus, again, the physics calculations might be all wonky.   So either way, if it looks wonky after replacing the part, I still have to re-attach and re-align everything anyways, but the as is way doesn't risk physics problems. 

10 minutes ago, NoobTool said:

When building aircraft

I forget the shortcut (might even be a mod), but there is already a way to go past the limits of the stock offset tool.   That will allow you to do just that.    Place your engine on the fuselage as desired, and then offset and rotate to the desired location.    Using this method, you could theoretically build a vessel with a root part, and only one level of parts off of it, which is pretty much what you are suggesting. 

[NoobTool]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

First off, I think this just might break physics in the game.

I realize that there might be some challenges to overcome in implementing such a tool, and it may turn out to be more of a hassle than it's worth, but the end result can be achieved manually now. Changing the parent part is no different from removing the part and placing it somewhere else. All of the subordinate parts will still be subordinate to the part in question, which will now be subordinate to a different part. I'm not suggesting that this would be used for node-snapped parts, those are simple enough to replace.

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Then I can just grab the next part in line, and set it aside.

Right this can be done, the new tool wouldn't be adding capabilities here, only simplifying the process. I wasn't necessarily talking about node-snapped parts. Those are easy enough to replace, and you wouldn't want to change the parent part for those anyway. I was more talking about radially placed parts: landing gear, wings (which again, might be rotated on multiple axes), rcs, solar panels, etc. Re-parenting those parts would be much simpler and quicker than removing, replacing, re-orienting, and re-positioning each individual part, even if you re-parented the part back to its original placement afterward.

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

I forget the shortcut (might even be a mod), but there is already a way to go past the limits of the stock offset tool. 

Holding shift while using the offset tool allows you to increase the offset limitations. But there are reasons to want the part attached to the wing in this scenario. Wings flex in flight, and if the engine/nacelle is attached to the fuselage rather than the wing, the wing can flex through the engine. Moving the engine to the wing also reduces the stresses on the attachment point of the wing during flight, since less of the mass is attached directly to the fuselage.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate the feedback.

Edited November 17, 2018 by NoobTool

[Gargamel]

26 minutes ago, NoobTool said:

But there are reasons to want the part attached to the wing in this scenario.

I think, then, you are asking for it to be attached to two parts at once, which you can't do.  The physics calculates the stresses through the parent parts all the way up to the root part.  So if the engine is a child of the fuselage, it will only flex if the fuselage flexes, regardless of where it is located.  To have it flex with the wing, but have the mass attached to the fuselage, breaks physics in real life and in the game.   The wing flexes based on the load being applied to it, and the engine is part of that load.  But now we are asking for the game to compute stresses in multiple directions, and they converge again on the fuselage part, this would probably lead to some serious kraken attacks, unless the entire physics engine is re-written for this tool. 

Perhaps, a better tool to have in this case, would be a "snap to part" tool.   I can select the engine, and then select the fuselage, and it would align the engine with the fuselage, while keeping it attached to the wing.  You can then use the offset tool to line it up on the wing correctly.   This would also help with those situations where you get hard to fix off set thrusts, because one part early on was skewed a bit. 

34 minutes ago, NoobTool said:

 I was more talking about radially placed parts: landing gear, wings

This is why it is usually considered the best practice to build a wing with one segment attached to the fuselage, and the rest of the wing off that one segment.   Then the entire wing can be handled as an individual item, or for large wings a few pieces. 

But, you're absolutely correct about the rest of the parts.  Switching out the main part on a service module or what not is a total pain, having to remove a dozen little items, and then replace them.  So maybe a replace part tool, where you can pick the part, then pick one off the VAB/SPH list to replace it with, and the editor does it's best to re-attach everything where it was before.   So the identical tank, just with another fuel type, should go back together very easily.   But when you realize you need that tank that is just a bit bigger, you may have to play with the parts a bit after swapping out.

So instead of a single "Change Parent" tool, maybe two separate tools would fit both your needs nicely?

[NoobTool]

2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

I think, then, you are asking for it to be attached to two parts at once, which you can't do.

I think you've misunderstood. I'm suggesting that you would attach the part to the fuselage simply for the ease of ensuring proper alignment. You would then offset to the desired position on the wing, then using the change parent tool, change the parent part to the desired wing piece while preserving the position and orientation of the engine. The engine would then no longer be attached to the fuselage, but to the wing. So it would flex with the wing, not the fuselage.

 

2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

This is why it is usually considered the best practice to build a wing with one segment attached to the fuselage, and the rest of the wing off that one segment. 

Yes, I nearly always do this. There can still be issues when removing and re-attaching these wings though, especially when that first part is rotated along multiple axes. The game often attempts to save the orientation, but I've found that it isn't always accurate. There have been many times when I re-attach wings and have trouble matching the aerodynamic performance of the previous configuration.

2 hours ago, Gargamel said:

So instead of a single "Change Parent" tool, maybe two separate tools would fit both your needs nicely?

Perhaps, but then I'd be asking for two new tools instead of one. 

There would also be other applications for the adoption tool. I tend to build large aircraft/spaceplanes. I've found that part placement can make a big difference in the structural integrity of the craft. I often find myself reassembling various structures in different configurations of part attachments and autostruts in an attempt to maximize structural integrity. The ability to change the parent part while preserving the position and orientation of the part would streamline this process a lot. 

I recognize that my experience or play style might not be representative of a majority of KSP's player-base, but I still think many or even most players would find some use for the tool.

[lunardog15]

so like a temporarily hold this in place and re attach to the new part in the same why I was original button? 

[NoobTool]

On 12/23/2018 at 4:28 PM, lunardog15 said:

so like a temporarily hold this in place and re attach to the new part in the same why I was original button? 

yep, pretty much.

[lunardog15]

That would be cool 

An way they could do this is to have a coordinate part placement tool as a alternative to the arrow pulling method