non bending rockets

[jastrone]

in ksp 2 I would like rockets to not bend or atleast bend less or maybe there being a setting in the constructor when attaching a new part to make it not bend. this would be usefull for big ships with a lot of parts for example non rockets. and if two objects atached to eachother acts like one and would probably decrease lag.

 

[t_v]

I’m pretty sure this is also a feature in KSP 1 with rigid attachment. You can enable it by enabling advanced tweakables in settings or through the editor extensions redux mod. 

[PDCWolf]

+1, wet noodle rockets are unrealistic and need to go.

[Staticalliam7]

Just use Autostrut

Edited November 25, 2021 by Staticalliam7

[OHara]

Very early (2019) KSP 2 gameplay showed a bendy rocket (youtube link) but I have not seen any bending in later examples (youtube link).

I think the idea in KSP 1 was, if it is easy for rockets to fail, then making a successful rocket is an achievement.  Two ways that real rockets break up are aerodynamic wobble, and pogo-stick bouncing (but pogo-ing of fuel in tanks rather than tanks against each other).  They may have wanted to give players some indication of what was going wrong with a rocket, before it explodes, so players know what to make stronger or what forces to balance.  Making the joints bend a lot before breaking would be a way to show what is going wrong early. 

But probably KSP 1 made the joints bend too much.   

I like KSP 1's regular struts, because I can see what they are doing.  Autostruts are okay for when you cannot connect a  regular strut, but they feel like a cheat and have an awkward UI.  For more flexible placement of struts, I like the UI of the quantum struts mod, and of the EVA struts mod.  (The new versions of KSP 1 might let EVA Kerbals connect struts, but I haven't tried the new version yet.)

[Axelord FTW]

The thing is that KSP (and KSP2 probably) only handle elastic deformation, not plastic. A real rocket that bends is bent for good (for the second and a half before catastrophic failure). All that bending also happen on joints, it's not the part themselves that deform.

I don't see how rigidity could be implemented as a progression in game. 

[Superfluous J]

I think they should eliminate bendy rockets the same way real-life physics does. Those rockets should explode.

But then you'd have to fix all of your rockets which would kinda suck.

[Axelord FTW]

Thing is KSP is a building game as much as anything else. Parts need to be able to handle stress, and it need to show. Noodly rockets can't be eliminated, because that's a function of building noodle-like rockets. You can't eliminate atress on joints, and you can't eliminate those joints stretching, compressing, twisting, etc.

KSP1's solution is struts, autostruts, and rigid attachment (which make joints stiffer, but more brittle). It's not elegant, but I can't really think of a better system, other maybe than having a 'structural' or 'reinforcement' slider on parts which make them and their joints stronger, but also heavier and pricier. The drawbacks to this are obvious, and not worth the hassle.

The KSP2 trailer with the flaccid exultation of a rocket is missleading I think. The same rocket would have done fine-ish in KSP1 afterall and there is no reason to implement such progression.

Edited November 26, 2021 by Axelord FTW

[PDCWolf]

15 hours ago, Axelord FTW said:

Thing is KSP is a building game as much as anything else. Parts need to be able to handle stress, and it need to show. Noodly rockets can't be eliminated, because that's a function of building noodle-like rockets. You can't eliminate atress on joints, and you can't eliminate those joints stretching, compressing, twisting, etc.

KSP1's solution is struts, autostruts, and rigid attachment (which make joints stiffer, but more brittle). It's not elegant, but I can't really think of a better system, other maybe than having a 'structural' or 'reinforcement' slider on parts which make them and their joints stronger, but also heavier and pricier. The drawbacks to this are obvious, and not worth the hassle.

The KSP2 trailer with the flaccid exultation of a rocket is missleading I think. The same rocket would have done fine-ish in KSP1 afterall and there is no reason to implement such progression.

Autostrutting exists because it was too late to change from Unity's default crappy joints. You could argue it's useless to include a mechanic if you're gonna include magic buttons to fix the problems it causes. Mods fixed this in three ways: welding the parts into a single one, changing all joints to be the max size ksp allows (bigger parts have stronger joints), and outright doing away with lego construction via procedural parts. However, KSP was way too late to fix this in the codebase, and struts have always been absolute crap, creating more problems than they solve, so they went with the magic fix my rocket button called autostrut.

Speaking of hacky ways to fix stuff, let's remember that KSP had to disable part-to-part collisions on the same vessel, as that would also cause RUD, something which was only brought back to play around with robotics, again on a magic button.

I don't think KSP2 needs to go through coding the same problem in the codebase again, just to add a magic button to fix it later on. Wet noodle rockets are just not a thing, they fail before bending visually, and due to lack of a better way to show realistic structural failures (which would be constant on a lego based construction model like we have, look at FAR), I'd prefer to not have bendy rockets at all. It solves the problem, stops the question from happening, avoids magic buttons to fix it later in the development cycle, and allows stuff relying on part to part collision to work intuitively.

[Axelord FTW]

Unity or not, KPS is about building rockets, and launching them in a world that (try to) simulate them in a realistic manner. At some level or another, be it joints or the very structural integrity of a part, it will flex. It must flex. Without a way for a craft to give way, there will be no RUD, it will be instant planned disassembly when things fail. Player can and will build ridiculous contraptions that would have no choice but to bend, even in real life. A normal-looking rocket must behave like a normal rocket, AND a noodly-rocket must behave like a noodly-rocket, all using the same system. Either KSP2 introduce a system that allow certain parts to be connected by more than one node (for example, two fuel tanks on top of another being attached by five nodes in a cross pattern by default) which will significantly reduce flex, or you keep something that works like the current autostrut+rigid attachment in place. Once again, I can't think of a way to implement plastic deformation into a game either that wouldn't be endlessly frustrating.

There are no golden eggs here.

P.S. While I'm at it, did you know the link in your signature is bust?

Edited November 26, 2021 by Axelord FTW

[PDCWolf]

21 hours ago, Axelord FTW said:

Unity or not, KPS is about building rockets, and launching them in a world that (try to) simulate them in a realistic manner. At some level or another, be it joints or the very structural integrity of a part, it will flex. It must flex. Without a way for a craft to give way, there will be no RUD, it will be instant planned disassembly when things fail. Player can and will build ridiculous contraptions that would have no choice but to bend, even in real life. A normal-looking rocket must behave like a normal rocket, AND a noodly-rocket must behave like a noodly-rocket, all using the same system. Either KSP2 introduce a system that allow certain parts to be connected by more than one node (for example, two fuel tanks on top of another being attached by five nodes in a cross pattern by default) which will significantly reduce flex, or you keep something that works like the current autostrut+rigid attachment in place. Once again, I can't think of a way to implement plastic deformation into a game either that wouldn't be endlessly frustrating.

There are no golden eggs here.

P.S. While I'm at it, did you know the link in your signature is bust?

Whilst I agree that there are parts that need to bend, like aircraft wings, I think we can safely allow tank to tank joints to not bend at all, as the consequences of allowing it set off a domino of effects that end up in having again to disable part to part collision, and the implementation of magic "do not bend" buttons, as game friendly fixes like struts do not work well either. As for your solution, I remember the og devs saying something about not being able to work with multiple joints, since that violates their tree-like serialization of construction for saving craft.

Also yeah, my signature is from a bygone era, even though the thread does still exist (the mod doesn't tho), it's just a pre forum software migration link.

[TheSameKerbal77]

On 11/25/2021 at 10:11 AM, t_v said:

I’m pretty sure this is also a feature in KSP 1 with rigid attachment. You can enable it by enabling advanced tweakables in settings or through the editor extensions redux mod. 

It’s very frustrating to use because you have to click on every part and enable/disable it. It’d be nice to have a multi select tool like holding alt and shift and clicking on a part adds is to a list and then you can apply properties to that list of parts.

[Ember12]

I agree that once a rocket starts bending, in real life, it's pretty much done for, and this should be included in KSP2 physics.  Maybe there should be some sort of "splint" part, like a strut, but more streamlined and radially attachable, that would strengthen any joints that it covers.

[magnemoe]

On 11/26/2021 at 3:11 AM, Axelord FTW said:

Thing is KSP is a building game as much as anything else. Parts need to be able to handle stress, and it need to show. Noodly rockets can't be eliminated, because that's a function of building noodle-like rockets. You can't eliminate atress on joints, and you can't eliminate those joints stretching, compressing, twisting, etc.

KSP1's solution is struts, autostruts, and rigid attachment (which make joints stiffer, but more brittle). It's not elegant, but I can't really think of a better system, other maybe than having a 'structural' or 'reinforcement' slider on parts which make them and their joints stronger, but also heavier and pricier. The drawbacks to this are obvious, and not worth the hassle.

The KSP2 trailer with the flaccid exultation of a rocket is missleading I think. The same rocket would have done fine-ish in KSP1 afterall and there is no reason to implement such progression.

Remember the early game with the old aero model had much weaker joints. 
Part of the reason why asparagus was so popular was that putting 3 orange tanks on top of each other tended to collapse then drag got to high or you tried to do an gravity turn.  With asparagus you could add struts to stabilize the thing.  
This was changed, think around the time of new aero and we got the stronger 3.5 meter parts later. Say current game is pretty realistic, the engine plates are also excellent for using an small engine on an wider tank like an spark on a 1.8 meter tank

[Axelord FTW]

On 11/27/2021 at 5:01 PM, TheSameKerbal77 said:

It’s very frustrating to use because you have to click on every part and enable/disable it. It’d be nice to have a multi select tool like holding alt and shift and clicking on a part adds is to a list and then you can apply properties to that list of parts.

There's a mod that add that functionality, and more. Editor Extension Redux. I always autostrut all to grandparent by default, and tweak a few heavier parts around to root.