Xyphos

usually, I'd use "Tail Connector B" for that, but it'd still require fuel ducts. I'd rather eliminate the need of increasing the part count. anyway, I like the design, but give the idea some thought, tho will ya?

Yeah, TweakScale isn't exactly "100% stock"

I'm building a "cat-walk" platform on a large heavy lander in 100% stock, can't decide on what to use for side-rails. I've tried I-Beams but they're a tad too big, I've tried struts but my Kerbals tend to clip right through them, for the moment, I'm using a whole bunch of 1x1 panels but that increases the part count too much. why can't we have actual guard rails in stock?

Take the Vector engine add a Radial attachment housing, similar to the Thud engine prevent the gimbals from turning inward profit. practical application: offers radially attached vectors in conjunction to a central stack engine, such as Rhino or Mammoth. suggested name is "Thump" -- Thud's bigger brother. @Porkjet

Get out those square girders... lots of them. build 3 or more arcing girder arms with claws on both ends. what you want to do, is build a nerva-powered rocket with mining equipment that can meet up with the asteroid, have that rocket grapple on to the asteroid, after adjusting for the center of mass, then deploy and attach your girder arms probes to the asteroid using the claws. then jiggle the whole thing using RCS to make the other end's claws attach to the central rocket. these "claw-arms" act as struts to reduce the wobble you'd normally get without them. now you can push or pull your rock, depending on how you setup the engines. just note that the longer your arms are, the more joints and wobble you'll get. try to reduce the part count as much as possible per arm, but the more arms you deploy, the less it will wobble.

this goes beyond OCD issues, it's about proper alignment for orbit-built vessels, to eliminate unwanted torque imbalances. don't worry, I fixed the issue myself, so I don't need the devs or a modder anymore. see recent post - it turns out that the devs already addressed the issue and added neat configuration options in 1.0.5

sorry, I didn't see it . also, I don't use livestream.

this also seems like fiction. what are your thoughts?

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]] { @MODULE[ModuleDockingNode] { captureMinRollDot = 0.999 snapRotation = true snapOffset = 5 } } I tweaked the code a little bit, I like this config better, it's flexibly-rigid enough to emulate the angle snapping in the editor.

This doesn't hardly qualify as an addiction... it's a lifestyle.

you're right, the article looks like it was written by an under-achieving community-college student in a democratic controlled society. but if there's any truth in there, it's worth investigating.

http://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-discovered-a-hyper-velocity-binary-star-that-breaks-current-physics-models

yes. the part(s) have engines on them, so I'd like to have them aligned to prevent unwanted torque imbalances. also, I tried the CFG mod, and now I can't get the ports to attract or dock.

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]] { @MODULE[ModuleDockingNode] { captureMinRollDot = 0.99999 snapRotation = true snapOffset = 45 } } this thing?

how?

no, thanks, I want 100% stock parts

I just managed to dock the second part to a new orbit-built vessel, the part was Asymmetrical and a bit hard to maneuver. but with patience and effort, I managed to get the ports aligned and then docked. after docking, upon closer inspection, I noticed that the rotation was one or two degrees off, and I could have sworn I aligned them almost perfectly prior to docking; did the parts move upon after docking? I'm not sure, but HOLY MOLEY this is driving me BATTY. I'm not about to undock and torture myself further, I wish docking ports could rotate by 5 degrees, like how gimbals can have 5 degrees of travel. just right-click menu the docked port and click "Align" - shouldn't be too hard to implement. ...actually, that sounds like an idea for a Mod. if any code monkeys can manage it.

the same thing can be said about struts, to compensate for the weak joint system in stock.

Look, my "issue" with the ducts is the fact that they have an infinite flow rate; if there was a flow rate restriction to which "just add more" would be a solution, then I wouldn't mind so much, and I'll even consider it to be kerbal, in which realism isn't actually an issue, it's just the "wow. that's not even remotely believable."

that was realistic. in real life, a device like this wouldn't work. but it does, using kerbal mechanics. and a best example of why I shun the use of fuel ducts.

let's test this then, hmm? get a large kerbodyne tank, empty it, lock the resources just to be sure. set your symmetry to 6-point, place 6 vectors radially around the tank pointing in all directions, repeat for the adjacent side, giving a total of 12 vectors, translate them around so you can fit another set of 12 vectors, repeat until the whole tank is covered in vectors. optionally, clone this vector covered tank; the more you have, the faster it'll drain the fuel. now attach an I-Beam, decoupler, structural panel or anything else that prevents fuel transfer, then connect another large kerbodyne tank with full fuel and of course, add a single fuel duct and your command module of choice. right click the full tank, fire up the engines, and watch every single engine burn without a problem as the fuel squeezes through a passage no bigger than a garden hose, with an infinite rate of flow. if you optionally cloned the vector tank, the fuel should have drained completely dry the same moment you staged the engines, in zero seconds.

...through a rather large metal pipe duct with a high rate of flow, not a flexible drinking straw that has an infinite flow rate. if the planet's moving counter-clockwise, then the vessel should be performing an acceleration gravity assist, and the exit trajectory shouldn't be able to even be anywhere near the sun.

Perhaps you should re-read the topic title. I've replied, given an example of why, and you still insist on insulting other people for expressing their opinions. you're a forum troll, to which I say, Good Day, Sir.

such silly things you're assuming. I'll gladly play the pre-release and all of it's buggyness after KJR is updated for it. but having vessels fall apart before even staging it off the pad is my biggest "omg I quit this dumb game" moments. and thus is why KJR is the mod I can't live without.