XLjedi

No... not sure anyone would. I more had the pudgy little cartoon character in mind. But the actual nickname arose from my design designation of ZGB for "Zero-G Bot" and I took to calling them "Zig-B's" for awhile. Ziggy just seemed more endearing for this one I s'pose.

@DJWyre No...

I built a very large station (400 parts) kinda in the shape of a box... All assembled in orbit via 20 spaceplane missions. To solve the inherent part "floppiness" there was a central part that I declared to be the "Root". For this type of design, using autostruts on each corner and a few selective crossbeam sections (maybe 8 autostruts total?) each targeting the central "Root" part. It worked quite well in terms of rigidity. It is a large framework though (docks 3 Mk3 spaceplanes) and has no reaction wheels of its own. No mods, no welding... I do wish the robotics parts were a tad less noodle-like though.

It's not a short answer, you may need to watch a video or two...

I think it came about with the intro of Robotics and the BG expansion... self-docking and so forth. But it's also been HUGE for me in terms of creating vehicles and stations that can load/unload supplies. It makes collision detection work when applied to cargo bays and so forth! That was a big improvement over anything we had pre-BG.

@AHHans Thanks for the thorough testing! Makes me feel better now; I think my station is safe. I do wish they would fix that action group bug! It would make my custom doors/ramps work so much nicer.

I optimized it a bit, I'm now at: 17 large open ports (it's my primary storage and transfer hub) All of the mid-size ports have been capped using the shielded part instead. 6 of the small ports. So, I'm at 23 open ports right now before bringing in a large craft or two with additional open ports. I guess as supplies are offloaded some of the ports could be capped if the supplies are designed to be terminating instead of stackable. Oh and it's like 395 parts with a TON of senior ports that are capped in the process of constructing. I'm planning 20 missions to get it fully operational.

I guess depends on what point the number becomes absurd? In the design of my OASys Station I plan to have at least 19 large open ports. I have fewer of the mid-size ports and guess I can convert all those (except for a couple of the really small ones) to the closeable variety.

Wonder if any of that was negated with time due to station Primary Active Port designation logic being added?

Very much my play style... I think I only have 2 or 3 rockets that I ever use, and one of them is like the "Alpha-1 Nub Nub" which is basically just the little SRB you are forced to start with at tech node 1. So really, just 2 disposable stage rockets are all I touch in a career.

I've been continuing along with my latest career attempt. In the process, I took up a challenge that I have been wanting to do for awhile. This time, as I play it through, I am paying very careful attention to the craft I create with a two-pronged focus toward both reusability and optimization of parts based on where I am on the tech tree. It's allowing me to build a "Pro-Stock" hangar of craft and subassemblies that minimizes the number of craft and assemblies required while also unlocking the tech tree as fast as possible. I've been having a lot of fun with it... and discovering some interesting things. It is far more useful for me to incorporate certain higher level tech as a small subassembly that I can add to craft later, rather than delay the development of a certain design waiting for the part to be unlocked! My zero-G bot "Ziggy" for instance allows me to have the most advanced guidance systems added to any craft that I already have in orbit. Not to mention, he's quite handy in retrieving and transferring items between craft! The craft themselves are far more useful to be built earlier in my career without such advanced guidance systems and then Ziggy becomes a welcome addition to the team later. As a result, my ZGB's seem to have a personality all their own and feel like I'm playing a sentient robot, rather than an automated piece of equipment. Ziggy, my faithful zero-G bot, and a favorite team member: Hopefully, there's no conflicting directives in his programming that might one day cause him to lock us all out of the station! If this sort of play style sounds interesting to you, I posted the "Pro-Stock Challenge" yesterday for anyone who might like to participate! (the link is in my signature below). I don't have my Pro-Stock hangar complete yet, but I have about a dozen or so craft so far that I think fit the description and I continue to work toward filling gaps in my hangar to make the most of the technology available and serve as many mission profiles as possible. It's giving me a pretty interesting perspective on what tech I consider a "Core Craft Requirement" vs. what is better served in the form of a subassembly. For instance, ladders are a rather interesting outlier in early tech craft. One of my very early Pro-Stock designs is a small science jet with minimal parts that can be used as soon as the aircraft node is unlocked and prior to any hangar or runway upgrades.

No shielded ports for the big docking ports though. This will now influence my latest modular station design in an attempt to minimize this issue.

First I've heard of lag related to exposed docking ports. But sounds interesting... I will watch.

I almost always include flaps and very specific landing/takeoff configurations in all of my designs. I prefer to manage it all when the landing gear are extended/retracted. So I don't have to think about it, the gear go up/down and the planes configure themselves accordingly. I've incorporated all of the above in several of my designs, as well as a few you didn't even mention. My designs are in my signature, you can take a look if you like. I don't always put the control surfaces where you might expect, and often times I'll put stuff on backwards if it makes it fly better! The jet shown in my signature for instance includes forward splitflaps and 4 spoilers in the rear, as well as a backwards elevator (I dubbed it the "Inversavator") and forward swept wings and a pair of airbrakes. https://kerbalx.com/XLjedi/FE-03-Scepter I include a "Design Notes" section with a number of my aircraft. So they might not be tutorials, but I often will point out items of interest or certain ideas that were going through my head while trying to solve some unique flight dynamic with a particular design.

CLICK ME for Complete Instructions

Wow... in honor of my daughter's birthday today! Nyan cats for all!

I can see that... I've been playing my latest career the same way. I've become exceptionally good at intercepts though; to the point it's become rather mechanical. I don't mind the intercepts and docking so much. I do get annoyed at the 5 minute nuke-tug burn times just to get to Minmus. It's starting to lean me toward creating a new class of wolfhound-powered light-carriers.

Would serve them well to get it out close to or before the holidays this year at least.

It's my guess, it aint happening by June. Seems like they just regrouped the team. But, just my guess... see what they say at Pax East. One a month seems a reasonable expectation for dev updates. Could be a series of 3 or 4? It's still remotely possible I guess. Right now, I'd put odds against it.

Because they said it was Episode 1 in a series... and they didn't call it a weekly series. LOL

Dang... has it been that long? Of course I'd be watching it on my DVD set; so I guess it has been.

@StrandedonEarth That reminds me; I have to go back and finish watching that series!

@GluttonyReaper It doesn't surprise me in the least. They had to speed up transit to avoid breaking the underlying gameplay.

Welp. Based on the recent release of Episode 1 of a series of dev videos to be released... I'm not seeing Spring 2020 as even remotely viable; more like Spring 2021.

Ah... naturally... And the 100ft long landing gear is a backup in case the anti-gravity drive fails. All makes sense now.