strider3

What I have is "StockBugFixControllerPlus.v1.1.3b.1.zip", don't know if that lets me pick the order my tanks drain in. I think I've resolved that issue, however. The numbers just look weird but everything works fine with the triplets, they empty completely and I dump them. I was not aware of the F3 key. Thanks!

An update (been busy at work and home). I tried the Sepratrons...they work well if I am heading 0 x 0 degrees (straight up from Kerbin) but collide if used after my gravity turn. Note that this is well after the 10 degree gravity turn and ship is completely stable on heading. This seems weird...why would being in straight flight after the turn cause this...but not before? I can wait on the gravity turn until after the first decoupling (and have done so, successfully)...but I'm not sure how badly waiting affects the efficiency of my orbit entry. I think I will try the higher clearance decouplers next, without the Sepratrons. 2 learning opportunities..."F3 report", "priority numbers"...what are these things you speak of?? Vic the (eternal) Newbal

I have not tried sepratrons. My decouplers are at the top of the stacks and, yes, that is causing the bottoms to hit the center core. I have tried to center the decouplers in the middle of the stack but that was before learning about the "alt+click" trick to force a node attach, so I had other issues at the time. I haven't had a chance to try anything to improve decoupling of the current craft, until this reply. I'm off to make some more modifications and test them out, now. Thanks!

Yep...can't get past decoupling the 3 boosters without blowing up my stuff. I'm wondering if shutting down all engines, just long enough to decouple, would help? I haven't really had this problem with SRB's and I'm not able to tell, so far, where the collisions are happening (radially with an adjacent booster stack, tail end of ejected stacks running into the Mammoth, etc.). Going to restart flight and decouple with all engines off. Oh...my apologies, also, for being...less than patient, earlier. My bad.

OK then, using the step by step instructions Plusck provided (thanks buddy!), I rebuilt my original. Stuff still "looks weird"...but appears to be working? On the right are the fuel levels for one of the first 3 boosters to be jettisoned when empty, I'm surprised that the lower tank shows empty...but the darn Mainsail appears to be firing away...so I'm overlooking that bit of weirdness. On the left is the center stack and 2nd set of boosters...all looks good, no fuel being used and they should be fine when staging to them. On the lower far left, in the "staging" area...another weirdness...the fuel levels are not reflecting what I would have thought...but, perhaps, another anomaly due to the asparagus staging? Anywho, at this point I am going to resume the flight, see how the 3 stack decoupling goes, and continue to verify the staging. If all goes well, I will call my "triplet" asparagus staging experiment a success...and then go to a "pairs" set-up as this is obviously more efficient, as you have stated...just hope my piloting skills are up to par for that! Have I told you how awesome you guys are...lately? Vic

OK...off to rebuild this using your suggestions. I'll be back.

I think everyone is missing the point? The Jumbo-64's are not transferring fuel, top to bottom? Until that happens, no amount of "tweaking" will change the issue. As I said...I have had this problem many times before when attempting to use these, or any other F/O tanks as a booster section...they don't play well when stacked. I do appreciate the input but, until the stacked tanks are transferring fuel correctly...everything else is moot? My fuel ducts are at the top of each stack. They transfer TO the adjacent tank (yes, I have verified this). The adjacent tanks transfer to the central stack (verified). Gentlemen and Ladies...none of this will work if the Jumbo-64 fuel transfer problem, which I have experienced whenever stacking these tanks in a booster section, continues. I'm not an expert, but I have raised this problem before: I have no idea if this is related, but any discussion seems useless until the issue of the Jumbo-64's not transferring fuel, top to bottom, is resolved? How can ANY fuel transfer scenario work if the very basic scenario of "top-to-bottom" is NOT working? As I have stated...I have had this problem when stacking LF/O fuel tanks in KSP...everytime. I am NOT trying to be a biotch...I'm just saying that most of you are not GETTING the problem. The problem is my stacks are not transferring fuel correctly. Solve that and my triple asparagus experiment can move forward. It's NOT the experiment...it's the booster stacks not transferring fuel top to bottom! I will say it one more time...I have NEVER had any luck when stacking LO/F tanks!!!!!! They just NEVER transfer fuel correctly. AAAAaarghhhhh! And now I'm done. I've vented and had my say. I just wish I could make you understand what I'm seeing here...because you are obviously not getting it.

The fuel ducts are mounted on the top tanks of each of the first to be used "triples".

As I suspected...the Jumbo 64's are not transferring fuel correctly. Notice the middle tank is remaining full? It appears the lower tank is feeding the Mainsail rather than all 3 tanks feeding top to bottom. Some kind of "disconnect" between the middle and bottom tanks: This is one of the first "triplet" stacks, and should be feeding fuel to all stacks. I would need another launch, this time viewing this stack and it's adjacent one, to see what is really going on. Obviously, however, there is the recurring problem I've had stacking Jumbo-64's. It appears to me the middle tank is doing nothing? Obviously a "build" issue when I stack these tanks as booster stages...never really had any luck with them working in unison. Maybe that's why I usually go with SRB's? Not that SRB's are the answer...I need to figure out why this is happening.

Here's a picture of the craft I'm trying this with:

HMMmmm...a few issues in my first attempt at "triplet" asparagus. Do the fuel transfer ducts have a set rate of fuel transfer? Although I am using more fuel from my first "set" of 3 boosters (out of 6), all boosters and center stack are using fuel, albeit at a slower rate. I thought I would use fuel only from the first 3 boosters stack tanks? I have had issues with Jumbo 64 tanks when stacked "booster fashion", in the past, however. I have a feeling that all 3 tanks in each stack are not correctly "connected" and not transferring fuel. I will launch again checking all 3 tanks in each stack as fuel is burned. This problem may also explain the next one, below? Decoupling the first 3 boosters has become an issue. I have my Hydraulic Detachment Manifolds as near centered on the booster stacks (AFAICT) as possible but my first attempt resulted in a massive explosion as the 3 I decoupled ran into the rest of my craft. I should note that I have struts at the top and bottom of each stack. I am using these HDM's as they have the highest ejection force...might take some tweaking to get the stacks to eject radially away from the rest of the craft. I might have misunderstood 5thH's comment as to what was required. The experiment continues. I have read your above replies and will go back to "pairs" if things become unworkable...I just want to give this a shot, now that I'm into it.

Is it possible to asparagus stage "triplets"...instead of pairs? In a 6 booster alignment dropping 3, instead of 2, would seem more balanced on drag, weight balance, etc. I understand that I lose some of the benefit this way but the balance worries me. I'm going to launch a craft with this set-up...I'll be back.

I should note here that I'm still on 1.1.3 and playing Science Sandbox (I will NOT comment on Contracts in Career mode...nope...not gonna do it...no, no, no...shut up Vic...be quiet).

Here's the main part that was confusing me: "The result is that the rocket always flies with the minimum number of tanks required to transport the fuel it has left while also constantly using all engines it has on board." It left out the key element, decoupling empty tank / engine pairs as the fuel in those engine's tanks runs out. Or, as you said..."In flight, you must watch your fuel gauges in the staging display and drop each pair as soon as the tanks become empty". That makes so much more sense now. I do foresee some roll and control problems as you drop pairs (as stated in the link you provided)...but that is a piloting / controls issue, in my mind? This brings us to my next question (you guys knew there would be one.........right?). Wings on vertical lift ships...soon to be posted in a new thread at a KSP forum near you! Thanks Starhawk!

What I have read about it leaves me more confused rather than enlightened? I am sure it's a lack of knowledge on my part. One tutorial left me wondering why I continue carrying the mass of empty tanks and dead engines? Can someone point me to an explanation of why asparagus staging works (using the "K.I.S.S. principle"), and then a basic explanation of the "mechanics" that goes along with it ( how to build it, when to stage off, where to decouple, etc.)? A side note from the "SRB's vs. Asparagus staging" thread: I have always thought that SRB's are more efficient (TWR wise) from Kerbin surface than any LFO launch stage? I don't have any math to support this, just my experiences in actual launches. It always seemed to me that the weight of an LFO launch stage, compared to the DV it provided, was less than strapping a bunch of SRB's on and firing away to get away from the ground. The SRB's always seemed to provide more "bang for the buck" when getting away from Kerbin's lower / mid atmosphere. The reason I ask this is that my ships are getting taller and taller...and less stable, of course. I am doing Duna science, at this point, and my plan is to put an MPL, with some spare fuel, in orbit around Duna. Then I want to launch a Duna science lander, from Kerbin, to collect science on Duna's high, low and surface, launch back to the MPL orbiter, and transfer the data. I would then, hopefully, have enough spare fuel on the orbiter to refuel the lander and have a few more goes at Duna's surface. From what I have read, been told by you and experienced...I need to stop "building up" as getting out of Kerbin's atmosphere is becoming a major challenge without instability. As always, your input is...invaluable. Vic the Newbal

That has not worked for me. This is exactly what I tried, originally, and the lower part became unmovable / unconnectable to the new command pod or probe? The lower part just stayed "greyed out", as is usual with disconnected parts, but when a new pod or core was placed above it, it could not be moved and connected.

I have a Duna orbiter I built and used for my first trip to Duna. Now I would like to keep all the lower stages intact but change the upper to a Lander. I don't seem to know how to do that...whenever I remove the installed pod at the top, the rest of the ship gets "greyed out" and I cannot replace the upper section with a new lander can. What am I missing here? Thanks

You are all AWESOME! Thank you for helping me figure that out. Vic the Newbal

It was the game popping up that it had saved. So, if I understand, after overshooting my maneuver node I should have hit "Alt-F9" and loaded the "persistent.sfs"...that would have been my last auto-save, hopefully before overshooting the node. The REAL answer is that I need to use the F5 more frequently, it seems. Thanks!

Yes, you are right...but they can be very hard to see and focusing on the target planet shows you where it is now...not where your trajectory will land. If you read back to other replies you will see how a person can actually see a close up of your maneuver's projected trajectory and how much easier it is to then adjust it.

Yes but I needed to see a view of how my maneuver node was going to arrive at the target. It's not as simple as zooming in on the target. It's all figured out, now.

What I "may" have done is make a named save...and called it "quicksave" instead of giving it a unique name. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. AFAICT "auto-saves" are working...it's getting to it, and loading it, that is somehow avoiding me.

Jeez, I'm dense. How do I load the last "auto-save" then? Can I delete the "quicksave.sfs" I have, safely (will it be re-created)? I do believe that Plusck is right and I have, somehow, screwed the pooch on my quicksave.sfs. addiew> no, I never quicksaved and I apparently have no idea about saving. I do create named saves at important points (unfortunately not THIS time LOL). As always, thanks for helping the mentally deficient.

As I'm flying around, KSP is making lots of "quicksaves". But when I press "alt+F9" and load "quicksave"...I am not loading the last quicksave? I am loading something from many, many moons ago instead of the very last quicksave...why is that? It's annoying as heck because I just warped past my transfer burn to Duna node. "No problem" he says..."I'll just load the last quicksave". Instead of being at the last point I saw the "quicksave" text pop up on the screen, I'm back to some long forgotten mission. GRRRrrr . What am I doing wrong? (I say that because I am usually the culprit ;-))

Thanks K. I do like that mod...makes dealing with nodes much easier...no more Kerbol fly-byes when simply trying to get to Duna LOL.