Merging and sub-assemblies need to work better

[cephalo]

It's very frustrating to see designs come unraveled when you want to attach complicated parts. All kinds of problems come up, usually with struts but sometimes whole sections missing or misaligned. So difficult to fix when this happens.

That is all.

[Guest]

Make sure your subassembly is one complete package when you save it. If there are struts attaching your subassembly you're saving to other parts, you need to strip them off.

[cephalo]

Make sure your subassembly is one complete package when you save it. If there are struts attaching your subassembly you're saving to other parts, you need to strip them off.

Oh yes, my subassemblies are self contained and thoroughly tested individually as separate craft. That's why it's frustrating when I can't use them without significant rebuilding. If I had it right the first time, I certainly would forget something on the second time.

In my experience the system fails about 40 percent of the time. Moving from the SPH to the VAB is especially problematic. I'm guessing that the symmetry rules are enforced differently, and this throws any struts way off. They do not have to be attached to other things to suddenly face the wrong way. Half the struts that supported your undercarriage will suddenly be facing out in space. One workaround is to never use symmetry when strutting, but that's not an optimal solution when so much of the game depends on symmetry.

Merging has other issues that go beyond struts. Sometimes only half the craft you are loading as a merge shows up. Sometimes the parts are grossly misaligned. I wonder if it's the same bug, and that the parts are so out of position sometimes that you just can't see them.

[LostOblivion]

The one thing I find annoying with subassemblies and merging is that you can't always attach them. If the root part of the subassembly or craft is in the middle of the stack, it won't let you attach to neither end. I understand that craft are basically a directional tree, but some effort should defenately be made to ease the usages of these, such as letting you re-root subassemblies you've dragged in while they're ghosted before attaching them.

[regex]

Pro-tip: Add a ton of stages above your current stages before merging in a sub-assembly, makes it much easier to sort everything out after merge.

Pro-tip: Change the root part to something with an attach node in a reasonable location before creating a sub-assembly, makes merging easier.

[SickSix]

The one thing I find annoying with subassemblies and merging is that you can't always attach them. If the root part of the subassembly or craft is in the middle of the stack, it won't let you attach to neither end. I understand that craft are basically a directional tree, but some effort should defenately be made to ease the usages of these, such as letting you re-root subassemblies you've dragged in while they're ghosted before attaching them.

Thank you! You just solved my major problems with sub assembly! That is so annoying after spending time designing a stowable lander and then not being able to attach it to the right end or at all!

[Guest]

Moving from the SPH to the VAB is especially problematic. I'm guessing that the symmetry rules are enforced differently, and this throws any struts way off. One workaround is to never use symmetry when strutting, but that's not an optimal solution when so much of the game depends on symmetry.

I never build something in the SPH and load it into the VAB. No exceptions. If it's launched vertically on a rocket, it goes in the VAB. If it's launched horizontally like an aircraft, SPH. The symmetry modes in the VAB and SPH default to different types, but that should, in theory, have no effect on a craft already built. Personally I prefer not to tempt fate, and leave each building to it's own devices. If they were truly interchangeable, then there would only be one generic design building, instead of two separate ones.

Struts are physics-less parts not affected by aerodynamics, which means struts don't need to be symmetrical or even the same length. In fact, you don't even need more than one strut connecting two parts, unless there is some really major shearing force which means you have much bigger problems. People only put them on in symmetrical pairs because it looks nice.

The one thing I find annoying with subassemblies and merging is that you can't always attach them. If the root part of the subassembly or craft is in the middle of the stack, it won't let you attach to neither end. I understand that craft are basically a directional tree, but some effort should defenately be made to ease the usages of these, such as letting you re-root subassemblies you've dragged in while they're ghosted before attaching them.

Or you could set the root part correctly before saving your subassemblies. Most of the problems people are having with the editor is due to the fact they don't want to double-check their work, or don't want to spend an extra few minutes tightening the nuts and bolts.

"How does it feel to be sitting on top of a craft built by the lowest bidder?"

I understand what you folks are saying there are problems with the editor, but if you take an extra few minutes checking your work you won't have nearly so much of them.

[Sharpy]

I never build something in the SPH and load it into the VAB. No exceptions. If it's launched vertically on a rocket, it goes in the VAB. If it's launched horizontally like an aircraft, SPH. The symmetry modes in the VAB and SPH default to different types, but that should, in theory, have no effect on a craft already built. Personally I prefer not to tempt fate, and leave each building to it's own devices. If they were truly interchangeable, then there would only be one generic design building, instead of two separate ones..

Eh. I don't worry about that too much. I build a rover in SPH, save it as a subassembly, then build the transfer stage and lander/deployment system in VAB, load the rover and attach it, load a launch stage subassembly and attach it, then just add struts and fairings. First build big, complex bricks in buildings where they belong, then assemble the craft out of 3-4 such big bricks in the building it will be launched from. No micromanagement in mixed mode.

[LostOblivion]

I never build something in the SPH and load it into the VAB. No exceptions. If it's launched vertically on a rocket, it goes in the VAB. If it's launched horizontally like an aircraft, SPH. The symmetry modes in the VAB and SPH default to different types, but that should, in theory, have no effect on a craft already built. Personally I prefer not to tempt fate, and leave each building to it's own devices. If they were truly interchangeable, then there would only be one generic design building, instead of two separate ones.

Struts are physics-less parts not affected by aerodynamics, which means struts don't need to be symmetrical or even the same length. In fact, you don't even need more than one strut connecting two parts, unless there is some really major shearing force which means you have much bigger problems. People only put them on in symmetrical pairs because it looks nice.

Or you could set the root part correctly before saving your subassemblies. Most of the problems people are having with the editor is due to the fact they don't want to double-check their work, or don't want to spend an extra few minutes tightening the nuts and bolts.

"How does it feel to be sitting on top of a craft built by the lowest bidder?"

I understand what you folks are saying there are problems with the editor, but if you take an extra few minutes checking your work you won't have nearly so much of them.

The thing is, the "correct part" doesn't really make sense. The root part of a lander should usually be its command pod, but if you want to attach it to the top of a rocket, then the bottom part of its stack must be the root part for it to attach, which is usually the engine. Now, if you have a multi-stage lander then having the engine be the root part doesn't work very well with KER for instance, which pretty much assumes a part in the upmost stage be the root.

[Superfluous J]

The thing is, the "correct part" doesn't really make sense. The root part of a lander should usually be its command pod, but if you want to attach it to the top of a rocket, then the bottom part of its stack must be the root part for it to attach, which is usually the engine. Now, if you have a multi-stage lander then having the engine be the root part doesn't work very well with KER for instance, which pretty much assumes a part in the upmost stage be the root.

I just make sure each part has the dV it needs to do its job before making it a subassembly. Then when the whole rocket's built I can fly it assured it has the dV it needs.

Also, re-rooting the craft once built is as easy as it was to make the engine the root before turning something into a subassembly.

Regarding merging craft files... That is witchcraft and your space center SHOULD burn for your using it.

[LostOblivion]

I just make sure each part has the dV it needs to do its job before making it a subassembly. Then when the whole rocket's built I can fly it assured it has the dV it needs.

Also, re-rooting the craft once built is as easy as it was to make the engine the root before turning something into a subassembly.

Regarding merging craft files... That is witchcraft and your space center SHOULD burn for your using it.

Haha, okay, you avoid the problem all together. :-)

[cephalo]

Hey, I made a discovery!

This is how you use a sub-assembly with symmetrical struts:

Make your craft and strut it up any old way and save it as a sub-assembly. Then, when you are about to use it in another craft, press F to switch to 'symmetry around parent part' before you select the subassembly from the menu. Then it works without all those problems I mentioned earlier!

[LostOblivion]

Nice find. What other stuff does that thing do? It sounds like that would make more sense for mirror symmetry.

[monstah]

Nice find. What other stuff does that thing do? It sounds like that would make more sense for mirror symmetry.

If you add winglets to boosters, for example, this lets you add them symmetrically in relation to the booster instead of the ship, so if you add it to the side, instead of something looking like a Swastika, you end up with something looking like a Portuguese cross.