Kerbal Joint Reinforcement as stock?

[Majorjim!]

Can I be frank?

..That's like saying you should learn not to clip things or you should stack a crap ton of radiators on aircraft to stop clipping/overheating issues.

I'm all in for this.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe it may have been bearable in 0.90, given the crappy aerodynamics and drag mattering much less, but in 1.0, wrapping girders, beams and struts around your rocket makes it perform like you stacked a bunch of rockets on buildings with scaffolding, and under construction.

Impractical, isn't it.

You can be who ever you want mate.

Yes I know that adding struts contributes to the overall part count but it really doesn't take many to secure a craft. You really just need to test the craft, see where it flexes and add one or two struts between tanks. I haven't had a wobbly rocket launch in nearly two years.

Squad like a bit of wobble. No wobble is too easy. Embrace it!

Edited September 21, 2015 by Majorjim

[Azimech]

Remember that one properly placed strut can be more effective than ten randomly placed ones. My stock rockets rarely have more than one strut for each booster and a few struts for securing the payload.

This.

And what Majorjim says. Instead of making the game easier and less satisfying for a lot of people, just improving your skills is a much better idea. Or we might as well go back to Errordynamics because some people don't like a stalling plane and they can't throw it around like they used to.

[clivman]

This.

And what Majorjim says. Instead of making the game easier and less satisfying for a lot of people, just improving your skills is a much better idea. Or we might as well go back to Errordynamics because some people don't like a stalling plane and they can't throw it around like they used to.

Umm no. The difference in this case is that reducing wobble is more realistic.

[Jouni]

Umm no. The difference in this case is that reducing wobble is more realistic.

More realistic and less realistic, both at the same time. Real rockets bend a bit, wobble a bit, and break quite easily.

[clivman]

More realistic and less realistic, both at the same time. Real rockets bend a bit, wobble a bit, and break quite easily.

Due to aerodynamic forces, not because they are made of spaghetti

[Alshain]

No absolutely not. It isn't necessary, the joints work fine. Only the Mk3 really needs fixing.

[Jouni]

Due to aerodynamic forces, not because they are made of spaghetti

Have you ever been in a tall building during an earthquake? Have you seen what turbulence does to airplane wings? Have you seen how ships bend in rough seas? Everything is made of spaghetti.

The real problem isn't the wobble, but the way KSP handles the joints between small parts in a large stack. We ourselves make the problem worse with our actions. Due to the lack of precise and smooth controls (because most of use don't use a joystick), we often subject our rockets to extreme lateral forces. These forces can be much worse than earthquakes, turbulence, and rough seas.

[Alshain]

Don't forget overbuilding. If you build rockets at extreme heights, of course it is going to wobble. My rockets never wobble, but use manageable payloads.

[TMS]

I think there's a point to make here that people aren't noticing with stock joints: where does the most wobble occur? Is it between equal-sized parts, or does it occur when you have lower-mass parts sandwiched between higher-mass parts? If it's the former, then it's a design choice. If it's the latter, it's the physics engine not being designed to handle those larger mass ratios and not having joints set properly between parts to account for that.

Now, guess which one KJR is designed to handle and fix?

Yup, this is why I use KJR.

The rest of the debate is irrelevant and completely missing the point.

Rockets should flex and (ideally) crumple under dynamic pressure, but parts shouldn't wobble and slide around based on extreme differences in mass ratios.

(thank you)

[Jouni]

Yup, this is why I use KJR.

The rest of the debate is irrelevant and completely missing the point.

Rockets should flex and (ideally) crumple under dynamic pressure, but parts shouldn't wobble and slide around based on extreme differences in mass ratios.

I reinstalled KJR to check how it had changed since I last tried it.

The default settings may be a bit overkill. (That's a 0.625 m decoupler between the stages.) Some tweaks to the configuration will probably yield more reasonable behavior, but the defaults seem to replace stock silliness with another kind of silliness.

[Columbia]

To be honest, another thing I'd like to emphasize is that KJR also helps with timewarp forces - Things are not as wobbly and breakage-prone anymore.

With that being said.. you no longer have to wait too long when your Mk3 plane is making it's way to the North Pole! (Assuming it's well-built).

And tbh that's the only thing that desperately makes me long for it in stock.

[clivman]

To be honest, another thing I'd like to emphasize is that KJR also helps with timewarp forces - Things are not as wobbly and breakage-prone anymore.

With that being said.. you no longer have to wait too long when your Mk3 plane is making it's way to the North Pole! (Assuming it's well-built).

And tbh that's the only thing that desperately makes me long for it in stock.

Yeah at 4 times physics warp it has about stock wobblyness

[Columbia]

Yeah at 4 times physics warp it has about stock wobblyness

This as well.