attachRule for node snapping to same size

[anxcon]

when parts attach currently, they attach any node size to any node size

i would love for it to be only to same size, so size1 only attach to size1

(for those that dont know, 7th number, node_stack_top = x, y, z, rotx, roty, rotz, size)

attachRules is the best location for such a flag

this also has benefits for things like cargo bays with multi node on the same spot

as far as making a mod goes, i see only 1 way to do such, extending 3 classes and override bits

while i have tested this, and do have a "working mod" it causes a whole list of issues

the sensible thing i see to do is add it to stock game, and i see no downsides to such

currently there are 7 flags available for attachRules (5 commonly used, 6th and 7th optional to use)

default value would ofcourse be to ignore size check

[Alshain]

This would make a good optional editor mode. Obviously you don't want this restriction all the time. Maybe an expansion on the Node Snap, there could be a Same Size Node Snap option. Not sure how they would keybind that since holding the mod key can really only do one thing but they could figure it out. They kind of need a small UI overhaul anyway so we can visually see when we are in Radial or Mirror mode, so they could just add node snap as another 3-option button and include this in it.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Alshain

[Vermil]

Ouch! Such a limitation on my improvising and problem solutions, would have me immediately stop playing this game. It would be completely ruined, AFAIAC.

[Red Iron Crown]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this suggestion. Is the idea to only have nodes of the same size attachable? That seems to have a lot of downsides for little benefit to my mind. What advantage is there to restricting node attachments this way?

[Frozen_Heart]

Yep if KSP did this I would stop playing for good. Would stop people building almost any creative designs.

As an editor option maybe.

[masiboss]

This would make a good optional editor mode. Obviously you don't want this restriction all the time. Maybe an expansion on the Node Snap, there could be a Same Size Node Snap option. Not sure how they would keybind that since holding the mod key can really only do one thing but they could figure it out. They kind of need a small UI overhaul anyway so we can visually see when we are in Radial or Mirror mode, so they could just add node snap as another 3-option button and include this in it.

i think thi is the way to go notas a restriction

[anxcon]

notice everyone ignores the fact that attachRules is per part, and easily disabled - but instead cries "no no dont do it i quit"

there is already rules in place for being unable to place part if collision, unable to place parts on stack or surfaces, being unable to ROTATE parts - you can even go into debug menu (alt F12) to disable the bits - nobody cries over those restrictions which are even more limiting

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this suggestion. Is the idea to only have nodes of the same size attachable? That seems to have a lot of downsides for little benefit to my mind. What advantage is there to restricting node attachments this way?

the same advantages of not placing if collision, not being able to rotate parts, not being able to place on stack or surface, its a framework option that is optional and makes sense to exist - you don't see an mk1 pod sitting on top of a 3.75M engine cluster in real life, adapters exist for a reason and add aerodynamic shape

Edited October 12, 2015 by anxcon

[Red Iron Crown]

notice everyone ignores the fact that attachRules is per part, and easily disabled - but instead cries "no no dont do it i quit"

there is already rules in place for being unable to place part if collision, unable to place parts on stack or surfaces, being unable to ROTATE parts - you can even go into debug menu (alt F12) to disable the bits - nobody cries over those restrictions which are even more limiting

Personally I think those restrictions are silly, too. IMHO every part should be surface attachable and allow things to be attached to its surface.

the same advantages of not placing if collision, not being able to rotate parts, not being able to place on stack or surface, its a framework option that is optional and makes sense to exist - you don't see an mk1 pod sitting on top of a 3.75M engine cluster in real life, adapters exist for a reason and add aerodynamic shape

I see what you're saying, but for many things aerodynamics don't matter at all. Can you give an example of a part you feel should be node size restricted?

[anxcon]

Personally I think those restrictions are silly, too. IMHO every part should be surface attachable and allow things to be attached to its surface.

and yet the framework is already there, and you can have such wishes, go enable it have fun

I see what you're saying, but for many things aerodynamics don't matter at all. Can you give an example of a part you feel should be node size restricted?

i just did

mk1 pod being placed on top of a 3.75 engine

1.25M cockpit onto mk2/mk3 fuselages

any fitting that doesnt fit

way configs are currently, is the first 5 attachrules are used

stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision

6th and 7th allowDock, allowRotate, are optional (and mostly unused, default true to not interfere)

adding an 8th to restrict size would likely go unused by stock, and unnoticed by people

[Red Iron Crown]

For orbital ships, placing a 1.25m pod on a Mk2/Mk3 fuselage is about the only way to get a large amount of LF for a nuclear ship without driving the partcount through the ceiling or taking a dry mass penalty. Enclose it in a fairing (or just pay the drag penalty) and it gets to orbit fine.

Seems to me that this is something within the purview of self-control, no need to make another attach rule for it. Don't want mismatched node sizes? Don't attach parts with different sized nodes. Why restrict everyone else? I still don't see any advantage to this.

[anxcon]

how does this restrict everyone else?

remove ability to not rotate parts or i quit

remove ability to not add part if collision or i quit

waa waa too restrictive are those unused features that aren't effecting my game

[Red Iron Crown]

I feel like we're talking in circles here. If the ability to restrict attachment to similar node sizes is implemented but not used, how is that any different from what we have now? If it is implemented and used, how does that not restrict players?

I'm afraid I still don't understand the point of this suggestion. What benefit does it provide? How is it any different than simply choosing not to attach parts with different node sizes?

[Rath]

notice everyone ignores the fact that attachRules is per part, and easily disabled - but instead cries "no no dont do it i quit"

there is already rules in place for being unable to place part if collision, unable to place parts on stack or surfaces, being unable to ROTATE parts - you can even go into debug menu (alt F12) to disable the bits - nobody cries over those restrictions which are even more limiting

the same advantages of not placing if collision, not being able to rotate parts, not being able to place on stack or surface, its a framework option that is optional and makes sense to exist - you don't see an mk1 pod sitting on top of a 3.75M engine cluster in real life, adapters exist for a reason and add aerodynamic shape

Sure, uou don't see it for ROCKETS but what about probes?

[Diazo]

I could see this suggestion being implemented within a parts pack if certain parts can only connect to certain other parts for some reason within that pack. (Colony building pack so you don't mix buildings and rocket parts together?)

While it would take a tweaking pass over all the stock parts to do correctly, I could see a "mis-match" penalty working.

So if you connect a 1.25m pod onto a 1.25m fuel tank and engine, everything is as currently, but if you connect a 1.25m pod onto a 2.5m fuel tank, there is an extra 10% mass of the command pod added (the smaller diameter part) for an invisible (and non-existent in the game space) "size adapter".

Obviously using the 1.25m to 2.5m adapter part would negate this penalty and part the of the tweaking pass necessary to make this work would have to set the mass of those adapter parts small enough that you could make the trade off of space for less weight using the actual adapter part, or more mass if you just connect the two parts together.

Unfortunately, this ignores the issue of part count and computer performance and that would kill this suggestion for most people.

D.

[Laie]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this suggestion. Is the idea to only have nodes of the same size attachable? That seems to have a lot of downsides for little benefit to my mind. What advantage is there to restricting node attachments this way?

As I understand the OP, this would be optional, similar to disabling surface attachment. I can see a few use cases where it would come in handy.

[nothingSpecial]

It can be useful for Ven's engines with double nodes for different sizes. Or analogous parts.

Imagine that you have two top and two bottom nodes on engine.

Now you can place them as close as needed and be able to

- Use engine on 2.5m ship in 2.5 stack.

- Use engine on 2.5m ship carried by 1.25m lifter. The top 2.5m node will provide smooth adapter and bottom 1.25m node - shroud.

- Use engine on 1.25m ship in 1.25m stack.

Without double nodes you will need two engines and adapter - three parts total. With double nodes only one part is needed.

And this option will make it easy to use double-nooded engine, just turn "size-catious" on in part config.

[Red Iron Crown]

The node size doesn't change in VSR, though. Both upper nodes on the LV-N, for example, are size 1 nodes. I suppose it could be handy for some hypothetical part that has differently sized nodes adjacent to each other.

[nothingSpecial]

Hm. I can totally recall that at least some mod definitely had different-sized nodes, and that to attach anything to correct one was frustrating.

[KrazyKrl]

As I understand the OP, this would be optional, similar to disabling surface attachment. I can see a few use cases where it would come in handy.

Same here, limiting node attach to only same nodes seems quite limiting for a game like KSP.

But as for node placement...

I'd suggest another placement tool. An extension of the angle snap button, with a submenu. Maybe change the angle snap button when modkey is held to a placement node icon or something(mod-rightclick can toggle using node exclusion). This submenu would contain a checkbox listbox of all placement node sizes. This way you can enable and disable each node size as you see fit.

[cfds]

It can be useful for Ven's engines with double nodes for different sizes. Or analogous parts.

Imagine that you have two top and two bottom nodes on engine.

Now you can place them as close as needed and be able to

- Use engine on 2.5m ship in 2.5 stack.

- Use engine on 2.5m ship carried by 1.25m lifter. The top 2.5m node will provide smooth adapter and bottom 1.25m node - shroud.

- Use engine on 1.25m ship in 1.25m stack.

Without double nodes you will need two engines and adapter - three parts total. With double nodes only one part is needed.

And this option will make it easy to use double-nooded engine, just turn "size-catious" on in part config.

That was the first application that I thought of when I read thread (although mainly as an option in the editor).

@Red Iron Crown: The Skipper in VSR does have differently sized nodes and I guess Ven would gladly change the node sizes when such an option is implemented.

[Vermil]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't died yet?

The suggested feature has no value because it brings no benefits. Where is the benefit?

The negative consequences, otoh, are very considerable.

The game would become essentially unplayable with such restrictions on component placements.

"But, - so make it optional." What's the point? Those who, for whatever reason, hates seeing various configurations already have full freedom to not to.

Finally, it wastes a flag setting that otherwise one day could be used for some feature that has genuine value.

[jeffreymelton24]

Hello to anyone willing to answer my question. I really hope to get answers. i have 2 questions, with a little context sprinkled in there.
1. When I play KSP (BTW I am Playing KSP RSSRO, RealFuels, RP1 but my issues are not limited to this configuration) lets say I am building a rocket. I have the upper stage complete so I attach a interstage over my engines and upper stage no problem, before the 2 nodes (Green sttach point nodes) attach, they are about 0.5 M in diameter. I attach them and, Crap! I forgot to add some small radial sphere tanks for RCS, so i pull the interstage from the bottom of the tank only to find that the green nodes have expanded to 2.5 meters in diameter for no reason at all, it happens alot, probably all the time, but I didnt test for that. Why is this happening, how do i make it stop please?

2. when working with small parts for a small lander or probe, not only are the green nodes way way too big, they also do the magi trick that i mentioned above. i have also read regarding this that the visible node size is the last digit in the "attach node" sequence, and that 0 represents 0.5 meter sphere and theres 1 and 2 which are larger. Is there a way to make them smaller by, for instance using a negative number, because on smaller parts I am telling you its just a bunch of green blobs everywhere and its very frustrating. what can I do? i am going to try to give you guys a pic. I dont know how.

Is there a mod that I can download that can change the size of these or am i screwed?