Allow surface attachment for all parts

[Stoney3K]

As it is now, a number of stock parts (e.g. engines) only allow attachment through nodes while other parts can be attached anywhere. This is probably done to make gameplay more challenging by restricting craft building options, but the way the part tree is built up right now, it serves no purpose.

You can attach any part to the surface of your ship by sticking a tiny surface-attachable part (like an octo-strut or a cube strut) in between, without adding a lot of mass. The only effect this has right now is that it increases the part count of your ship by one, at the cost of performance. It also opens up the opportunity for Krakens to show up because those structural parts tend to be buggy.

Is there any reason *not* to have every part attachable to surface as well as nodes? If so, how should this be implemented so that players actually have a challenge if they want to build some wacky ship design?

[r4pt0r]

I support this idea.

 

I find it rather vexing when I need a part to attach a part. Just let me slap it on.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2016 by r4pt0r

[AlamoVampire]

I cannot support this idea. We have a part, the Radial Attachment point that allows any where you want radial attachments. All engines with the exception of the Swivel in the picture below are attached to the tank using the aforementioned Radial Attachment Point:

All Engines with the exception of the Swivel, are NON radially attachable w/out the aforementioned part. Included is a non used Radial Attachment Point.

Edited August 14, 2016 by AlamoVampire

[tater]

@AlamoVampire, if they can all be attached with the additional part anyway, what's the point of increasing the part count needlessly? Take engines, wouldn't it be nice to radially attach 4 on the bottom and have a cluster? In that other thread you wanted procedural solar panels... and I suppose I can change my mind on that and agree (I don't feel strongly about it at all), infinite solar options, but adding needless parts for radial attachment?

[r4pt0r]

@AlamoVampire First i was going to be a smart-a55, and use your techinque to mount a micronode radially on a small probe, say to neatly mount science equipment. Because for some reason micronodes cant be placed radially.

But then I realized you cant mount anything radially on the micronode, despite how perfect it would be for things like that.

Then you can radially attach tanks to tanks, but not if they are xenon. Those tanks have no radial ability for some reason.
Yes, there is a radial xenon tank, but I cant mount the ion engine on the bottom of that. I should be able to.




This should be much easier to make without hiding a tiny cubic strut inside the ion pods. the tanks should attach radially to the i beams, but they dont. neither will the engines, so I had to increase my part count unnecessarily  to make my design work.



Those are just two examples. Make everything mountable radially. I'll even throw you a bone and say make everything radially attachable, except for non ion engines.

It is beyond annoying in a game where you can design things freely, where you have to use end arounds to mount simple items.

Why shouldnt I be able to mount a pressure sensor on a micro node? or have quad radially attached xenon tanks with ions underneath?

Edited August 14, 2016 by r4pt0r
adding unneeded emphasis

[Stoney3K]

On 14/08/2016 at 10:18 AM, AlamoVampire said:

I cannot support this idea. We have a part, the Radial Attachment point that allows any where you want radial attachments. All engines with the exception of the Swivel in the picture below are attached to the tank using the aforementioned Radial Attachment Point:

All Engines with the exception of the Swivel, are NON radially attachable w/out the aforementioned part. Included is a non used Radial Attachment Point.

Why would I want to use an insanely heavy Radial Attachment Point when I can do the exact same thing with a cube strut, octostrut or structural panel? I can only see that work for role playing reasons.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm hoping the rocket part revamp makes all engines behave like the Aerospike and Vector, radially attachable axially without any intervening part (which not only adds to part count but can interfere with heat transfer as well).

All fuel tanks should have non-axial radial attachment, it's just odd to me that some do while others don't.

More flexibility in attachment is a good thing, IMO, as it makes more things possible.

[magnemoe]

On 14.8.2016 at 10:18 AM, AlamoVampire said:

I cannot support this idea. We have a part, the Radial Attachment point that allows any where you want radial attachments. All engines with the exception of the Swivel in the picture below are attached to the tank using the aforementioned Radial Attachment Point:

All Engines with the exception of the Swivel, are NON radially attachable w/out the aforementioned part. Included is a non used Radial Attachment Point.

Large engines I agree with, however small engines should, the surface atatch node is also 1.25 meter and look stupid with small stuff. 
You also have some tanks like the rcs ones who can not be surface mounted. 
 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 10:56 AM, r4pt0r said:

This should be much easier to make without hiding a tiny cubic strut inside the ion pods. the tanks should attach radially to the i beams, but they dont. neither will the engines, so I had to increase my part count unnecessarily  to make my design work.



Those are just two examples. Make everything mountable radially. I'll even throw you a bone and say make everything radially attachable, except for non ion engines.

It is beyond annoying in a game where you can design things freely, where you have to use end arounds to mount simple items.

Why shouldnt I be able to mount a pressure sensor on a micro node? or have quad radially attached xenon tanks with ions underneath?

You actually don't need any cubic struts for this thing. Just attach the tanks by their nodes to the ibeams and use the gizmo to rotate them so they are pointing the right direction. Then just use the offset tool a little so the aren't clipping into the beam, and voila! Your tank is attached exactly the way it looks in this picture, but without the annoying cubic strut!

This is not to say I wouldn't be happy with everything being radially attachable (that would be awesome).

Edited August 16, 2016 by EpicSpaceTroll139
derp

[Bomoo]

If it hasn't already been suggested, install Editor Extensions. It does precisely this, among many other useful things.

[KerikBalm]

On 8/15/2016 at 10:40 AM, Stoney3K said:

Why would I want to use an insanely heavy Radial Attachment Point when I can do the exact same thing with a cube strut, octostrut or structural panel? I can only see that work for role playing reasons.

Insanely heavy? its 0.04 tons... My guess is that the structural connection is stronger too.

What I think is insanely heavy, is the "Rockomax HubMax Multi-Point Connector" - 1.5 tons?! what. I can use a structural fusalage and 4 of the radial attachment points for 0.34 tons, and have the same thing, just with a higher part count.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Just attach the tanks by their nodes to the ibeams and use the gizmo to rotate them so they are pointing the right direction. Then just use the offset tool a little so the aren't clipping into the beam, and voila! Your tank is attached exactly the way it looks in this picture, but without the annoying cubic strut!

While this works in this simple example, it does not work on actual ships because more often than not - at least for me - those attachment nodes have things on them.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

While this works in this simple example, it does not work on actual ships because more often than not - at least for me - those attachment nodes have things on them.

Alt + F12 --> click enable part clipping in editor

You now have your attachment node back!

[Superfluous J]

12 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Alt + F12 --> click enable part clipping in editor

You now have your attachment node back!

And with any luck at all, you'll catch yourself a nice tasty kraken!

[regex]

Radially attaching engines to the bottom of a tank would be a godsend, clustering without additional parts.  All of the other parts should allow this as well.

[The_Rocketeer]

Personally I like different parts having different design limitations - keeps the innovation bubbling, keeps designs looking a little different from one another... yeh.

[regex]

10 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Personally I like different parts having different design limitations - keeps the innovation bubbling, keeps designs looking a little different from one another... yeh.

I don't think I've had a single time in my years of playing this game where I've found that needing to use one part to attach another in a certain manner drove my "innovation" or prevented me from making the craft look like I imagined.  I've certainly upped my part count due to those limitations...

[Bomoo]

 

[regex]

9 minutes ago, Bomoo said:

We know. This discussion, like all the discussions in the "Suggestions & Development Discussion" forum, is focused on the base game and how to make it better, not what mods we should be using.

[r4pt0r]

31 minutes ago, Bomoo said:

 

"Theres a mod for that" is the second least useful thing you can post in the suggestions & development forum, behind literally punching your keyboard and submitting gibberish.

We are here to suggest things to further develop the stock game.

I normally don't complain when people do this, but you have twice in this thread brought up the mod, which will do nothing to improve the stock game experience for those who like to play unmodded.

Edited August 16, 2016 by r4pt0r

[The_Rocketeer]

5 hours ago, regex said:

I don't think I've [ever] found that needing to use one part to attach another in a certain manner drove my "innovation"

You misunderstand. It's not that limitations spontaneously produce new ideas, it's that the ideas that you choose to accomplish often require greater ingenuity of design. Finding novel ways to put parts together to achieve a desired mechanical outcome used to be one of the most interesting parts of using the editor, at least as far as I'm concerned. Take LEGO bricks for example - they only fit together in certain ways, and some parts can never fit other parts in particular ways at all - unless u engineer an ingenious solution using a contraption of parts, occasionally even abusing their original purpose. In the old days that's what KSP was like. As freedom of part placement takes over, it's less like that and more like Minecraft - anything can fit anything else pretty much anyhow, with very little ingenuity.

I accept there are other attitudes on this, but this is the response this discussion provokes in me.

[regex]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

You misunderstand.

No, not at all. Your argument is pretty common around here and stems from a different viewpoint of the game. There's the side that views KSP as more of an "engineering" challenge and the side that sees it as more of an exploration of spaceflight, a simulation (and more sides, for sure).  It's unfortunate that, in this case at least, there is very little consensus on how things should be done because reducing required parts count is something I see as crucial to allowing for more expansive missions (because there are less parts required for purely structural purposes).

[Bomoo]

7 hours ago, r4pt0r said:

"Theres a mod for that" is the second least useful thing you can post in the suggestions & development forum, behind literally punching your keyboard and submitting gibberish.

We are here to suggest things to further develop the stock game.

I normally don't complain when people do this, but you have twice in this thread brought up the mod, which will do nothing to improve the stock game experience for those who like to play unmodded.

I could not disagree more. When you post here, you are looking for a particular part or a particular piece of functionality. If someone outside of Squid has developed that functionality, and you are not aware of it, providing that information is very helpful. If for some reason you chose to handicap yourself by only installing functionality developed or adapted from mods by Squid (i.e. "stock"), I dare say that's on you. The functionality exists, people provide you with information to access it, and yet you choose not to use it because it doesn't have the holy Squid logo on it. This mentality has and will continue to baffle me, doubly so since much of the content that is now "stock" has either been lifted right out of mods or been created by modders hired by Squid.

[r4pt0r]

12 minutes ago, Bomoo said:

I could not disagree more. When you post here, you are looking for a particular part or a particular piece of functionality. If someone outside of Squid has developed that functionality, and you are not aware of it, providing that information is very helpful. If for some reason you chose to handicap yourself by only installing functionality developed or adapted from mods by Squid (i.e. "stock"), I dare say that's on you. The functionality exists, people provide you with information to access it, and yet you choose not to use it because it doesn't have the holy Squid logo on it. This mentality has and will continue to baffle me, doubly so since much of the content that is now "stock" has either been lifted right out of mods or been created by modders hired by Squid.

Let's not mention the new console players, or those who enjoy increased game stability by playing vanilla.

 

I did say I usually don't complain when a mod is posted here, great that person may have found the panacea they were seeking. It was your posting the same suggestion twice that a soured me. I always post on this board with the intent to suggest things to further develop the base game.

 

Personally, when I create a new thread in the suggestion board, I always try to remember to include a "this is a suggestion for the stock game, please do not post mods"

 

For example, I am aware of various robotics mods, yet I think that robotics and hinges and motorized pivots should be added to the base game, for alI to easily access.

 

Remember there was a mod for space plane parts before squad added space plane parts.

 

I'm glad they didn't say "there's already a mod for that, we don't need to add that"

Edited August 17, 2016 by r4pt0r

[Bomoo]

32 minutes ago, r4pt0r said:

Let's not mention the new console players, or those who enjoy increased game stability by playing vanilla. I did say I usually don't complain when a mod is posted here, great that person may have found the panacea they were seeking. I however always post on this board with the intent to suggest things to further develop the base game. Personally, when I create a new thread in the suggestion board, I always try to remember to include a "this is a suggestion for the stock game, please do not post mods" For example, I am aware of various robotics mods, yet I think that robotics and hinges and motorized pivots should be added to the base game, for alI to easily access. Remember there was a mod for space plane parts before squad added space plane parts. I'm glad they didn't say "there's already a mod for that, we don't need to add that"

(edited spacing to not take up the entire page when quoting)

I think if you absolutely do not want to get mod suggestions in return for your post on this forum, you should make that explicit rather than the other way around (i.e. that it is assumed you should never talk about mods on here unless the OP explicitly requests it). My reading of the OP's first post did not seem to carry the suggestion that he was hostile to mods, but he knows better than I do.

At any rate, the functionality he asks for does exist and has for a long time, does not impact the game's stability at all, and is super easy to install as most mods are. If he isn't able to install it due to being a console user, then my condolences to him.

Squad does appropriate mods they think will be useful or have wide appeal, you're right. Who doesn't love space planes? Probably ain't nobody. Hence SP+ becoming stock, and Porkjet hired to make a set of NASA Space Shuttle parts. Anything with more niche appeal is a la carte, which I think is fine. The base game is tuned and built to be very easily accessible and to hold very broad appeal, which again I think is fine for beginners or kids to get interested in the game. Which I think is why it's highly unlikely you're going to see advanced editor functionality like what OP is asking for, or alarm clocks, or any number of advanced user features. I suppose it isn't impossible that these will be developed in 1.2+, but with core developers jumping ship almost weekly, I wouldn't say odds are high.

Again, all of that functionality exists, has been tested to death over long periods of time, and does not unbalance the game experience. If you want to cheat, I suppose you could (let's not forget the infinite fuel cheat is 100% stock), but the only one you're cheating is yourself. Instead of being hostile or prejudiced against modding, I'd argue you should instead see the stock game as a stripped down starting point for evolving the niche KSP experience you want. The chief thing I want to get across is that not all mods are cheats, and Squad employees are not superhuman beings with a monopoly on good design and balancing sensibilities.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Bomoo