Autostruts should feel more like a ship design decision

[swjr-swis]

2 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Show me an example of something which you'd expect to be structurally sound and isn't, please.

Sure.

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/12486

Ignore the bug report itself, but download the 00a craft file. Launch, and without staging, toggle the gear. Watch how the central tube of intakes and the gear get all scrambled up due to internal collisions of the gear with the individal intakes they are attached to, just by the action of retracting the gear.

This can only be prevented by either replacing the stack of intakes by a single long booster, or by strutting things up, both of which have been done in the 00b version of the craft.

This sort of deformations happen all the time with KSP craft, not just with gear. Mostly they are minimal and practically invisible, but they are one of the main reasons planes and rockets inherit tiny little torque moments when launched.

[Corona688]

I'll have to view that later, but that sounds like a clipping issue, not a structural one.  i.e.  if things weren't colliding which shouldn't be, it'd be sound.

[Superfluous J]

29 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

I consider autostruts to be that structural design -- just as much as placing engines beneath tanks is.  It tells which parts should be built literally as one hull.  Whether the software achieves that with imaginary struts or a monocoque skin-part, whatever.

Well said!

29 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Which is why toggling outside the VAB feels wrong to me, there's no button on an airplane to make its skin dismantle and remantle itself.

Agreed, and also why I think it'd be nice to enable "ability to autostrut" on a part and take a small mass hit (as in, autostrutted parts gain 1 strut worth of mass, or are x% heavier, or whatever game balance deems is fair). I just really really really want to maintain the ability in flight to change the strutting. I'm totally down with a toggle to not enable CREATING autostruts in flight, but I am very averse to eliminating our ability to re-strut in flight. It's just so darned useful.

[Corona688]

As an option on building an airplane it doesn't make sense to me, as an alt-F12 debugging option it makes a lot of sense.  Perhaps it could be preserved there?

[swjr-swis]

1 minute ago, Corona688 said:

that sounds like a clipping issue, not a structural one.  i.e.  if things weren't colliding which shouldn't be, it'd be sound.

You asked for an example of something that needs strutting to keep structurally sound; I provided one. The cause of the structural deformation is irrelevant, it exists. In this case it was exagerated to make the report issue easily reproducible, but if this was not something that consistently exists in the game I would not have been able to use it for that purpose.

Clipping is inevitable and quite required in many cases (place a gear without clipping if you will), many parts have invisible colliders outside of the visible surfaces... clipping is not an 'excuse' for accepting structural deformations. The deformations exist and are real, they happen because of coding, not realism, so strutting is still very needed to counteract artifacts of the code.

[Corona688]

8 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

You asked for an example of something that needs strutting to keep structurally sound; I provided one.

I asked for something which should be structurally sound and isn't, and this certainly fits the bill.  It does so for different reasons than what we were discussing though -- colliders, rather than joints.  Improving the joints again might help the deformations, but wouldn't treat the root of the problem.

I think (but aren't 100% sure) that 1.2 banishes these same-craft collisions by just not processing them in the first place.  Again, I'll have to check when I'm home.

Quote

The cause of the structural deformation is irrelevant, it exists.

It's kind of relevant, if your suggestion for fixing them is to strengthen the joints again.  If we've left that thread of conversation behind entirely, pardon me.

Quote

Clipping is inevitable and quite required in many cases (place a gear without clipping if you will), many parts have invisible colliders outside of the visible surfaces... clipping is not an 'excuse' for accepting structural deformations. The deformations exist and are real, they happen because of coding, not realism, so strutting is still very needed to counteract artifacts of the code.

Hell, I clip all the time.  Anything that's not a moving or "active" part, like wings and girders, I clip the hell out of.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Corona688

[Frozen_Heart]

I noticed that people don't like them being added mid flight, but IMO that is one of their best parts.

One of the main reasons I avoid docking large stations or motherships together is due to them behaving like wet noodles, and the autostrut feature is finally allowing me to make proper things in orbit that are stable.

[Corona688]

I doubt anyone minds anyone using autostruts as band-aids for things which shouldn't actually be happening.  I don't, anyway.  But as a core part of the game?  Why not in alt-F12?

Edited September 29, 2016 by Corona688

[monstah]

Thanks for all inputs I must say I'm surprised at how the poll ended up, but I'm now glad I chose to split the question in three.

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, Corona688 said:

I doubt anyone minds anyone using autostruts as band-aids for things which shouldn't actually be happening.  I don't, anyway.  But as a core part of the game?  Why not in alt-F12?

Yes, as core part of the game, as long as core functionality of the game requires such band-aids for it to work as one could reasonably expect it to work.

The docking ports mentioned by Frozen_Heart are perfect examples: in KSP, docking ports are simulated essentially like giant magnets, held together flexibly through open space by invisible force, instead of like the mechanically clamped constructs in real life.

It's easy to spot this because even small movements of a craft or forces will visibly displace docked modules/payload and swing them back and forth. During the stresses of flight, or combined with still existing self-amplifying phantom forces, it's enough to destroy a craft mid-flight or shake a station in orbit to pieces.

 

Here's a quickly put together example. Strategical use of autostruts in just two parts of the craft (the two ports in the center) stabilize the construction. But as soon as those autostruts are disabled, it starts swinging away:

Spoiler

Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Wobbly-Strutter

Longer video of the craft showing the noodly bendiness, and the spontaneous wild swinging that develops from standstill, after disabling the autostruts.

[Red Iron Crown]

12 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I noticed that people don't like them being added mid flight, but IMO that is one of their best parts.

One of the main reasons I avoid docking large stations or motherships together is due to them behaving like wet noodles, and the autostrut feature is finally allowing me to make proper things in orbit that are stable.

This. Orbital construction of stuff has gotten a lot more feasible in stock as it's not as reliant on wobbly docking ports anymore. 

[Technical Ben]

I do a LOT of orbital construction. Are you saying if I choose only the docking ports and select "autostrut" I can currently get them to emulate fully connected parts... even after subsequent docking?

[swjr-swis]

15 minutes ago, Technical Ben said:

I do a LOT of orbital construction. Are you saying if I choose only the docking ports and select "autostrut" I can currently get them to emulate fully connected parts... even after subsequent docking?

Yes. Once you enable autostrut on the docking port, when docking, it automatically reconnects all autostruts. The way the game re-roots things when you connect vessels almost guarantees that 'grandparent' or 'root' are in the station, so it ends up rigidizing your docked connection.

There is unfortunately little direct control on what exact part autostruts will attach to, as obviously both 'root' and 'grandparent' are completely relative terms and may change with each docking event. The only sure thing I can think of is to make sure that your station packs a very heavy part specifically for that purpose (say, a large ore tank filled with ore), and then set autostruts on docking craft to the default of 'heaviest'.

[monstah]

I get where you guys come from, now.

I still think this is just a kludge to work around other shortcomings of the game and not justified by itself, but until those other problems are fixed I don't suppose my suggestion will gain much traction.

[Francois424]

On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎29 at 1:05 AM, 5thHorseman said:

I said this somewhere else, but they should add some mass to the part they're on. I'm cool with locking the toggling of them on and off in the VAB, but once on they should be configurable to where they strut.

Autostruts almost single-handedly eliminate my own personal need for KAS. Please don't take that away from me!

Same here, and I'd like to state that re-strutting docked payload with Mothership sometimes can use some strutting.  I really don't want it to become "VAB/SPH" only.

EDIT: Maybe require a Kerbal to "Re-strut" once in orbit.  That would be a fair trade-off and fits with orbital assembly thing.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Francois424

[Corona688]

13 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

Yes, as core part of the game, as long as core functionality of the game requires such band-aids for it to work as one could reasonably expect it to work.

No need to be petulant.  "This rarely-used debugging feature must be visible at all times to everyone because my building style in particular demands it!"  Not really.  If you can enable magically appearing struts with alt-F12, where it and other universe-altering debug stuff like like hyperedit warping and forced completion of contracts logically belong?  It doesn't actually stop you from doing anything.

Your intake-and-wheels christmas tree does nothing strange in 1.2 as far as I can tell.  No bending.  No wandering parts.  No mysterious torques.  Perhaps, as Squad hinted, that problem has been simply excluded -- no more same-ship collisions, period.

Quote

The docking ports mentioned by Frozen_Heart are perfect examples: in KSP, docking ports are simulated essentially like giant magnets, held together flexibly through open space by invisible force, instead of like the mechanically clamped constructs in real life.

And?

Edited September 30, 2016 by Corona688

[Technical Ben]

Thanks for the answers people.

 

2 hours ago, monstah said:

I get where you guys come from, now.

I still think this is just a kludge to work around other shortcomings of the game and not justified by itself, but until those other problems are fixed I don't suppose my suggestion will gain much traction.

 

I just realised this might be a transitional work around. The idea of "solid connections for docking ports" has been brought up since they first appeared. The reason they have never been introduced previously is because of the part tree Unity (and some other physics systems) use. So making a new "tree" would be extremely difficult and resource intensive, if not buggy. So the strut method (which I don't know how, but does work around the tree system some how) allows a strong connection without building a new combined part tree (order of parts for the game to run).

[Corona688]

9 minutes ago, Technical Ben said:

I just realised this might be a transitional work around. The idea of "solid connections for docking ports" has been brought up since they first appeared. The reason they have never been introduced previously is because of the part tree Unity (and some other physics systems) use.

I don't entirely buy that.  Ships are organized as trees too, and are more solid than docking ports. 

[monstah]

1 hour ago, Francois424 said:

Maybe require a Kerbal to "Re-strut" once in orbit.  That would be a fair trade-off and fits with orbital assembly thing.

@5thHorseman mentioned something like this before; I not only find that fair, but it's an actual gameplay mechanic. I like this.

[John FX]

Looks like my view is opposite to the majority so far, I voted a,a,b although IMHO it should require a kerbal to change things later in flight, like real astronauts do for example on the ISS.

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Francois424 said:

Maybe require a Kerbal to "Re-strut" once in orbit.  That would be a fair trade-off and fits with orbital assembly thing.

EVA is not a fast action, it takes time. A station can have shaken apart in the 30 secs it takes to EVA and maneuver a kerbal to the location, let alone go through whatever steps we come up with as an appropriately realistic representation of 'manually' strutting things.

Which let's be honest here, in the end will still be a matter of getting your kerbal within a magic distance for a magic floating rightclick menu button to appear (that only we see, not the kerbal). So we replace one game magic by an entirely different game magic, except now it is more elaborate and takes more time to achieve, allowing the shaky wobbly physics enough time to get some swing into the station, leaving us to try attach 'real' struts on a dancing target or watch parts destructively swung away into a new orbit.

I'll take the less time-consuming and frustrating autostruts any day over that, and quite gladly call it a much more realistic experience - that docking ports, just like in real life, actually achieve a sound mechanical connection automatically all by themselves as part of the hard dock clamping, without need for EVA or manual intervention.

[monstah]

2 minutes ago, John FX said:

Looks like my view is opposite to the majority so far, I voted a,a,b although IMHO it should require a kerbal to change things later in flight, like real astronauts do for example on the ISS.

I was a,a,a myself, but after seeing the discussion here changed to the same opinion as you

[John FX]

14 minutes ago, monstah said:

I was a,a,a myself, but after seeing the discussion here changed to the same opinion as you

Haven`t read the thread myself yet, just seemed right to see the struts, have them add mass, and for them to be adjustable in flight (with a kerbal)

[HafCoJoe]

In all honesty I love the fact that you can use them to stabilize craft when docking things together. I'm very sparse when i use them, but they are a godsend for anyone who wishes to build hinges and docking wings.  - What I actually wish for is the option to disable autostruts on wheels  - I miss the custom suspension everyone used to make.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

"This rarely-used debugging feature must be visible at all times to everyone because my building style in particular demands it!"  Not really.  If you can enable magically appearing struts with alt-F12, where it and other universe-altering debug stuff like like hyperedit warping and forced completion of contracts logically belong?  It doesn't actually stop you from doing anything.

"This game-enhancing feature I rarely use must be invisible at all times to everyone because my playing style in particular demands it!" Reads the same to me. As for universe altering: that is a core mechanic of the game, because of it being a game to begin with. Think about it: you literally do it ALL. THE. TIME, no matter how hard you try to play 'realistically':

• You start a new game: you select a few dozen universe altering parameters that will define basic things about how your game is going to work.
• You build a ship: you select, levitate, lego-click and reposition parts weighing tonnes to assemble a ship.
• You launch: ship gets materialized on the runway or launch pad.
• You EVA or transfer: kerbals magically teleport from one spot to another, phasing through solid walls if need be.
• You switch from orbit view to the space center: you just magically transferred your consciousness to another place millions of km away (or switched your telepathic control to another kerbal, pick your poison).
• You use time warp: ...seriously, you use time warp.
• You repair a wheel: wheel with completely shredded rubber instantly gets rematerialized.
• You land with an open chute: poof it disappears from existence the moment you touch down. Repack it: poof the chute is completely reset and ready in the blink of an eye.
• You take one step within 200m of another vessel: it suddenly becomes affected by the laws of physics, which it wasn't just one step ago.

Why do we accept all these mindbogglingly unrealistic things as normal? Because in most cases they help keep the game pleasant rather than tedious or frustrating to play. It's pretty arbitrary to then go and pick any particular feature, that adds some quality of life to the game for at least some people, and argue that that one thing, of all things, clearly needs to be hidden several more clicks away in a Alt-F12 cheat menu, because that one crosses our personal line.

I do agree with you about some way to reduce the tweakables, because there are a lot now and we each have a set that our particular style of play requires to be most handily available. Hence my feedback report to ask Squad to allow us to configure this ourselves. Beyond that though, I will continue to disagree that your or anyone else's personal preference and convenience has some type of overruling 'rightness' over mine, by virtue of 'realism' in a cartoonized game.

I really don't want to continue this argument. Text sounds too harsh too fast, and it being just a game, I don't want either of us to be negatively affected over what is and should be simply a pass time.