2-for-one question: clamp o tron jr; outsourced r&d

[Poposhka]

Hi all. Newb here.

1. The clamp o tron Jr. doesn't seem to have any drawbacks other than not being dockable with the bigger version - is there any point in using the bigger version at all? seems i could save a lot on weight if i construct all craft with the jr.

2. how does the fund:science work in outsourced R&D, is it accumulated fund income, or per-payout? I.e. I have a contract to shuttle 6 tourists into orbit, it's split into many sub-components (like achieve orbital flight for Marlin: $9700, Achieve orbital flight for Kendra: $9700 .. etc), will each "payout" have to exceed the R&D limit (at ~12k) and the "fraction" is lost? or is it additive, i.e. the whole contract will pay $58k, and 60% of that is taken, then converted to science? if it's the former, it seems like it's utterly pointless, and just draining funds into nothing, is this correct?

 

thanks all!

Edited September 30, 2016 by Poposhka

[Sharpy]

1:  Joint strength/rigidity. Try to launch a long rocket with two connected Jrs halfway through to see what I mean. (spoiler: it will fold in half)

2: There's the initial cost of setting up, paid up-front when you activate the strategy, paid from funds you have at that moment, and it only causes the strategy to become active, doesn't give or take anything else (except for 'immediate strategies' like the bailout). After that it's just the percentages. you commit 60% funds towards science, your contract pays 1000, you get 400 and science.

[Poposhka]

1 minute ago, Sharpy said:

After that it's just the percentages. you commit 60% funds towards science, your contract pays 1000, you get 400 and science.

so if a contract says

ferry four tourists ...

A's intinerary
    completion: $5000
    orbit...
        completion: $900
    suborbit...
        completion: $900
...
Rewards:
Completion: $8000
 

at a rate of 12k:1, would I get zero science from this, because none of the sub-rewards are < ~12k, but each subreward would all be "docked" 60% income anyway.

or would the total be considered $35200 ( 4 x (5000+900+900) + 8000 ), and the 60% applied making it $14080, but netting me ~1.1 science?
    

[suicidejunkie]

The science you get is tracked to very small fractions.

The news alert you get when completing the contract will round it off and may look like zero, but your science counter shows down to 0.1 of a point, and if you look in the save file you can see it down to millionths of a science point or better.

[Poposhka]

excellent thanks!

[fourfa]

58 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

1:  Joint strength/rigidity. Try to launch a long rocket with two connected Jrs halfway through to see what I mean. (spoiler: it will fold in half)

In 1.1.3, it doesn't matter how floppy the Jr ports are.  if you put landing gear or landing legs on either side, it will be autostrutted into rigidity.   The docking port could be made of cake frosting, autostruts can fix any structural shortcoming.  You can make some really bizarre creations this way.  You can also use it to make very creative large structures, which is why the autostrut has been expanded in 1.2.  You can enable it in the game settings, use it on any part you like, and structure becomes kinda unimportant.

I wouldn't take it out, and plan to use it strategically and sparingly.  I'm already using the gear-autostrut in 1.1.3 to enable things that don't work in previous versions (basically a reusable strut that re-struts across docking ports, instead of single-use like traditional struts).  And apparently each enabled autostrut has the same physics performance hit of regular struts, so most people won't want to spam them too widely.  But we probably ought to develop some taste, and a sensible way of talking about it, because things will be a little confusing for a time after 1.2 hits.

Edited September 30, 2016 by fourfa

[magnemoe]

26 minutes ago, fourfa said:

In 1.1.3, it doesn't matter how floppy the Jr ports are.  if you put landing gear or landing legs on either side, it will be autostrutted into rigidity.   The docking port could be made of cake frosting, autostruts can fix any structural shortcoming.  You can make some really bizarre creations this way.  You can also use it to make very creative large structures, which is why the autostrut has been expanded in 1.2.  You can enable it in the game settings, use it on any part you like, and structure becomes kinda unimportant.

I wouldn't take it out, and plan to use it strategically and sparingly.  I'm already using the gear-autostrut in 1.1.3 to enable things that don't work in previous versions (basically a reusable strut that re-struts across docking ports, instead of single-use like traditional struts).  And apparently each enabled autostrut has the same physics performance hit of regular struts, so most people won't want to spam them too widely.  But we probably ought to develop some taste, and a sensible way of talking about it, because things will be a little confusing for a time after 1.2 hits.

More information about this, I don't know the landing leg trick, it sounds like you use landing legs to hold the docked ship. 
In earlier versions having landing legs hit your ship was interesting as kraken drive or at least summon it.
in 1.1x landing legs tend to explode if they hit kerbals, ground or is looked at. 
 

[Corona688]

54 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

More information about this, I don't know the landing leg trick, it sounds like you use landing legs to hold the docked ship.

They don't actually have to do anything, just be there.  I think Squad's logic was thus:  "Let's make the central parts of aircraft fuselage less floppy by default.  How can we tell it's an aircraft?  It'll have landing gear on it."

Some landing gear was much buggier than others in 1.1.  I stuck to the medium wheels and medium legs, which worked the most reliably for me.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Corona688

[Sneaky Bstard Sword]

It seems like your question about outsourced R&D has been answered already. 

As for the docking ports, i'm fairly certain the disadvantage to the Jr.'s is that you can't transfer crew between 2 ships connected by them, as you can with the 1.25m docking ports. Resources can still be transferred, and the Kerbals can still be transferred via the old EVA-from-capsule-to-capsule method, but you do lose a lot of convenience.

[Poposhka]

Just now, Sneaky Bstard Sword said:

 As for the docking ports, i'm fairly certain the disadvantage to the Jr.'s is that you can't transfer crew between 2 ships connected by them, 

I just tried this in game (1.1.x Steam) and it works fine.

two Mk1 each with a Jr. port connected can transfer fine.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

They don't actually have to do anything, just be there.  I think Squad's logic was thus:  "Let's make the central parts of aircraft fuselage less floppy by default.  How can we tell it's an aircraft?  It'll have landing gear on it."

Some landing gear was much buggier than others in 1.1.  I stuck to the medium wheels and medium legs, which worked the most reliably for me.

So having a piece of landing gear on my interplanetary ship make it stiffer? You just have to put it somewhere? 
Just like an amulet of archery made you do more damage with bows in Skyrim, I love science
I thought it was supposed to clamp down on the front part somehow. 
This one want an bonus to ISP helmet before next launch

[fourfa]

4 hours ago, Sneaky Bstard Sword said:

As for the docking ports, i'm fairly certain the disadvantage to the Jr.'s is that you can't transfer crew between 2 ships connected by them, as you can with the 1.25m docking ports. Resources can still be transferred, and the Kerbals can still be transferred via the old EVA-from-capsule-to-capsule method, but you do lose a lot of convenience.

Prior to 1.1, there was flavor text in the Jr's right-click menu in the VAB saying exactly that - that you couldn't transfer crew.  Funnily enough, you could transfer crew through them just fine.  I don't know if that was just left over from the long-long-ago, from the before time.  In 1.1 and later, that flavor text says they have to exhale hard to squeeze through, and crew transfer remains possible.

[Sneaky Bstard Sword]

5 hours ago, Poposhka said:

I just tried this in game (1.1.x Steam) and it works fine.

two Mk1 each with a Jr. port connected can transfer fine.

 

1 hour ago, fourfa said:

Prior to 1.1, there was flavor text in the Jr's right-click menu in the VAB saying exactly that - that you couldn't transfer crew.  Funnily enough, you could transfer crew through them just fine.  I don't know if that was just left over from the long-long-ago, from the before time.  In 1.1 and later, that flavor text says they have to exhale hard to squeeze through, and crew transfer remains possible.

I don't remember that particular flavor text, I just remember reading something about it in the devnotes way back when. I never actually tested that, good to know. 

[LordFerret]

21 hours ago, Sharpy said:

Try to launch a long rocket with two connected Jrs halfway through to see what I mean.

Struts.

But yea, the larger docking ports offer far more rigidity.

[klesh]

Jr's are best saved for landers, where the weight saving and presumably small lander size wont be affected too much by the Jr's lack of rigidity.   For most other applications you'll want the larger, sturdier docking nodes. 

[Corona688]

19 hours ago, magnemoe said:

So having a piece of landing gear on my interplanetary ship make it stiffer? You just have to put it somewhere?

Not the ENTIRE ship, just stuff it's attached to.  Hence the landing-gear-on-docking-ports trick.

[magnemoe]

40 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Not the ENTIRE ship, just stuff it's attached to.  Hence the landing-gear-on-docking-ports trick.

Pictures please, I have problems imagine it. Yes putting gear on an 2.5 meter port should be easy but not an 0.625

[Corona688]

I can't KSP without my main computer.  You'd probably have to offset it some distance out of the hull and attach to the flange.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Corona688

[Red Iron Crown]

Moved to Gameplay Questions.