stack decouplers hollow?

[Leafbaron]

Was just curious if anyone knows if stack decouplers are modeled to be hollow. Meaning something can pass through the middle without colliding with the entire decoupler.

[suicidejunkie]

Last I checked the collision mesh is a solid disk, so you can't play Kerbal ring toss with them.

[Tex_NL]

A small experiment ANYBODY !!! could have done: If the decouplers and separators are 'hollow' they will fall over the poles. If they are 'solid' they will not.

Looks like they are solid.

Come on people. Experiments like this are as easy as it can possibly be. Actually typing this post takes longer.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Tex_NL
typo correction

[klesh]

25 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:

Was just curious if anyone knows if stack decouplers are modeled to be hollow. 

 

 

Unfortuntely no.

 

Edit:  No need to drop them, just decouple them from atop a pole.

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by klesh

[Tex_NL]

1 minute ago, klesh said:

 

 

Unfortuntely no.

 

Edit:  No need to drop them, just decouple them from atop a pole.

 

[picsnip]

Yes, that would work too. I just wanted to make absolutely sure there was no doubt possible.

And at least you're not afraid to experiment.

[klesh]

Just now, Tex_NL said:

And at least you're not afraid to experiment.

As an aside, I recently did this with the Mk1 structural fuselage, and it is in fact properly hollow... which is nice.

[Tex_NL]

Just now, klesh said:

As an aside, I recently did this with the Mk1 structural fuselage, and it is in fact properly hollow... which is nice.

Try some ladders on the inside next time. A Kerbal can actually climb through it.

[Leafbaron]

5 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

A small experiment ANYBODY !!! could have done: If they decouplers and separators are 'hollow' they will fall over the poles. If they are 'solid' they will not.

Looks like they are solid.

Come on people. Experiments like this are as easy as it can possible be. Actually typing this posts takes longer.

would have loved to do an experiment, unfortunately I am unable to play ksp for the foreseeable future, real life can get in the way you know? wanted to ask before I forgot. Thanks for testing everybody!

[Frybert]

12 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

A small experiment ANYBODY !!! could have done: If they decouplers and separators are 'hollow' they will fall over the poles. If they are 'solid' they will not.

Looks like they are solid.

Come on people. Experiments like this are as easy as it can possible be. Actually typing this posts takes longer.

Hmmm. Am I the only one not seeing anything here? What about in my quote?

[klesh]

5 minutes ago, Frybert said:

Hmmm. Am I the only one not seeing anything here? What about in my quote?

"Seeing anything" as in the p[ictures displaying properly?  I see them just fine.

[Frybert]

Just now, klesh said:

"Seeing anything" as in the p[ictures displaying properly?  I see them just fine.

Yes.

[sal_vager]

29 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:

Was just curious if anyone knows if stack decouplers are modeled to be hollow. Meaning something can pass through the middle without colliding with the entire decoupler.

Hi Leafbaron, stack decouplers are deliberately not hollow, they just look that way.

To have hollow objects in Unity you need multiple colliders per object, as colliders have to be convex.

Multiple colliders on a model affect performance, as anyone using large numbers of Structural Fuselages will be able to tell you, it uses several colliders to make it hollow, but using too many affects performance in KSP.

Hope this helps.

[klesh]

They're being hosted on a site called "http://tex.texel.com/", presumably Tex_NL's website, if that helps at all.

 

 

They're shots of a structural tree dangling decouplers and stack separators over verticle poles, a sort of ring toss experiment.  They've all been dropped and are perched on top of their poles.

Edited January 12, 2017 by klesh

[Tex_NL]

1 minute ago, klesh said:

They're being hosted on a site called "http://tex.texel.com/", presumably Tex_NL's website, if that helps at all.

Yes. That's my space on my ISP's domain. For some weird reason images posted there won't show for some people from time to time. They ALWAYS claim it's some flaw on my side but since the vast majority CAN see them I put very little value on it.

[klesh]

2 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Yes. That's my space on my ISP's domain. For some weird reason images posted there won't show for some people from time to time. They ALWAYS claim it's some flaw on my side but since the vast majority CAN see them I put very little value on it.

I was wondering why it wasn't tex.texnl.com, haha.

[Frybert]

2 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Yes. That's my space on my ISP's domain. For some weird reason images posted there won't show for some people from time to time. They ALWAYS claim it's some flaw on my side but since the vast majority CAN see them I put very little value on it.

I'll stop derailing here now, just want to say I even went directly to the url and got a 'not found'. 

[Tex_NL]

1 minute ago, Frybert said:

I'll stop derailing here now, just want to say I even went directly to the url and got a 'not found'. 

Just one more; can you reach http://www.texel.com/ ?
Don't matter if you don't understand it. It's all Dutch. I am just curious if you can reach it.

[Frybert]

Just now, Tex_NL said:

Just one more; can you reach http://www.texel.com/ ?
Don't matter if you don't understand it. It's all Dutch. I am just curious if you can reach it.

I seem to be able to get there just fine.

[Tex_NL]

Strange. Very strange indeed.

[klesh]

23 minutes ago, klesh said:

As an aside, I recently did this with the Mk1 structural fuselage, and it is in fact properly hollow... which is nice.

 

Might as well post that too:

 

 

18 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

To have hollow objects in Unity you need multiple colliders per object, as colliders have to be convex.

Multiple colliders on a model affect performance, as anyone using large numbers of Structural Fuselages will be able to tell you, it uses several colliders to make it hollow, but using too many affects performance in KSP.

 

 

 

I've never noticed the performance hit, but my machine is very much able to handle KSP.

[sal_vager]

2 minutes ago, klesh said:

I've never noticed the performance hit, but my machine is very much able to handle KSP.

Try launching 1000 of the things...

[klesh]

9 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

Try launching 1000 of the things...

 

Launched a vessel with 1,400 of them.

KSP crashed on getting out of the VAB, lol.  Point taken.

[Tex_NL]

2 minutes ago, klesh said:

 

Launched a vessel with 1,400 of them.

KSP crashed on getting out of the VAB, lol.  Point taken.

Now try to launch a similarly sized craft with the same number of parts. Empty Mk1 Liquid Fuel Fuselages would serve the role nicely.  If that too crashes on leaving the VAB your experiment is moot.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Tex_NL

[klesh]

12 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Now try to launch a similarly sized craft with the same number of parts. Empty Mk1 Liquid Fuel Fuselages would serve the role nicely.  If that too crashes on leaving the VAB your experiment is moot.

 

Dude, c'mon.  Give me a little credit would you?  1,450 full liquid fuels, and 1 Mk1 Command pod.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by klesh

[Tex_NL]

6 minutes ago, klesh said:

 

Dude, c'mon.  Give me a little credit would you?  1,450 full liquid fuels, and 1 Mk1 Command pod.

 

 

No problem. Credit where credit is due.

What I meant was that all you proved was a your system was unable to handle a 1400+ part craft. And not necessarily that the fuselage was to blame.
Now that you launched a similar craft with a more generic part you know it is not just the part count that killed your craft.