Attaching non-stack parts based on part surface rather than absolute angle

[b0ss]

I've noticed that attaching parts radially to non-spherical/cylindrical structures in KSP is actually really difficult sometimes. This is most notable with wings and winglets: try attaching a battery pack or landing gear to the middle top of the wing with angle snap. It should be perfectly parallel to the surface, however move it just a few dozen centimeters to the right or left and now it's some 15 degrees tilted. I know that I'm going to get many responses saying that precise adjustment is possible with the relatively new translate and rotate tools but this seems so finnicky and headache inducing for something as simple as attaching stuff to wings.

In my humble opinion I believe that it is ridiculous not to use a system where a child part's up vector is perpendicular to the surface it is being attached to. KSP's parts don't have *too* many polygons for this to work light on the CPU, right?

EDIT: I meant when using angle snap. Whoops.

Edited February 9, 2018 by b0ss

[Rocket In My Pocket]

So...not trying to be "that guy" but yeah; use the rotate tool. Lol.

Absolute mode rotates it on a grid while ignoring it's parent part. (Use this if you want something to be "straight with the floor.")

Local mode rotates it in relation to the angle it was attached to it's parent part. With either mode, hold shift for finer control.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Jas0n]

Or turn off angle snap, so that it places parallel to the surface.

[MaximumThrust]

I always put the landing gears with the grid on, on the point where they are 90º to the ground, then using the place tool (nº 2), I put where I want. This makes planes and SSTOs takeoff without rotating on the runway, and I don't find it too much trouble at all. Most of the time I also do this for simple aesthetic, and sometimes I turn the grid off and let it snap curved relative to the surface, like @Jas0n said.

[b0ss]

6 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

So...not trying to be "that guy" but yeah; use the rotate tool. Lol.

reeeeee >:(

3 hours ago, Jas0n said:

Or turn off angle snap, so that it places parallel to the surface.

Turning off angle snap and manually rotating everything is menial and feels too "hand-made" rather than precisely calculated like in real manufacturing. I'd rather have everything set to conform to a regular lattice, that'd make arrays of parts like engines and decouplers much less junky-looking (and -functioning) but that's just me. Although I'm sure many other players would agree.

2 hours ago, MaximumThrust said:

I always put the landing gears with the grid on, on the point where they are 90º to the ground, then using the place tool (nº 2), I put where I want. This makes planes and SSTOs takeoff without rotating on the runway, and I don't find it too much trouble at all. Most of the time I also do this for simple aesthetic, and sometimes I turn the grid off and let it snap curved relative to the surface, like @Jas0n said.

Again, too "hand-made". When I build a vehicle supposed to be worthy of at least intercontinental travel I want to feel like I'm following a carefully and mathematically designed blueprint, not like I'm carpentering in the 3rd century A.D.