I don't understand why the spaguetti rockets are not fixed

[Corona688]

7 hours ago, steve_v said:

If you louse up structural integrity when building a rocket, it explodes. There is no "bending 40° and flapping like a wet rope" phase.

Show me a RL rocket made of as many segments as a kerbal rocket and then we'll talk.  There's really no IRL analog for much of what people build.

Also, again, autostruts.  The nice shiny feature they added to strengthen rockets without adding parts if you feel the game is being unfair.  Use them.  That's what they're there for.

[dave1904]

12 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

There are many mods that don't agree with KJR: anything that allows actuation at joints like Infernal Robotics, KAS probably, DockRotate (rotation on docking ports), the trailer hitches in two rover mods, and very likely any construction mods. And it's a very bad idea to add any other joint strengthening mod on top of it. Phantom forces would be much easier to encounter and get rekt by.

KJR and even autostrut may also be a combination to avoid...

Thats not true. You can just make exceptions in the config of KJR and it will work fine. IR works fine with KJR

[Kerbital]

On 4/29/2018 at 12:30 PM, frizzank said:

Two options do fix this. First in the options make sure show extra actionable is on. Then in the editor you can right click on a part and make it ridged or use auto struts. 

In my experience, auto struts invited Kraken too often. I settled on KJR mod.

[silverfox101]

I like the flutter when you have built something unstable, forces me at least consider structural stability in my builds. Where would the fun be if this didn't happen - 

 

 

[icecold951]

On 4/29/2018 at 7:15 AM, Reactordrone said:

It's a feature, not a bug.

It isn't a bad feature, but it has one major hole. Part counts and sim rate.  To build a sizable craft or station with this 'feature', requires struts and stuff that significantly increase part count, which trashes sim rate. I would rather build the craft with the struts and all, vs cheaty KJR, but not at a cost of sim speed slowing a station or ship to .25 sim. They need to fix one or the other.

[suicidejunkie]

I managed to jackknife a rocket once.  It involved putting a small science station with one tiny LV-N as the joint between it and the Rockomax boosters.

I learned not to design with flimsy pinch points between draggy bits and thrusty bits.  No struts required.

[StrandedonEarth]

It could be worse...

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by StrandedonEarth

[Freshmeat]

On 5/11/2018 at 12:59 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

It could be worse...

 

This one made me laugh until I had tears in my eyes. All I could think of was "The rocket is wagging its tail". Thanks for sharing.

[VincentThacker]

On 5/5/2018 at 3:48 AM, Kerbital said:

In my experience, auto struts invited Kraken too often. I settled on KJR mod.

You're probably not using them correctly. For me, auto strut, when used correctly, becomes the fifth fundamental force holding my crafts together. It was probably the best feature that Squad ever added to KSP.

 

Also, fuel tanks in real-life rockets are custom-made for that specific rocket to maximize the mass ratio. No one in real life builds "generic" fuel tanks and join those together like "parts" in KSP. It simply makes no sense to do so. If you want fuel tanks of any size, use Procedural Parts.

Edited May 13, 2018 by 100055

[Gargamel]

On 5/11/2018 at 6:59 AM, StrandedonEarth said:

It could be worse..

 

I watched this for way too long waiting for it to do something else.  Took me about the length of the music to figure out how you did it.   Perfection in the editing.  Kudos. 

[VincentThacker]

On 5/4/2018 at 1:52 PM, steve_v said:

If you louse up structural integrity when building a rocket, it explodes. There is no "bending 40° and flapping like a wet rope" phase.

That's only because you're joining multiple generic parts together in KSP to form what would've been ONE part in real life.

How many posts will it take before people realize that (stock) KSP is by no means realistic. Relativistic effects?  N-body physics? Limited EVA propellant?

No, no and no.

It is a game.

There's a reason why real-world space agencies don't use KSP to plan their missions.

There's always a way to eliminate flexing in your rocket. You just have to find it.

Edited May 13, 2018 by 100055

[StrandedonEarth]

50 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

I watched this for way too long waiting for it to do something else.  Took me about the length of the music to figure out how you did it.   Perfection in the editing.  Kudos. 

Lol, the wonders of coub.com, which only allows ten-second clips before reversing, yet the music goes on forever. That’s what happens when you join 2.5m parts by way of a jr clamp-o-tron. For the record, some parts eventually collided and blew the thing apart. 

But yeah, I found the perfect point to reverse the clip...

[Gargamel]

How....Why...How is the mass going up?!?  lol. 

[storm6436]

I should point out that even with the unibody (not the right word, but it's 2AM) of real rockets like Apollo, they still flexed.  Which is why they had accelerometers placed in a variety of locations fed to a central computer that calculated the rocket's bend (amongst a whole host of other things) and compensated for the bend.  Our current system in KSP doesn't even bother, requiring some creative sidesteps like piloting from a probe core in the lower stages to provide a more accurate piloting solution... 

The speghetti effect is annoying and to some degree the rocket should disassemble much earlier than it does.  Nothing rocket powered bends that way and stays in one piece. 

[DoctorDavinci]

If you really want to get technical about the spaghetti rockets being discussed in this thread then perhaps read the below linked PDF ... TL;DR is that rocket scientists actually design rockets to bend and flex 

Don't belive me, well here's my receipts: 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19630006924.pdf

Even the Archers Paradox somewhat can explain why the flex is needed (not the concept itself but a portion of what happens when you shoot)

Think of a bow and arrow, shoot the arrow from the bow, at first the arrow is stationary, then the bow line is drawn back with the arrow and then you shoot ... the force you have just applied to the nuck of the arrow (the end that gets fitted to the bow string) has just placed a tremendous force on the arrow which causes it to bend around the bow shaft

Now translate that same concept to a rocket, however add the fact that it isn't a sudden jolt of energy and that is that ... no, it a continuous jolt which causes massive vibrations, twisting and flexing 

If a large rocket was designed to be completely stiff then it would end up breaking apart not long after launch

Edited May 13, 2018 by DoctorDavinci

[klgraham1013]

7 hours ago, 100055 said:

It was probably the best feature that Squad ever added to KSP.

So...the best feature was one that invalidated another "feature."

Says something about the wobbly rocket "feature" in the first place.

[Superfluous J]

2 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

So...the best feature was one that invalidated another "feature."

Says something about the wobbly rocket "feature" in the first place.

Wobbly rockets aren't a feature. They're a consequence of the simulation. And of real life.

Struts (auto- or otherwise) allow you to compensate for it. KJR allows you to ignore it.

[klgraham1013]

4 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Wobbly rockets aren't a feature. They're a consequence of the simulation. And of real life.

Struts (auto- or otherwise) allow you to compensate for it. KJR allows you to ignore it.

I have a response...but it's not worth it.  The game's not changing.  This is what we got.

[VincentThacker]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

So...the best feature was one that invalidated another "feature."

Says something about the wobbly rocket "feature" in the first place.

The wobbly rocket "feature" is really just a consequence of the fact that there are many joints in the rocket (between stacked fuel tanks) that would be non-existent in the real world. Mods that allow you to construct a single fuel tank of any size (such as Welding or Procedural Parts) will solve the problem.

Otherwise, auto strut and rigid attachment are your best friends.

Edited May 13, 2018 by 100055

[Fadly]

Use autostruts. Pick the topmost fuel tank on your rocket and set it to "heaviest parts", which is usually your bottom most fuel tank. This help stiffen the whole rocket. For space station, make sure you only have ONE reaction wheel working. This include parts with reaction wheel as well (Drone, command module, etc). or you can disable SAS. Use warping to kill rotation. It also help if you can reduce the sensitivity of your control. Jerking from oversensitive control can lead to spaghetti effect.

[VincentThacker]

15 minutes ago, Fadly said:

Use autostruts. Pick the topmost fuel tank on your rocket and set it to "heaviest parts", which is usually your bottom most fuel tank. This help stiffen the whole rocket. For space station, make sure you only have ONE reaction wheel working. This include parts with reaction wheel as well (Drone, command module, etc). or you can disable SAS. Use warping to kill rotation. It also help if you can reduce the sensitivity of your control. Jerking from oversensitive control can lead to spaghetti effect.

Exactly.

[Mjarf]

I don't really get what people are complaining about. The autostrut and rigid attachment features were literally game changers, my rockets are almost boringly stable now, and I launch some pretty wonky stuff sometimes. I remember a time when you had to build a damn scaffolding onto the boosters to keep the thing stable.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Mjarf

[Gargamel]

4 hours ago, Mjarf said:

my rockets are almost boringly stable now, and I launch some pretty wonky stuff sometimes. I remember a time when you had to build a damn scaffolding onto the boosters to keep the thing stable.

This.  A little wobble in my rocket, and I'm like "Oh I remember those days". 

[Kerbital]

On 5/13/2018 at 4:34 AM, DoctorDavinci said:

If you really want to get technical about the spaghetti rockets being discussed in this thread then perhaps read the below linked PDF ... TL;DR is that rocket scientists actually design rockets to bend and flex 

A little. Not like wet noodles.

[DoctorDavinci]

8 minutes ago, Kerbital said:

A little. Not like wet noodles.

Perhaps if one used good engineering and design principals the 'wet noodles' described wouldn't be so noodley