structural stuff that's actually structural

[aruoch]

problem with a lot of the structural/aerodynamic parts is that they're all like, something. you have trusses that look like metal girders, wings that are wings etc.

 

but there's no "rather light weight structural fuselage box that's square", unless you count the square drone cores, one of which is way too wide to be useful and the other is way too small. 

 

most annoying part is you cant tweakscale the square drone cores lol.

[KerikBalm]

On 6/23/2019 at 5:00 PM, aruoch said:

problem with a lot of the structural/aerodynamic parts is that they're all like, something.

So you want something thats like, nothing?

Its not very clear what you want. I guess you want a cube shaped thing instead of a cylinder shaped thing, and don't want the part count penalty of using the flat panels to build a cube?

Other than that, I think many of the structural pieces are too heavy. Some have very high impact tolerance, but I'd love a lower mass version with lower impact velocity. Perhaps make it tweakable, like how the rotor mass varies depending on how big the motor is (ie, you can make it lighter by moving the slider to give it a weaker motor).

[Guest]

In re the weight, there is a big gap between the octagonal (cubic) strut and everything else. Those things weigh almost nothing. But if you want a long thin thing, the next thing up is an I-beam or one of the bigger boxy struts, both of which are a lot heavier; building the long thin thing out of the cubic struts on the other hand quickly racks up the part count which is not good.

A lot of the part weights for structural/aerodynamic bits don't strictly make sense. The bigger nose cones for example are heavier than using a structural adapter and a small nose cone. Still I can't say I blame SQUAD, there are just so many parts -- especially when you include fuel tanks which can also be used as structural components -- that getting all the masses perfectly balanced and in line with thermal/impact tolerance is frankly fairly hopeless.

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

In re the weight, there is a big gap between the octagonal (cubic) strut and everything else. Those things weigh almost nothing. But if you want a long thin thing, the next thing up is an I-beam or one of the bigger boxy struts, both of which are a lot heavier; building the long thin thing out of the cubic struts on the other hand quickly racks up the part count which is not good.

A few longer versions of the octagonal and cubic struts have always seemed like a logical addition. The heavy girders and I-beams make sense for ground construction, but are rather ridiculous for space and air craft design. And considering KSP's heavy penalty on high part counts, it's hardly ever practical to create lightweight structure out of the tiny struts.

[SRB]

On 6/23/2019 at 11:00 AM, aruoch said:

but there's no "rather light weight structural fuselage box that's square", unless you count the square drone cores, one of which is way too wide to be useful and the other is way too small. 

I concur-cylindrical fuselages make it hard to make :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172

[MDZhB]

I think OP wants more generic structural things that aren't already a specific part. Basically just panels or boxes that aren't also metal girders, probe cores, or wing parts. Just generic parts that serve a structural purpose and could be anything. Personally, I agree that more structural parts probably isn't a bad thing, and could open up new possibilities in KSP. That said, I don't know if there's exactly a pressing need for them, but it's nice to keep in mind.

Edited June 28, 2019 by MDZhB

[Pds314]

I've found that forcing Breaking Ground telescoping pistons to one length and deleting their motors makes a great, if somewhat wobbly, structural part.

 

Though I would love it if we had more sensible objects and the option to toggle bare or not. Like the longest parts in the game should not be tankage or wings but long structural elements that are thematic for aircraft and rockets.

[aruoch]

On 6/28/2019 at 9:48 PM, Pds314 said:

I've found that forcing Breaking Ground telescoping pistons to one length and deleting their motors makes a great, if somewhat wobbly, structural part.

 

Though I would love it if we had more sensible objects and the option to toggle bare or not. Like the longest parts in the game should not be tankage or wings but long structural elements that are thematic for aircraft and rockets.

 

On 6/25/2019 at 7:53 AM, KerikBalm said:

So you want something thats like, nothing?

Its not very clear what you want. I guess you want a cube shaped thing instead of a cylinder shaped thing, and don't want the part count penalty of using the flat panels to build a cube?

Other than that, I think many of the structural pieces are too heavy. Some have very high impact tolerance, but I'd love a lower mass version with lower impact velocity. Perhaps make it tweakable, like how the rotor mass varies depending on how big the motor is (ie, you can make it lighter by moving the slider to give it a weaker motor).

 

 

yeah the common theme here seems to be "we have plenty of structural stuff, look at this giant metal beam" 

 

not exactly an elegant solution 

[Dundrogen]

On 6/25/2019 at 6:53 PM, KerikBalm said:

So you want something thats like, nothing?

Its not very clear what you want. I guess you want a cube shaped thing instead of a cylinder shaped thing, and don't want the part count penalty of using the flat panels to build a cube?

Other than that, I think many of the structural pieces are too heavy. Some have very high impact tolerance, but I'd love a lower mass version with lower impact velocity. Perhaps make it tweakable, like how the rotor mass varies depending on how big the motor is (ie, you can make it lighter by moving the slider to give it a weaker motor).

That's a good idea. Have a slider that swaps mass and impact tolerance proportionally inverse. Makes loads of sense.