Allowing circular part connections?

[Barrackar]

Vehicles in KSP1 are saved as a part tree using a "root" part. As a result you are unable to build parts which connect back to earlier parts, i.e. no circular rings. As a result you cannot build true orbital ring structures though some have used clever docking port placement to make facsimiles of orbital ring structures in KSP1.

I suggest looking at the enforced tree-structure of KSP1 and seeing if those restrictions can be loosened in KSP2.  Perhaps allow the user to specifically indicate attachment points which are supposed to be connected? Maybe through some kind of new symmetry editing? Or by user defined sub-assemblies?

This might not be possible, but it is a core game mechanic limitation which may be worth re-visiting while designing KSP2.

[GigFiz]

Very much this. I like doing side corridors or layouts with multiple paths on stations and bases, and just fun or weird structures/designs with trusses and beams, and I very often think of how much I would like this feature. If it creates any weird issues, just have it as a part toggle, a la rigid attachment and autostrut. I heard that this is something the devs have mentioned at some point, so it seems like a decent possibility we will get this; fingers crossed.

[Ryaja]

On 6/12/2022 at 11:55 AM, Barrackar said:

Vehicles in KSP1 are saved as a part tree using a "root" part. As a result you are unable to build parts which connect back to earlier parts, i.e. no circular rings. As a result you cannot build true orbital ring structures though some have used clever docking port placement to make facsimiles of orbital ring structures in KSP1.

I suggest looking at the enforced tree-structure of KSP1 and seeing if those restrictions can be loosened in KSP2.  Perhaps allow the user to specifically indicate attachment points which are supposed to be connected? Maybe through some kind of new symmetry editing? Or by user defined sub-assemblies?

This might not be possible, but it is a core game mechanic limitation which may be worth re-visiting while designing KSP2.

Also having multiple root parts would be cool.

[Nazalassa]

Maybe the idea is keeping the root part, but not having a part tree, just every part has links to the parts it's attached to / that are attached to it.

[darthgently]

I think you'd see a performance hit if craft are moved from the current tree structure. It takes quite a bit more overhead to process a tree with circular links.  It makes physics calcs among parts quite a bit more complicated.  This is the kind of thing I'd like to see performance triggered where the user can set a frame rate threshold where computational complexity can be reduced; in this case, the circularities could be ignored by the physics engine when performance dropped below some user specified threshold with a frame default, or other simplifications could kick in.

[AndySanba]

Thanks for this post, I just wanted to post exactly this. Glad I am not the only one who desperately needs this feature.

From a developer's perspective, it might be possible to reduce the physics calc overhead by simply keeping the craft internally as a tree structure, and just decoratively allowing the users to connect parts to form ring structures.
Still it should be made clear and easy in comparison to KSP1.

[salaminho]

This is an excellent suggestion! I'm also struggling with this lack of feature for a while. 
Don't get me wrong there are ways to create circular part connections in ksp1, like docking ports or EAS-4 struts, but they are hard to work with and don't work with robotic parts, at least after reloading the game.

A practical exemple of this issue on a smaller scale: I've build a custom suspension system that uses struts to create multiple circular connections between the wheels and the chassis. It works super fine at first but it gets deformed when I reload the game. https://kerbalx.com/salaminho/J-6-A-Attini-stock-suspension

It's like the game wasn't meant to be played this way, but there are so many potential possibilities. I would like to see an official solution for this issue instead of leaving it up to players find a way around. 

 

 

[mattinoz]

On 11/20/2022 at 9:25 PM, AndySanba said:

Thanks for this post, I just wanted to post exactly this. Glad I am not the only one who desperately needs this feature.

From a developer's perspective, it might be possible to reduce the physics calc overhead by simply keeping the craft internally as a tree structure, and just decoratively allowing the users to connect parts to form ring structures.
Still it should be made clear and easy in comparison to KSP1.

Add parts for linking that are a bit flexible. Can cope with either compression or tension (ie. struts) or shear to tie parts of the tree together and allow resources to flow but force transfer is limited to only the plane they are designed for. Limits the compute as it can take out feedback loops. Might help with giant stations and colonies as there would be only very limited situations sub-sections of the massive craft would impact each other otherwise they are just floating along together. 

We know craft building is changing even the sub-assembly system that has been shown already allows for multi root craft where the roots are always distinct. A more flexibly  approach to how sub-assemblies can come together might be possible.