How should rockets flex?

[Scarecrow71]

26 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Like 'do not put your cat in the microwave' ?

Doesn't a wobbly rocket spell out 'try and ride it out or re-engineer your rocket'?

Besides tooltips, manuals or even tutorials aren't read or seen thoroughly by many. How many times I see people asking questions that the tooltips or 'the first start experience' handled competently, heck, I've even experienced it my self in a couple of cases in KSP2 that the info was shared but just skipped.

Wow.  I don't even know how to respond to this other than to say "You aren't the only person playing the game, and your experience may not mirror what others experience".  I mean, just because you don't need it doesn't mean nobody else does.

[LoSBoL]

20 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Wow.  I don't even know how to respond to this other than to say "You aren't the only person playing the game, and your experience may not mirror what others experience".  I mean, just because you don't need it doesn't mean nobody else does.

I guess thats a no?

Didn't mean to offend you, it was merely a question. I know I'm not the only one playing this game, it just seems rather logic to me that when a rocket wobbles, somethings wrong in the build.

*note; current wobbling is exaggerated, above is considering most of the exaggerated wobbling will be fixed later.

[Scarecrow71]

38 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

I guess thats a no?

Didn't mean to offend you, it was merely a question. I know I'm not the only one playing this game, it just seems rather logic to me that when a rocket wobbles, somethings wrong in the build.

*note; current wobbling is exaggerated, above is considering most of the exaggerated wobbling will be fixed later.

You are correct that something may be wrong in the build.  My original suggestion was simply that, because new players may not understand this, or why it's happening, something should be in the game to help them address this.  Simply giving us struts without explanation won't help new players.

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

Like 'do not put your cat in the microwave' ?

Doesn't a wobbly rocket spell out 'try and ride it out or re-engineer your rocket'?

Besides tooltips, manuals or even tutorials aren't read or seen thoroughly by many. How many times I see people asking questions that the tooltips or 'the first start experience' handled competently, heck, I've even experienced it my self in a couple of cases in KSP2 that the info was shared but just skipped.

This is a recurring theme. "if your rockets wobble, they bad" yet on the video you see a simple vertical stack swinging like a wet spaghetti. There's no tooltips regarding wobble, no tutorials regarding wobble, and you can make an almost 1:1 imitation of a real life rocket (as far as the game allows) and have it wobble.

There's no UI for wobble, no warning, no way to diagnose or predict, and no consistency to where it shows up and where it doesn't.  Wobble doesn't care about your ship being a rover, a rocket, a space station or a ground base, yet the player is expected to use parts with as much flexibility as possible, case in point being fuel tanks doubling as fuselages, structural pieces, habitats and so on. Heck, this differentiation (if it exists in someone's mind), isn't even communicated in game, as the mk1 passenger cabin has the same joint size and strenght as the fuel tanks, or any other part of the same size.

People keep talking about wobble as a well thought out mechanic, when it is not even close to being anything more than a glorified bug.

[VlonaldKerman]

I always felt that the shoddiness of Kerbal designs was meant to be taken as a transitory phase- because they are so reckless they start out with duck tape and progress towards tech greatness, mirroring the journey of the player from idiot to engineer.

So rockets should wobble if they are too long and spaghetti like. But not if they are normal proportions.

I have thought from the beginning that the framing of the disastrous launch of the game as a “Kerbal adventure in game development” is a manipulative narrative, and I think that the “players love disaster” line kind of comes from the same place. It’s not hard to figure out what people want- just look at what they try to mod KSP 1 to do. Many KSP 1 mods have massive parts, or procedural parts, to minimize joint connections which helps with both wobbliness and performance. Conclusion: players want less or no rocket wobble and good performance. That was easy!

I truly hope the devs pull through and deliver a great game, but if they do, and if there’s still a player base, it will be in spite of sentiments like the ones Matt describes in his video.

 

EDIT: There are also mods that add in realistic part failures. Note how none of them include tweaks to increase rocket wobble. Clearly, even players who love simulating extreme difficulty and disaster would rather have engines fail than rockets wobble!

Edited July 2, 2023 by VlonaldKerman

[LoSBoL]

35 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

You are correct that something may be wrong in the build.  My original suggestion was simply that, because new players may not understand this, or why it's happening, something should be in the game to help them address this.  Simply giving us struts without explanation won't help new players.

And in that light I did  ask the question. In my eyes even for new players a wobbly rocket would suggest that you need to build a bit better and a suggestion would not be needed in a lego like rocket building game.

On a sidenote KSP2 is doing great for onboarding new players, the tutorials we have so far are a great guide as are the tooltips handed out by the new player experience. A very sharp contrast to KSP¹ in which you need to find out everything yourself by trail and error, and even mostly get your knowledge from outside of the game. (Which actually was the best part of KSP¹ for me personally, I loved the figure everything! out yourself if you want to do space).

27 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

This is a recurring theme. "if your rockets wobble, they bad" yet on the video you see a simple vertical stack swinging like a wet spaghetti

I really should have posted below note one post earlier, current wobbling is way to much and needs to be fixed.

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

*note; current wobbling is exaggerated, above is considering most of the exaggerated wobbling will be fixed later.

 

35 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

There's no UI for wobble, no warning, no way to diagnose or predict,

The wobble is the warning. 

I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread, I have no issues in there being a selectable autostrut for players who would like to build ridiculous contraptions, but leave some wobble as the standard to warn when building unstable builds. The current amount of wobble as shown in the video however is off course ridiculous as well.

[PDCWolf]

44 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

The wobble is the warning.

Ok, how is the player expected to learn to look at a design and diagnose and prevent wobble without having to launch? How does the player solve wobble without sacrificing the already low part budget?  How is the player expected to understand that he has to right click a part and apply a magic "don't wobble" button?

Further on, the warning for what exactly? A structural integrity the player has no way to consult?

[Vanamonde]

One player's opinion: not speaking on behalf of the moderators or anyone else: 

This whole debate mystifies me. I have been playing KSP since 2012 and have never had trouble with excessive flexing in my builds. Something that's really large or an awkward shape might deform under Gs, which is when I reinforce it with struts or some other arrangement and go on my way. And after seeing this talked about so much lately I made an unnecessarily large rocket and flew it in loops and immelmans and stuff, and it barely bent. I just do not get it. 

[Alexoff]

4 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

This whole debate mystifies me. I have been playing KSP since 2012 and have never had trouble with excessive flexing in my builds. Something that's really large or an awkward shape might deform under Gs, which is when I reinforce it with struts or some other arrangement and go on my way. And after seeing this talked about so much lately I made an unnecessarily large rocket and flew it in loops and immelmans and stuff, and it barely bent. I just do not get it. 

What about KSP2? Matt also has a lot of experience playing KSP1 and hasn't complained before.

[LoSBoL]

54 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Ok, how is the player expected to learn to look at a design and diagnose and prevent wobble without having to launch? How does the player solve wobble without sacrificing the already low part budget?  How is the player expected to understand that he has to right click a part and apply a magic "don't wobble" button?

Further on, the warning for what exactly? A structural integrity the player has no way to consult?

Sorry that this sounds to me as argumenting in absurdom, how have you learned playing KSP? I learned to play by failing, reverting, reworking  and by that, gaining experience. It sounds like you play restraining yourself by wanting to  do everyting right in the first go and don't want to revert as an added challenge. Which off course is fine, different players, different ways of playing.

Also autostrut was hidden behind 'advanced tweakables' in KSP¹'s settings, I expect you found it. And I'm sure that when the excessive wobbling has been fixed an absurd amount of struts won't be necessary. 

Most players are resortfull, heck, many played and mastered playing KSP¹ which just about didn't do anything to help you play the game.

Edited July 2, 2023 by LoSBoL

[cocoscacao]

I hate both the wobble and the struts (regular ones). Even in ksp 1, almost all boosters needed a couple of them to prevent them from dangling about and detaching from radial decouplers. That wasn't due to bad rocket design, that was just dumb.

[PDCWolf]

15 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

One player's opinion: not speaking on behalf of the moderators or anyone else: 

This whole debate mystifies me. I have been playing KSP since 2012 and have never had trouble with excessive flexing in my builds. Something that's really large or an awkward shape might deform under Gs, which is when I reinforce it with struts or some other arrangement and go on my way. And after seeing this talked about so much lately I made an unnecessarily large rocket and flew it in loops and immelmans and stuff, and it barely bent. I just do not get it. 

8 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Sorry that this sounds to me as argumenting in absurdom, how have you learned playing KSP? I learned to play by failing, reverting, reworking  and by that, gaining experience. It sounds like you play restraining yourself by wanting to  do everyting right in the first go and don't want to revert as an added challenge. Which off course is fine, different players, different ways of playing.

Also autostrut was hidden behind 'advanced tweakables' in KSP¹'s settings, I expect you found it. And I'm sure that when the excessive wobbling has been fixed an absurd amount of struts won't be necessary. 

Most players are resortfull, heck, many played and mastered playing KSP¹ which just about didn't do anything to help you play the game.

My problem with these arguments is that they're essentially "works for me", "I figured it out" and "you must be bad at the game" (or playing "wrong"). They don't address the real problems when approaching wobble as a proper mechanic.

For re-entry heat for example, you have a category called "heat", which presents first and foremost the heatshields. For fuel, you have an entire UI that tells you your DV and how much you need to reach X body and back, and we will also get TWR for engines. We have the engineer's report in 1 for electricity and other resources as well... However for wobble it is ok for it to be "just launch and die, you'll figure it out".

[Scarecrow71]

23 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Sorry that this sounds to me as argumenting in absurdom, how have you learned playing KSP? I learned to play by failing, reverting, reworking  and by that, gaining experience. It sounds like you play restraining yourself by wanting to  do everyting right in the first go and don't want to revert as an added challenge. Which off course is fine, different players, different ways of playing.

Also autostrut was hidden behind 'advanced tweakables' in KSP¹'s settings, I expect you found it. And I'm sure that when the excessive wobbling has been fixed an absurd amount of struts won't be necessary. 

Most players are resortfull, heck, many played and mastered playing KSP¹ which just about didn't do anything to help you play the game.

And as I said above, have tutorials to tech the player about wobble and how to correct it.  Problem solved.

[LoSBoL]

21 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

I hate both the wobble and the struts (regular ones). Even in ksp 1, almost all boosters needed a couple of them to prevent them from dangling about and detaching from radial decouplers. That wasn't due to bad rocket design, that was just dumb.

I don't think SRB's in real life are just fitted to their decoupler only, I bet they are strutted as well considering the enormous torque they create.

5 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

And as I said above, have tutorials to tech the player about wobble and how to correct it.  Problem solved.

True, if you indeed see it as a problem that it's mentioned nowhere. But since you are reacting on this, how did you learn to play KSP¹ without the onboarding guidance we are seeing in KSP2?

15 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

My problem with these arguments is that they're essentially "works for me", "I figured it out" and "you must be bad at the game"

No they are not 'those arguments', I've explained my position on this quite a few times and you tend to keep projecting I have another position then what I actually wrote and written and then react according on those feelings.

Edited July 2, 2023 by LoSBoL

[Alexoff]

29 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

I don't think SRB's in real life are just fitted to their decoupler only, I bet they are strutted as well considering the enormous torque they create.

In real life, we can stretch the struts as much as we want, but this will not drop the performance in any way. What can not be said about KSP2 ...

[kerbiloid]

All missiles are wobbling.
Just they are wobbling very fast.

Spoiler

 

 

***

Also, the Kerbals may add sildenafil to the fuel, to improve the structural dynamics.

[TheOtherDave]

13 hours ago, Lisias said:

I beg your pardon?

  Reveal hidden contents

I was just playing with a word that isn’t really used without its prefix (see also: what does it mean to be “whelming” or gruntled”?).

Anyway, my point was that the stock joints are so weak that it seems more like you’re giving them their innate strength rather than boosting strength that’s already there.

Edited July 2, 2023 by TheOtherDave

[Geredis]

1 hour ago, TheOtherDave said:

I was just playing with a word that isn’t really used without its prefix (see also: what does it mean to be “whelming” or gruntled”?).

To be whelmed means to engulf or bury. To be gruntled, actually means to be pleased by something. 

===

But to be more on topic, I agree with the consensus that wobbliness needs to be resolved. I'd prefer if it was resolved through greater joint rigidity, as well as more "realistic" indicia for structural strain (bolts/panels popping, audible groans, creaking, sounds of pipes bursting, something of the sort) to be followed by CRUD.  Failing that, the tutorial needs to fully embrace the issue and explain how/why the wobbliness happens, as well as how best to fix it, in a variety of ways.

[Vl3d]

I've seen the video about wobbly rockets and I'm amazed this is still a problem with the game. The poll results are ultra-clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpK_jGTJG3

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, Geredis said:

to be followed by CRUD. 

Oh, no. I already handle CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) features all the time at Day Job™, I don't want to handle SQL statements on KSP too!!!

Ok, serious now.

1 hour ago, Geredis said:

Failing that [getting rid of wobble], the tutorial needs to fully embrace the issue and explain how/why the wobbliness happens, as well as how best to fix it, in a variety of ways.

That was the most sensible statement of the whole thread (including my posts). Kudos!

 

3 hours ago, TheOtherDave said:

I was just playing with a word that isn’t really used without its prefix (see also: what does it mean to be “whelming” or gruntled”?).

Eternal Mishaps of the Englishless Mind.  Understood. (now I need to decide if I agree with that, but that's a fight to be fought another day!  )

[almagnus1]

At this point in time, I find the wobbly rocket issue so unfun that while I have bought a copy of KSP2, I will not play it other than to log in, test stuff out on the patch, then log out.  It's just not fun to play when the rocket is a noodly mess as KSP2 absolutely needs to be a rocket sim first (with safety third), NOT a LOL FLOPPY ROCKET simulator.

[Heretic391]

There should definitely be some amount of flex. Why you ask?

It's to help players gain a basic understanding of the challenges faced in real-world rocket design, including structural consideration. i.e  entering Eve's atmosphere at 3000m/s with a large multistage rocket

 

[cocoscacao]

15 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

I don't think SRB's in real life are just fitted to their decoupler only, I bet they are strutted as well considering the enormous torque they create.

I can't argue because I don't know either.

However, take a different perspective on this. If wobble is an indication/punishment of a stupid design, then why include struts in the first place? They negate the punishment part. If they're there to patch wonky game mechanic, in KSP 1 that's fine by this point, but in KSP 2, either fix that mechanic, or remove it completely.

Edited July 3, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Alexoff]

8 hours ago, Heretic391 said:

It's to help players gain a basic understanding of the challenges faced in real-world rocket design, including structural consideration. i.e  entering Eve's atmosphere at 3000m/s with a large multistage rocket

And the spontaneous disassemble of rockets after returning to the launchpad is a punishment for abusing the reload mechanics? Indeed, in reality, we cannot roll back the launch.

[jacksawild]

2 hours ago, cocoscacao said:

I can't argue because I don't know either.

However, take a different perspective on this. If wobble is an indication/punishment of a stupid design, then why include struts in the first place? They negate the punishment part. If they're there to patch wonky game mechanic, in KSP 1 that's fine by this point, but in KSP 2, either fix that mechanic, or remove it completely.

I suppose struts are necessary because you can only have one point of attachment in the kerbal building system. Struts are an exception which create reinforcing joints between otherwise unattached parts. It'd be nice if we could have them as more than just peices of wire, like fairing peices which are shapeable and have aerodynamic properties. That would be an evolution of the previous game.

Of course, procedural fuel tanks would solve a lot of these issues right from the beginning.  I like RP1's inmplementation of procedural tanks where you had to science unlock and tool different diameters and materials.