Design deadlock: Does it happen to you?

[AfailingHORSE]

I've built half a dozen different launchers, saved them all in the subassembly loader mod, and then stopped building launchers. Now it's all about building a payload and then slapping an appropriately-sized launcher on the bottom.

same, with the except of the latest series of mission, which im going for style my then anything else, and 100% of my launchers are not the best looking, but very practical for getting 80m minimum orbits

[Sapphire]

I tend to become obsessed with way over-designing my payloads in an attempt to account for any possible scenario.

My typical thought-process in the VAB

The result being crafts that where conceived simple and efficient but end up with every free space crammed with misc parts from all my installed mods. I just use sub-assembly for the launchers so no problems in that department.

Although some are stupidly inefficient and over-the-top, one being a 22,600 kN monster using four of BobCat's Ares 1 boosters and a Griffon from KW rocketry which I use when I need to move chunks of space station to other planets.

I know that feel. Each of my crafts has enough batteries to power it for days (even though I always put enough RTGs on them to power them forever). Everything gets all four sensors. Everything gets parachutes, just in case! Unmanned probes get ladders and seats just in case a spacewalking Kerbal decides to do maintenance.... ugh, it's ridiculous.

[Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ]

I know that feel. Each of my crafts has enough batteries to power it for days (even though I always put enough RTGs on them to power them forever). Everything gets all four sensors. Everything gets parachutes, just in case! Unmanned probes get ladders and seats just in case a spacewalking Kerbal decides to do maintenance.... ugh, it's ridiculous.

I know but "what if?"!

The question is permanently engraved in my head when I'm building anything in any game.

[UmbralRaptor]

Yeah, I also tend to spend more time building launchers (and planning missions) than actually carrying them out. So many craft stranded in LKO because I never bothered to send them to their destination... >_>;;

[MR4Y]

Sometimes the games keeps me from designing things and the time wasted trying to find a workaround ends in deadlock.

[Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ]

Sometimes the games keeps me from designing things and the time wasted trying to find a workaround ends in deadlock.

If I really want to do something that the stock game doesn't allow I'll try and find a mod for it, you'd be surprised how many dead ends you can get past using mods. Some people like to stay stock which is perfectly fine also.

[Spaceisbeautifulul]

Well, usually a docking port does the trick.

The number one rule in my space program is always have a docking port.

No exceptions.

[AfailingHORSE]

If I really want to do something that the stock game doesn't allow I'll try and find a mod for it, you'd be surprised how many dead ends you can get past using mods. Some people like to stay stock which is perfectly fine also.

Know of a mod off the top of your head that allows for multiple non-player controlled objects to enter the atmosphere of a planet and not get deleted?

[Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ]

Know of a mod off the top of your head that allows for multiple non-player controlled objects to enter the atmosphere of a planet and not get deleted?

Romfarer's robotic arms pack increases the rendering range greatly (to something like 70 km) so that will stop things despawning on you during re-entry.

[AfailingHORSE]

Romfarer's robotic arms pack increases the rendering range greatly (to something like 70 km) so that will stop things despawning on you during re-entry.

sadly, I do not think it is enough for my Duna colony ship

[Qumefox]

If I really want to do something that the stock game doesn't allow I'll try and find a mod for it, you'd be surprised how many dead ends you can get past using mods. Some people like to stay stock which is perfectly fine also.

What dead ends? I've landed on every body in the solar system, and returned from most using stock parts.

Most people just choose not to deal with design challenges, and just throw OP mod parts at the problem.

[Sᴄɪɴᴛɪʟʟᴀᴛᴏʀ]

What dead ends? I've landed on every body in the solar system, and returned from most using stock parts.

Most people just choose not to deal with design challenges, and just throw OP mod parts at the problem.

Some people want to do more in this game than just land and plant a flag.

The stock game has no resource system, no robotic parts, no sub-assembly loader or equivalent, no detailed orbital information, a weak selection of aircraft parts and a bad aerodynamics model. Mods can add a lot of possibilities and give the game a huge replayability factor and purpose.

They don't all just give more powerful engines but if people want that its their choice, I personally prefer my rockets to look like actual rockets not some orange tank pyramid that wouldn't make it off the ground IRL.

[Brabbit1987]

I have an issue with doing a lot in a game then be unsatisfied and starting over.

[MR4Y]

You'll be amazed how many times I deactivate and reactivate mods. The list increases as more cool mods are realeased. I have about 40 mods and use about 22 at the same time.

[Splode]

I just use the same basic booster type. Unfortuneatly, sub assembly tends to mess up all the struts and fuel pipes, so I have to rebuild it every time...

If it isn't adequate (which happens) I either modify it with progressively more dangerous and silly extra boosters, or I work out a way to do the mission in several launchers (usually the better option).

[Echostatic]

I rarely reuse craft, actually. I wanna go to the mun, I design something grom the ground up and fling it in that direction. Wanna go to minmus? Start over and make something totally different. Back to the mun? Maybe I feel like landing in a different manner, which usually involves a completely new design. That's part of the fun to me.

[AmpsterMan]

Wow thanks for the comments guys!

One of the issues I have as well is limited playing time in one sitting for KSP so a lot of my missions go un done. Add that to the laundry list of restrictions I add on myself and you quickly come to realise most of my problems are actually my own doing.

[soranno]

Maybe it`s just my designs, but I haven`t had any issue with subassembly loader and struts/fuel lines for a long time.

I do remember on one of my older designs it just refused to load the fuel lines on the upper stage but all my current designs load without anything missing.

But anyway, I caught myself doing it again on Wednesday! I got caught up trying to get a payload 38% overweight for my heaviest lifter, but decided to press ahead and try to launch it up anyway. The additional weight and forces played havoc with my lifter, and although I kept saying that I would break it up and launch 2 pieces it was always `after one more try`, and before I knew it about 6 hours had passed with zero progress!

I wouldn`t really mind but the damned thing is a two part ship anyway! It comes in two handy to separate parts~

There was however some satisfaction in the whole thing, getting a full on interplantary ship into orbit when the ship and lifter amount to only about 350 parts!

Including a completely unnecessary spinny artificial gravity ring thing on the top!

EDIT: Another thing I found to be the cause of a great many unfinished missions and adventures for me, was trying to do too many at the one time. Initially I had a great aversion to time warping for long periods of time, which only got worse after installing the kerbal alarm clock and setting alarms for all manner of launch windows. I would refuse to simply time warp ahead 6 months and complete the Jool mission when there was an eve window in 6 weeks and I hadn`t prepared a mission for it yet!

After updating to .20.2 I have tried to do away with that though, and just getting on with each mission as it comes up, and not concerning myself with how many years are passing on Kerbin in between.

Edited June 14, 2013 by soranno
saying a thing that was the opposite of what I meant

[Werwolf]

If anything I find myself repeating old designs with different payloads... i keep using the same fuel tanks, decouplers, boosters... its getting kind of annoying. Generally, the only things I change are the upper stage booster engines depending on the payload weight.

[entaran]

subassembly loader always misses fuel lines/struts. Mainly because they don't "attach" properly to orange tanks and thus don't reattach properly.

[John FX]

I have my main lifters. There are two of them. One that will do up to 290T to LKO and another for smaller launches, say up to 130-140T and even if the payload is a probe I will use one of them. Once career comes I will not be able to do that and the game will be much more interesting.

I am more designing an overall system of satellites, stations, mining operations, station service craft and bases than individual launchers. I want to give my kerbals the infrastructure to holiday in space.

[kahlzun]

I design payloads, work them within an inch of tolerances, and just add Ip stage, lifter, etc.

I tend to work from the top down, i don't really have any specific lifter design (though there are a few repeated design aspects)

[Brotoro]

For launchers, I find something that works, then use it over and over and over again. If it ain't broke, don't blow it up.