Artifical limits that influence your designs

[chickenplucker]

So I was thinking about this today and wondered what types of limits may dictate how ships or missions are built.

For example, my old Razer Death Adder decided that its middle mouse button no longer wanted to work one day. So now all my ships are built in the VAB without camera zoom. Yay! . This limits the size of my rockets to what can be seen with the default camera view which means most of my ships end up being fairly tall and skinny.

I know that some people's designs are limited by their computers performance. What kind of factors affect your builds?

[AustralianFries]

Well, since I try to play with a somewhat realistic mindset, I tend to emulate real world rocket design. I don't see this as a limitation, although sometimes I have to rethink my design if I feel like the rocket would not be able to perform in real life due to aerodynamics or whatever the cause is.

[Awaras]

So I was thinking about this today and wondered what types of limits may dictate how ships or missions are built.

For example, my old Razer Death Adder decided that its middle mouse button no longer wanted to work one day. So now all my ships are built in the VAB without camera zoom. Yay! . This limits the size of my rockets to what can be seen with the default camera view which means most of my ships end up being fairly tall and skinny.

I know that some people's designs are limited by their computers performance. What kind of factors affect your builds?

Er, you DO know that you can use the numeric keyboard + and - keys to zoom in and out and Page Up/Down to move the camera up and down, right?

Edited June 28, 2013 by Awaras

[The Destroyer]

Er, you DO know that you can use the numeric keyboard + and - keys to zoom in and out, right?

But it's not as convieniant

Plus, you need middle mouse click too.

When that haappened to me, I used - and + with right click+drag.

Anyway...

I tend to go for massive realistic-ISH designs. But sometimes I just do whatever the crap I want

[Wayfare]

Part count is the real bottleneck in any design I make, especially if it involves docking multiple things together into a bigger thing. For example, my sixteen probe "Pathfinder" craft to Jool, once assembled, lagged to the point where it was nearly unflyable in space.

From an engineering standpoint though, it does force me to consider my designs very carefully, strip off unnecessary bits, try to drop as many parts off the craft as early as I can and ensure that only the bare minimum needed for the mission actually goes into space. Which is kinda cool.

[chickenplucker]

Er, you DO know that you can use the numeric keyboard + and - keys to zoom in and out and Page Up/Down to move the camera up and down, right?

My main computer is my Thinkpad, which doesn't have a true number pad. Could use the function key to get to a num pad, but its such an annoyance that I never bother.

That's pretty neat Wayfare. I never thought about shedding parts like that during more critical stages of a mission.

[Flixxbeatz]

Imagination is infinite. RAM, processing power, and computing power is not.

That's why I tone down my designs as much as possible.

[AllenM3]

Well, since I try to play with a somewhat realistic mindset, I tend to emulate real world rocket design. I don't see this as a limitation, although sometimes I have to rethink my design if I feel like the rocket would not be able to perform in real life due to aerodynamics or whatever the cause is.

This is how I play and its limits how "Extravagant" my rockets can be.

I use KSPX and make every rocket as realistic as possible. I just hate putting a rover on top of a fuel tank, strutting it and launching it into space. My rockets have to be aerodynamic and realistic as possible for me to be happy. Fairings and all

Sent 3 kerbals to Duna today.

3 serparate launches.

1st, Sent a fuel resupply into orbit.

2nd, Sent my interplanetary stage into orbit

3rd, Sent a crew capsule with 3 kerbals into orbit

Fuel going up.

Docked the crew capsule with the orbiting interplanetary stage. Then docked to the fuel resupply in orbit. Topped off all my tanks and took off to Duna.

Landed

Interplanetary stage still in orbit. I could probably land on Ike too before heading back to Kerbin

http://imgur.com/a/aHDTY

Yeah, I could build one giant rocket, launch from the pad straight to Duna, but thats no fun/unrealistic for me.

[NeoMorph]

So I was thinking about this today and wondered what types of limits may dictate how ships or missions are built.

For example, my old Razer Death Adder decided that its middle mouse button no longer wanted to work one day. So now all my ships are built in the VAB without camera zoom. Yay! . This limits the size of my rockets to what can be seen with the default camera view which means most of my ships end up being fairly tall and skinny.

I know that some people's designs are limited by their computers performance. What kind of factors affect your builds?

Here is an FYI for you... Dissassemble your mouse, turn PCB over, locate where the mouse wheel is soldered to the board, resolder the connections and VOILA... I bet it will work again. It's a common fault with things that are wiggled. Like headphone sockets, buttons and... mice wheels. It's called a dry joint. Thing looks soldered fine but a hairline fracture occurs when it flexes and breaks the connection... and then it stops working or works intermittently. I've fixed loads of stuff that had dry joints from Walkmans to Plasma TVs. Sometimes knowing a bit about electronics helps heh.

[Maxwell Fern]

I simply refuse to send Kerbal on one-way missions. Unmanned probes are ok, but planting a flag means the Kerbal is coming back.

That must be why I only have flags on Mun and Minmus...

[ASnogarD]

Game is highly limited, nearly anything beyond stacking tall or going wide ships will suffer massive structural failures.

I have spent hours trying to get unusual but still logical designs to work, most fail due to bad physics and odd part connection issues / limitations.

You cannot join a side mounted item using 2 connections. I tried making a ship with 3 'handles' ( think [|] ) coming off the centre stack to hold additional stacks (fuel tanks and engine = stack)... the 'handle' will not join at both ends of the 'handle' (|-|-|), I have even carefully designed the 'handle' so it is connected at the top end and rests against the centre and tried to strut the bottom but its too weak and the handle clips into the centre when any weight is added to the handle.

I tried tri stack designs with the payload cradled in the centre of the tri stack but the stacks just wobble like a stack of plates being carried , parts just fall off seemingly at random , strutting follows odd rules (one test strutting from heavy side to centre stack resulted in the side stack swinging and eventually falling off, strutting the exact same spot but from the centre to the side and the strut holds the side stack stable... seems parent -> child origins are crucial when strutting).

Illogical events prevent anything too out of place from being built , like a perfectly symmetrical vessel having a uncontrollable spin on take off ignoring canards and SAS modules. I had designs with 3 identical stacks connected to a centre stack ... and have 1 engine from 1 of the stacks just fall off. Why 1 ? All the side stacks are IDENTICAL as in I design the stack as a single, then pull it off and reconnect with 3 times symmetry ... so every part is the same in those stacks, even the struts. Why then does 1 engine fall off ? Why not 3 ?

I also noted the large ASAS stock ring is highly likely to collapse and cause structural failures, I try avoid putting that part close to the payload connection but it messes up my designs a lot needing to add a part that is flat and fits the large size... usually a RCS tank or short fuel tank.

... this is all before you then need to work in logical limitations (weight distribution, centre of force, g-force on lift off (stress connections), toggling gimbals, etc etc).

Its not entirely impossible to work around the limitations and issues, just be aware that it can be extremely frustrating and lead to many designs getting tossed out the window as issues pile up.

I think part of the issue is how the game connects objects on the sides... the one connection rule is a killer of designs, and even using docking ports to provide extra connections doesnt do the job properly (even then only 1 port is actually docked on the VAB, the others are waiting to dock when physics kicks in).

(FYI - I use 'odd' designs to avoid the typical towers and / or rings of towers designs, and try avoid having too many stages with throw away parts... personal limitations and for some reason my gaming PC cant handle much more than 300 parts on lift off without horrible stuttering (3.2 ghz AMD Phenom II x 6 1090T CPU , 8 gigs DDR3(1333mhz) ram , 580 GTX))

[NeoMorph]

I hate it when you attach SRB's radially and during ascent they slightly wobble and then drift away from the centre stack no matter how many struts you add. Sometimes the only fix is to restart the program and then it crazily works right.

[chickenplucker]

I've noticed that as well. You can coat those things in struts to the point that they look like they are almost welded on and the dang boosters will still try to flex around. To much power to hold back

[Tw1]

Lag is the main constraint for me. I limit things to 400 parts, if they're going to to be on their own, and about 100 when I intend to have them near other things.

Well, when I say limit...

Another factor is how much I can see on my screen.

Once a core section is complete, it can be hard to make any modifications after I've build stuff around it, as I know it'll never come together quite the same if I take side sections of, to put them back later.

[Vanamonde]

Lag is an issue for me as well, so I hardly ever put anything on my ships that isn't a working part.

[Rickenbacker]

I've honestly never used middle mouse button in KSP. Shift+mouse wheel also zooms in and out in the VAB.

[DChurchill]

I try to design anything as the minimum I can get away with to get the mission done, so I haven't really hit any size related limitations, but the one parent / one child part structure can get really annoying. The fragility of some part joins requiring struts as "staples" around the joint is silly, too.

[cesarcurado]

Part count limit is not a problem for me, the problem is size (which is annoying to view) and when the ground is visible in my camera.

I have a core 2 duo and it just runs fine KSP, it actually passes the recommended specs.

I never go over 500 part count anyway.

The problem is my graphics card, I don't think I should call it "graphics card" because it isn't one.

It is a crappy integrated intel chipset.

It's the only freaking thing holding me back.

[Geschosskopf]

I often run into the ceiling of the VAB. I use FAR, which dictates having long, tall rockets. The heavier the payload, the taller the rocket, and it really doesn't take much before I hit the ceiling. This limits the mass of all my payloads and the physical dimensions of lumpy payloads, even light ones, are limited by the size of KW Rocketry's fairings. All this calls for some creative designing for stations and interplanetary ships.

[alacrity]

My only limit seems to be in understanding.

Currently working on a Duna project and am having a hell of a time designing my Kerbin to duna pusher stage. It doesn't seem to matter what engine/ fuel configuration I use, I end up short. I get to Kerbol orbit, but can't reinject into a duna orbit... done it before but missing the boat here. and I already hated the nuke engines... now they don't work as well as I remember.

Other then that I share the hatred of how rovers go up. Strapping a rover to the top of the fuel stack exposed is not fun for me.

Alacrity Fitz

[Skorpychan]

Heat is the limiter. It's summer, and I'm running this on a laptop. If things get too involved, I start sweating buckets, and have to break to get a drink and let the room cool down.

[AlexanderB]

Part count is the real bottleneck in any design I make, especially if it involves docking multiple things together into a bigger thing. [...]

From an engineering standpoint though, it does force me to consider my designs very carefully, strip off unnecessary bits, try to drop as many parts off the craft as early as I can and ensure that only the bare minimum needed for the mission actually goes into space. Which is kinda cool.

Yeah, same here.. I try to make big and cool things, but with as minimal parts as possible, anything more than 200 pats and I start to see small lag spikes, and 400-500+ parts and it becomes quite hard to play.

I simply refuse to send Kerbal on one-way missions. Unmanned probes are ok, but planting a flag means the Kerbal is coming back.

That must be why I only have flags on Mun and Minmus...

I got the same idea, though I recently added Duna too, and have a craft ready to go to Jool / Laythe / other moons, but have to figure out the phase angle to transfer to Jool first.

the one parent / one child part structure can get really annoying.

Agreed!

The fragility of some part joins requiring struts as "staples" around the joint is silly, too.

Yeah, "spacetaping" engines to tanks, tanks to tanks, and across stack decouplers to stop the rocket flexing like a pool noodle (The Skipper engine is particularly bad)

Other then that I share the hatred of how rovers go up. Strapping a rover to the top of the fuel stack exposed is not fun for me.

Fairing Factory!

[Kimberly]

Fairing Factory!

What's that? I've been looking for a mod for a few days now that has fairings, but not new engines and that sort of thing.

[GusTurbo]

My craft are artificially limited by aesthetics. I start with appearance as my first goal, then try to make it functional.

For example, this lander's purpose is to hide two rovers:

I'm still working on making it more functional. My main goal was to make sure you couldn't see any wheels or other obvious signs of the rovers hidden inside.

Edited June 28, 2013 by GusTurbo

[Eric S]

What's that? I've been looking for a mod for a few days now that has fairings, but not new engines and that sort of thing.

It's a web app that creates parts for arbitrary fairings. I've even managed to create... not sure if interstage is the right word, but fairings that aren't necessarily a nosecone. Haven't tried using it with 0.20 yet, so I don't know if it still works.

http://nathannifong.com/FairingFactory/