Is it just me or are the connections between parts a lot stronger now ? (.20 -> .21)

[ASnogarD]

I have put together a few rockets and sent up a Station with ol' Jeb chilling in a Cupola...

I have barely been using struts with these craft, just a few logical ones to prevent swaying to reinforce the radial mounted connections, and the craft have yet to fail due to a structural link failure or fall off during flight or on the pad as previously they were prone to.

I havent needed the 3 x symmetry struts from tank to tank or tank to engines and barely any to keep stacks together... my last lifter about 300 tonnes used 3 x 4 sets of struts.

Just wishful thinking on my part or how has your experience been ?

[Tw1]

I had an unplanned separation between two orange tanks, and had to strut things up. But apart from that I haven't noticed any difference.

[sal_vager]

Hmm, well I haven't tried strutless craft as a test yet, are you just becoming a better builder?

[Jarin]

I've noticed some significant troubles with the structural stability around ASAS and decouplers, with some decidedly weird launch-pad collapses.

[ASnogarD]

Doubt it, built the few I tried my usual style... inefficient with lots of fuel tanks and big engines, at least till it gets to the payload which is usually got more care put in it.

The lifter I took my station up was a 5 stack affair (engine + fuel tanks = stack) , center stack with the 2nd stage and payload on top and 4 outer stacks, the 4 outer stacks had 2 x large grey tanks and 1 x orange tank (equaling 2 orange tanks of fuel) with a mainsail mounted with the extended radial mounts... pretty hefty and it used to pop off at the mounts or the engines would simply fall off... now it barely moves on the pad and flies pretty well (well SAS does fight me a bit but the new reaction wheels and pod torque seem to allow me to counter the spin effectively).

Guess I'll have to see how if fares with the larger stuff I like to meddle with later.

[Aladran]

It's not the connections that are stronger, it's the ASAS that is more gentle on the steering

[bigdad84]

It's not the connections that are stronger, it's the ASAS that is more gentle on the steering

Exactly! Less wobble = less stress

[-RanZ-]

It's not the connections that are stronger, it's the ASAS that is more gentle on the steering

Bingo! 7890

[El Gribbo]

Funny that I just ran across this thread. I just had an unplanned structure failure between my MK16 parachute and my command pod that was at roughly 3k feet, about to touch down. I deployed the chute at about 10k.

[bigdad84]

Funny that I just ran across this thread. I just had an unplanned structure failure between my MK16 parachute and my command pod that was at roughly 3k feet, about to touch down. I deployed the chute at about 10k.

We're you time warping?

[El Gribbo]

We're you time warping?

Yeah, it was shortly after a time warp. Didn't think about that. Doh.

Was more just funny that it happened and then I load up the forums and see that thread title.

[SkyHook]

I NEVER strut crafts,only interstages, as they are a weak point. One of the ways to avoid strutting is simple, logical building. My rockets are very generic and lack that "kerbal" feel, but they are structurally impervious.

[ASnogarD]

I am more convinced the structure connections are more stronger.... I built this module for my station, a RCS tug dock + mono prop reserve + 2 tugs (command seat controlled)... with the lifter the whole mess was 416 tonnes.

The lifter has 2 x 4 symmetry struts (1 between outer tanks and center stack, the other set is between the outer stacks) and 2 set of 2 symmetry between the top capsule and payload and the 2nd stage and payload.

Nothing failed, payload didnt wobble and the mess didnt spin too much... the older version would of had the engines at least falling off once and one of the stacks breaking off on the pad before I hit T.

(not sure if this is a valid issue, but I did basically delete the whole KSP directory from Steam and re-install it when the auto recover caused my game to crash on the initial .21 update release.. currently running the .21.1 )

[Guest Aaack]

I've the impression the connections are a bit stronger too, but also I feel the weight is taken differently. Some rockets I Built before collapses now unless i stick space tape everywhere. in the previous version they didn't collapse at all.

Also.

If I have a heavy rocket and leave it some minutes on the launchpad untouched it will break, but if I immediately launch it it won't. I guess it should have the exact opposite reaction, right? more stress on launch?

TL;DR: yep, something's changed IMO.

[hellion13]

i dont think the parts are any stronger, i know they are more flyable with the SAS now, only issue ive had is adding the newer mechjeb for long duration flights it seems to make it act like the old SAS and wobbles even simple builds apart

[HeadHunter67]

Even with good use of struts, stuff still falls apart on the pad for me sometimes.

[Guest Aaack]

HeadHunter, if you want to do a test, get one of those unstable rockets, and try to immediately launch it, as fast as you can and see if it's collapses or not... in the name of science!

[Corrupt]

If I have a heavy rocket and leave it some minutes on the launchpad untouched it will break, but if I immediately launch it it won't. I guess it should have the exact opposite reaction, right? more stress on launch?

I've noticed that. I've started building slightly bigger rockets and beginning to construct my first space station. Often I'm waiting on the pad for a while until the space station is a reasonable distance away for a quick rendezvous, only to have my rocket start to wobble and then tear itself apart while waiting.

[brusura]

It's just that there is less wobble now with the sas, less wobble less force on the structure