Open Source Construction Techniques for Craft Aesthetics

[selfish_meme]

Just now, Majorjim said:

What about the shift button offset?

Does not seem to work any different than non shift

[Majorjim!]

Just now, selfish_meme said:

Does not seem to work any different than non shift

Hmm.. The NOSL mod is super simple and will be updated soon. No way I am building without it!

[selfish_meme]

1 minute ago, Majorjim said:

Hmm.. The NOSL mod is super simple and will be updated soon. No way I am building without it!

@sgt_flyer said a lot of his non mod techniques are still working

[sgt_flyer]

the shift offset is slightly more than normal, but not that much.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, selfish_meme said:

@sgt_flyer said a lot of his non mod techniques are still working

If you do something without the mods it will work. Other part changes not withstanding of course.

Just now, sgt_flyer said:

the shift offset is slightly more than normal, but not that much.

That is pointless.. It should be all or nothing IMO.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Majorjim

[selfish_meme]

I am more concerned with the offset shifts I have seen on previously built craft

hmm strut symmetry does not seem to work

[sgt_flyer]

@selfish_meme

the great offset move still behaves correctly in 1.1  (in fact, it's a translation, then rotation in the correct position - but as in 1.05, it's tied to the size of the part itself) - basically,if used on fuel tanks : invert the tank through rotation on the node, offset the whole thing (you can use the whole length of the tank) then rotate it back in the correct position. (works with some surface attached parts like I-beams too, as they have and offseted center for the rotation)

also, there's an old trick to create any number of symmetry in stock that will change a bit with 1.1.

in 1.05 : you surface attached  symmetric parts on another part, then picked that part, and symmetry it. then surface attach a 3rd part to the 1st set, which propagates to the other symmetries. when detaching this part, it used a symmetry with the same number as the total amount of copies generated during symmetry propagation. , which can be used to create x5 and x7 symmetries and higher in 1.05, because the symmetry propagation doesn't work correctly in 1.05.

in 1.1, symmetry propagation now work corrrectly. however, when creating a symmetry above 8, (like x12) in 1.1, we can now use shift +X to remove x1 symmetry each time we press it, so x11, x10, x9 are feasible from x12. (once it reaches x8 though, it starts behaving normally once again, so no x5 and x7 feasible)

as a workaround if you don't use editor extensions for 1.1, i'd recommend creating a subasssembly those x5 and x7 symmetries on it in 1.05 and keep it in 1, then whenever you need those symmetries, attach the subassembly, and hover the new part at least in x2 symmetry over the desired symmetry, to 'catch' the symmetric property  

Edited March 30, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[Majorjim!]

Just now, sgt_flyer said:

@selfish_meme

the great offset move still behaves correctly in 1.1  (in fact, it's a translation, then rotation in the correct position - but as before, it's tied to the size of the part itself)

also, there's an old trick to create any number of symmetry in stock that will change a bit with 1.1.

in 1.05 : you surface attached  symmetric parts on another part, then picked that part, and symmetry it. then surface attach a 3rd part to the 1st set, which propagates to the other symmetries. when detaching this part, it used a symmetry with the same number as the total amount of copies generated during symmetry propagation. , which can be used to create x5 and x7 symmetries and higher in 1.05, because the symmetry propagation doesn't work correctly in 1.05.

in 1.1, symmetry propagation now work corrrectly. however, when creating a symmetry above 8, (like x12) in 1.1, we can now use shift +X to remove x1 symmetry each time we press it, so x11, x10, x9 are feasible from x12. (once it reaches x8 though, it starts behaving normally once again, so no x5 and x7 feasible)

as a workaround if you don't use editor extensions for 1.1, i'd recommend creating a subasssembly those x5 and x7 symmetries on it in 1.05 and keep it in 1, then whenever you need those symmetries, attach the subassembly, and hover the new part at least in x2 symmetry over the desired symmetry, to 'catch' the symmetric property  

This is great but totally moot.

 The 1.1 preview will be in force for two weeks, the EE and NOSL mods will be updated by then. And there is no point using those tricks in the preview as it is buggy and will be continually updated so you wont want to build anything in it anyway. Save yourself a lot of work and wait for the full update and just keep building in 1.05.

Just now, selfish_meme said:

I am more concerned with the offset shifts I have seen on previously built craft

hmm strut symmetry does not seem to work

What do you mean?

[selfish_meme]

19 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

What do you mean?

I have the Shuttle @sgt_flyer and I have been building loaded in, offsets have changed with a few parts, and the distance between the shuttle and tank has changed.

I was just trying to get two mirrored struts to attach on the shuttle and they wouldn't, but then tried with a new craft and they did

I also just got a 363km orbit with no boosters on a test shuttle, overpowered SSME's anyone

Edited March 30, 2016 by selfish_meme

[Majorjim!]

Just now, selfish_meme said:

I have the Shuttle @sgt_flyer and I have been building loaded in, offsets have changed with a few parts, and the distance between the shuttle and tank has changed.

I was just trying to get two mirrored struts to attach on the shuttle and they wouldn't, but then tried with a new craft and they did

I also just got a 363km orbit with no boosters on a test shuttle, overpowered SSME's anyone

LOL! wow they made the Vectors more powerful? Don't worry about offset parts mate it is bound to happen. Once the mods are back up you can just offset them to where they where before.

[Atlas2342]

5 minutes ago, selfish_meme said:

I have the Shuttle @sgt_flyer and I have been building loaded in, offsets have changed with a few parts, and the distance between the shuttle and tank has changed.

I was just trying to get two mirrored struts to attach on the shuttle and they wouldn't, but then tried with a new craft and they did

I also just got a 363km orbit with no boosters on a test shuttle, overpowered SSME's anyone

Ah, the struts. Try rotating the craft if that helps. Usually does in mine....

[selfish_meme]

2 minutes ago, Atlas2342 said:

Ah, the struts. Try rotating the craft if that helps. Usually does in mine....

Tried that too

[sgt_flyer]

17 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

LOL! wow they made the Vectors more powerful? Don't worry about offset parts mate it is bound to happen. Once the mods are back up you can just offset them to where they where before.

nah, the vectors have the same stats they are just already op by themselves ^^

13 minutes ago, selfish_meme said:

Tried that too

yeh, i ended up attaching them 1 by 1.

i hope that squad will fix the large landing legs though - it's rotation is buggy

Edited March 30, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[Majorjim!]

Ok the thermo hinges are broken it seems. Without the offset mod i cannot bug test them. @sgt_flyer do you know if the shape of the ant bell has changed?

[Dafni]

1 minute ago, Majorjim said:

Ok the thermo hinges are broken it seems. Without the offset mod i cannot bug test them. @sgt_flyer do you know if the shape of the ant bell has changed?

Bummer. Lets hope they update the offset mod and the editor extensions soon!

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Dafni said:

Bummer. Lets hope they update the offset mod and the editor extensions soon!

Yeah mate, weeks of work in the balance.. Ho hum. it is either the shape of the thermos or the ant engine bell. There are a few alternatives though and my Const lander ramps don't require precision hinges so I am sure I can fix it soon (that craft pack is all I care about really).

[sgt_flyer]

testing it out, it seems the ant 'nozzle' geometry is the same as the 'body' of the ant engine.

could be a bug. i guess it could be worthy of reporting it

click the image for the .gif

Edited March 30, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[Majorjim!]

Just now, sgt_flyer said:

testing it out, it seems the ant 'nozzle' geometry is the same as the 'body' of the ant engine.

could be a bug. i guess it could be worthy of reporting it

click the image for the .gif

Thanks man, I just made a thread about it. It could be part of the performance improvements.. Which is now amazing! I will just have to find another solution.

[Majorjim!]

6 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Ok the thermo hinges are broken it seems.

Lol i already found a replacement part for the ant engine if they don't fix the geometry. The communotron 16s have a nice thin geometry so will do as a possible replacement if needed. I won't do any more building in 1.1 until the patch is fully released, I have no idea what will change so I will most likely just be wasting my time.

[Dafni]

19 hours ago, Majorjim said:

I won't do any more building in 1.1 until the patch is fully released, I have no idea what will change so I will most likely just be wasting my time.

Same here. Wont be long now, fortunately. We've been waiting so long, a bit more patience now should not be too hard to find ... ( yeah right)

And good thinking on the communotron, I had the same thought when thinking about a possible replacement for the ant in your hinge, a small part with a thin and round collider.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Dafni said:

Same here. Wont be long now, fortunately. We've been waiting so long, a bit more patience now should not be too hard to find ... ( yeah right)

And good thinking on the communotron, I had the same thought when thinking about a possible replacement for the ant in your hinge, a small part with a thin and round collider.

I cannot wait! We are finding lots of bugs so hopefully the full release will be perfect!

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, Dafni said:

And good thinking on the communotron,

I made a 1.1 next generation thermo hinge HERE!

[sgt_flyer]

8 hours ago, Dafni said:

Same here. Wont be long now, fortunately. We've been waiting so long, a bit more patience now should not be too hard to find ... ( yeah right)

And good thinking on the communotron, I had the same thought when thinking about a possible replacement for the ant in your hinge, a small part with a thin and round collider.

i'm not sure the collider is round  most small parts seems to use some sort of cubic boxes (the LV1-R spider use a trapezoidal shape, even over the nozzle, the linear RCS is a square box - maybe for physics calculations simplicity) - however, in 1.1 the LV1-R collision box has increased in size to better match the 3d model. (and lots of other small parts also saw this) - so keeping the same width of roll cage in 1.05 and 1.1 end up jamming everything . 

Edited March 31, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[Majorjim!]

Just now, sgt_flyer said:

i'm not sure the collider is round  most small parts seems to use some sort of cubic boxes (the LV1-R spider use a trapezoidal shape, even over the nozzle, the linear RCS is a square box - maybe for physics calculations simplicity) - however, in 1.1 the LV1-R collision box has increased in size to better match the 3d model. (and lots of other small parts also saw this) - so keeping the same width of roll cage in 1.05 and 1.1 end up jamming everything . 

Yeah If not round it is quite small. My new thermometer hinge is much smoother and free moving than when it used ant engines. I think using ant engines is dead now. I could not be happier though! I can't wait to see what is possible with these new ones. I have a lot of ideas for them.

[Rath]

One of my favorite things about the forum is that we have these big projects to devlop stupid things that the game was never meant for