Removal of strut-reminants

[TheCardinal]

Every time a strut disconnects a small reminant is left. In the case of radial decouplers it even can be six reminants.

They most probably will count as one part (or even six) thereby increasing the part count.

As craft and spacestations become more and more complex the lagging of KSP increases.

Therefor i would like to suggest the removal of those functionless reminants after a strut disconnects (or a coupler decouples).

[ZingidyZongxxx]

I'm pretty sure that they don't count as a part. Only one of the two pieces of a strut actually counts as a part, the other is just there.

[montyben101]

I like it as it adds realism

[Tex_NL]

There is a small trick that might solve your problem until a feature like this is implemented (if it ever will be):

Instead of adding a strut from your station part to your booster add the strut from the booster to the core. After ejecting the booster a strut part will remain but after you return from the space center it is gone. To a certain degree the same is true for radial decouplers.

[TheCardinal]

There is a small trick that might solve your problem until a feature like this is implemented (if it ever will be):

Instead of adding a strut from your station part to your booster add the strut from the booster to the core. After ejecting the booster a strut part will remain but after you return from the space center it is gone. To a certain degree the same is true for radial decouplers.

You're right, i 've just never noticed it.

[Dunbaratu]

I too am plagued by this problem but I'm afraid I don't understand the suggestion Tex_NL gave. Can it be explained in a bit more detail?

[TheCardinal]

Struts start at one point and end at a second point. As soon as the strut disconnects two reminants remain, one at the starting point and one at the end point. The end point will disappear when you go back to the space center and then return to the craft.

(That proves that my suggestion was based on the misconception that those reminants are considered parts)

[Galane]

Rendering the remnants of the struts makes your GPU have more work to do. Automatically deleting them, no matter which way they're placed onto the rocket, would help with less capable computers and with more complex rockets.

[Dunbaratu]

Struts start at one point and end at a second point. As soon as the strut disconnects two reminants remain, one at the starting point and one at the end point. The end point will disappear when you go back to the space center and then return to the craft.

(That proves that my suggestion was based on the misconception that those reminants are considered parts)

I've twice now had people claim that strut remnants don't remain as persistent debris.

But they DO. Here's a few screenshots of debris that exists IN the tracking center - I switched to them and took the screenshots. Each of these is a strut nub - I had to zoom in really close to get a good picture of them. I actually have lots more of these in my campaign save but I digured I'd just show screenshots of a few of them.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=169658752

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=169659567

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=169659615

Here's a relevant example taken from the save file. Note that it's a debris vessel containing ONLY a strut and nothing else. My save has several of these.

		VESSEL
		{
			pid = 2d4130b299c241508b93f4f98d2547ca
			name = Mun Goer 11 Debris
			type = Debris
			sit = ORBITING
			landed = False
			landedAt = 
			splashed = False
			met = 3982.39184041321
			lct = 85786812.3125162
			root = 0
			lat = -0.658813079901887
			lon = 108.747547071118
			alt = 138544.959881233
			hgt = -1
			nrm = 0.9004264,0.4326085,0.04563023
			rot = 0.4730048,-0.5035616,0.5304846,0.491201
			CoM = 0,0,0
			stg = 0
			prst = False
			ref = 0
			cPch = 0
			cHdg = 0
			cMod = -1
			ORBIT
			{
				SMA = 1101729.06506562
				ECC = 0.367577347283327
				INC = 1.0012453474191
				LPE = 183.286812689452
				LAN = 264.181807114909
				MNA = 0.234916951893357
				EPH = 85786890.9299516
				REF = 1
				OBJ = 1
			}
			PART
			{
				name = strutConnector
				uid = 567817880
				mid = 2941269206
				parent = 0
				position = 0,0,0
				rotation = 0,0,0,1
				mirror = 1,1,1
				istg = 0
				dstg = 0
				sqor = -1
				sidx = -1
				attm = 1
				srfN = None, -1
				mass = 0.05
				temp = -40.19031
				expt = 0
				state = 0
				connected = False
				attached = False
				flag = dunbaratu/Flags/kspflag
				rTrf = strutConnector
				EVENTS
				{
				}
				ACTIONS
				{
				}
			}
			ACTIONGROUPS
			{
				Stage = False, 85786794.2325199
				Gear = True, 0
				Light = False, 0
				RCS = False, 0
				SAS = False, 85786782.6525224
				Brakes = False, 0
				Abort = False, 0
				Custom01 = False, 0
				Custom02 = False, 0
				Custom03 = False, 0
				Custom04 = False, 0
				Custom05 = False, 0
				Custom06 = False, 0
				Custom07 = False, 0
				Custom08 = False, 0
				Custom09 = False, 0
				Custom10 = False, 0
			}
		}

[LeadMagnet]

I've twice now had people claim that strut remnants don't remain as persistent debris...I actually have lots more of these in my campaign save but I digured I'd just show screenshots of a few of them.

Steve is right, TheCardinal is kinda right.

To get these objects in game, attach a ba-zillion struts to a seperator between two fuel tank. In orbit, stage. The strut connectors will shoot out as debri. TheCardinal is right, depending on which end of a strut is attached to a part, the will disappear (stop being rendered).

I disagree with removing this from game. I does give a higher level of realism IMO.

[Dunbaratu]

I disagree with removing this from game. I does give a higher level of realism IMO.

But the reason you need to do the thing that causes this to occur is that the developers designed the separators to be way too springy. When they have to withstand the forces of compression of a launch, the craft 'banana-wobbles' all over the place. The reason there's struts attached to the separators is to remove the flexibility in the connection between separator and the things its immediately adjacent to on either side of it. I don't call that a higher degree of realism. If rocket engineers discover that the separators they have used previously aren't going to be stiff enough for their new rocket design, they design a new separator - they don't use the existing one and add a bunch of wires to the outside of it that will become debris, which when we play the game is our only option.

[Javster]

I like it as it adds realism

What about the actual strut? A metal rod doesn't just vanish...

[Rolf]

Well, it can... it is called dumping in metal recycle bin.

[LeadMagnet]

...If rocket engineers discover that the separators they have used previously aren't going to be stiff enough for their new rocket design, they design a new separator - they don't use the existing one and add a bunch of wires to the outside of it that will become debris, which when we play the game is our only option.

I feel your pain, and understand the argument. There are a load of "real world" things I'd love to see in-game. But, this is a game, not a simulator or research program, but a game. Your right, banana-wobble is not "realism", but it's funnier than hell and an obstacle to overcome, in-game.

If parts didn't wobble, didn't flex, if anything you put together acted like a single part, i think KSP would have lost something special. M2CW

[ZenithRising]

I disagree with removing this from game. I does give a higher level of realism IMO.

Seems like in order to launch anything of size you need to spam struts though, which is not particularly realistic.

I think as long as spamming struts is necessary to battle wobble, you should be able to disable their remnants in your settings.

Or alternatively, don't track them as debris, but leave the polygon behind.

[shand]

only the initial place of contact counts as either a part or remains. Thats how it works now. so to solve this problem now, strut from where you dont mind strut remains to where you dont want any. problem solved, no more ugly bits on your space station.

the amount of struts you need depends on your designs. most of my ships only have a few struts. (each side tank has two connection points, decoupler/structural bit +1 strut at the top) each stage needs a maximum of 3 well placed struts, 4 to be absolute certain.

I use procedural fairings, so the payload doesnt need any struts, assuming its well designed.

and yes struts are realistic - in fact at the moment i think they still dont have mass, so they are OP. in RL if your current design of decoupler or tank joint isnt rigid enough you either design your own part* or use a series of rigid structural objects to reenforce the joint. the only difference is that in RL you can put these internally.

*you are welcome to design your own part at any moment - a "simple" solution to the banana problem is to have 3-4 "docking" nodes placed around each surface such that they will lock together on the launch pad. make those parts (genueinly, please) and the wobble will disappear - but you should really add mass to account for the increased rigidity.

[Dunbaratu]

I feel your pain, and understand the argument. There are a load of "real world" things I'd love to see in-game. But, this is a game, not a simulator or research program, but a game. Your right, banana-wobble is not "realism", but it's funnier than hell and an obstacle to overcome, in-game.

If parts didn't wobble, didn't flex, if anything you put together acted like a single part, i think KSP would have lost something special. M2CW

Then you misunderstand my complaint. I'm not complaining about the unrealism of the wobbliness. I'm stating that "realism" is an invalid reason to claim that struts should remain as debris when an unrealistic aspect of the game is the reason the struts are even there in the first place.

[Dunbaratu]

and yes struts are realistic - in fact at the moment i think they still dont have mass, so they are OP. in RL if your current design of decoupler or tank joint isnt rigid enough you either design your own part* or use a series of rigid structural objects to reenforce the joint. the only difference is that in RL you can put these internally.

The part I highlighted in bold is exactly my point. I never said struts are unrealistic, but that needing to place them in a way that turns them into debris rather than making them an internal part of the part is.

[Superfluous J]

I never realized/noticed that struts only remain on the part they were attached to first. This will help immensely keeping the part count down when building my space stations!

[Dunbaratu]

I never realized/noticed that struts only remain on the part they were attached to first. This will help immensely keeping the part count down when building my space stations!

I wish this was true, but it clearly isn't. If it was true then I wouldn't have single strut nubs in my persistence file as debris. I'd have decouplers with struts sticking out of them as debris, and that's NOT what I'm getting.

[Dunbaratu]

So after reporting this as a bug I finally got a precise explanation. Normally it would be true that struts cannot become separate debris because one end or the other remains stuck to one side or the other of the break. The one and only exception to this has to do with, not how STRUTS work, but rather how separator rings work. When you have a separator ring (one of those blue things rather than the yellow ones) to break a stage, they run a routine to unglue themselves from EVERYTHING they're touching, and I mean EVERYTHING - not just the two halves of the ship on either side of the ring, but also anything attached to the sides of the ring - including struts. So the way it happens is this. If you have a strut that begins on a separator ring then:

FIRST, the two halves separate from each other, and only one side of the strut is preserved, the side attached to the ring.

BUT THEN, as part of detaching itself from everything the ring also detaches the struts from itself.

Result: The little strut nubs float away from the ring as separate debris.

So while it's true that running the struts in the opposite direction fixes it, it's NOT because of a feature of struts but because of a feature of the separator ring.