New launch clamps.

[Motokid600]

Im having a serious issue with the current launch clamps. I like to make serial staged rockets and they are a nightmare to secure. These launch clamps stick out of the rocket with a fixed length so securing the upper stages is all, but impossible. What I have to do it use a decoupler and the long trusses to extend them out. And sepatrons to clear the debris away from the rocket. But its still a loose, wobbly connection and when launched these claps tend to kick my rockets rather violently.

New launch clamps.. with modifiable extensions to get them the hell away from our rockets lol. But its not just that. I want to see more from these things. New models, new animations. These clamps should be large and bulky like the real ones and be fixed to the rocket so we don't have to use 30 of them. And on top of that have particle effects and a new sound. The condensation clouds from the LOX with hissing noises.

Because the sound is the next thing that needs tweaking.. god forbid you have more then five and you happened to have your volume bumped up... BOOM. Scares the **** out of me every time.

[Garek]

Good points you have there. What I would like from an animation perspective would be kind of a "support tower" which has multiple arms connected sideways to the rocket which turn away at launch...like you see here:

But that's more a nice to have. More serious issues I have with the current system are the clamps triggering again when you get into loading range with e.g. a rover test. Also, when I quicksave on the launchpad and later quickload, the clamps are not attached anymore, resulting in the rocket crashing. Although that could be an issue with KW Rocketry tanks, as I only used those when I had this problem.

[Force21]

you can just put structural parts extending off the top of your rocket attached to launch clamps, and put a sepratron or two on the structural part, then when its time to launch, itll detach everything away and still keep your rocket stable on the pad. Theres no reason to only have the clamps hold your rocket. I often put struts connected from the top of the clamp to other parts of the rocket, and that works amazingly well. I also for the tall rockets, put long I beams on the top of the clamps that are attached to the bottom of the rocket, then extend them up to the top and connect them using more struts.

[Motokid600]

I do the same thing as well Force, but I find its still a loose connection. And that setup seems to kick my rockets when they decouple.

K I'm actually having a serious problem now. Out of no where my rocket falls to the ground when released from the clamps. I have plenty of radial clamps and each engine has a support clamp under it. Even at max throttle the rocket seems to fall down before taking off and this is what's causing the kick.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Motokid600

[boomerdog2000]

Have you used this rocket before (so you know it works) or is it a new design that might have a TWR below 1?

[Captain Sierra]

I'd like having a configurable launch tower so you could design it as necessary to make it swing away, poll back, etc. Ultimately very fonfigurable to whatever the rocket is and whatever real life launch tower you want to model. Basically, you build a tower to the launcher,.

[Motokid600]

Na it flys like a champ. It's strange. It does one of two things. Either the rocket falls down onto the launch clamps after release THEN lifts off or.. it gets glued to the pad and cannot lift off. Idk wtf I changed. And again this rocket flys great I'm just having a lot of trouble getting it to leave the pad smoothly.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Motokid600

[Captain Sierra]

The second bug is a known glitch with Quantum Struts. Are you using them?

[Motokid600]

No quantum struts.

[RedKosmos]

Why do the clamps work on the underside of solid boosters, but not liquid engines?

[Motokid600]

I noticed that with the stock engines. But its not the case with modded engines. Atleast in my experience. Not sure why though.

[roosterr]

Although the OP got on a bit of condescending rant toward the developers, I will agree that the clamps need a little work and second the notion. Mainly if the arms were a bit longer so we would not have to come up with work-arounds to attach the upper stages. Swing arms would be AWESOME, but its just eye candy.

[LeadMagnet]

*snip* Swing arms would be AWESOME, but its just eye candy.

I agree, awesome, but unnecessary. How about procedurally generated clap length? Clap auto-positions to 2 meters outside the furthest part, the arm adapts to fill the gap.

[allmappedout]

Procedural everything!

But yes, I agree also, the launch clamps, whilst they work really well for the most part, are a bit inflexible at times and the lack of lateral distance does hinder some designs.

[M5000]

My only issue with this is, how would you know that the clamps would fit such a wide range of rockets. OP describes clamps being attached TO the rocket, being specific to the model.

That brings to my mind, the launch tower the Soyuz uses, that surrounds the rocket until it takes off, then they fall/hinge away. What happens when I build a rocket with sizeable side-boosters, or I build a Saturn-V sized rocket? Obviously a tower built for a Soyuz will not fit around a Saturn-V. The way it is now, with the pads, is really not a bad solution. I propose they you may instead be implementing the pads improperly, or that your rocket is not structurally sound.

However, am I saying that this is a bad idea? Absolutely not, I like the idea of large launch gantrys and little graphical FX for fuel boiling off, but it does pose some problems when you think about it on any scalable or widely usable level..

[UberFuber]

Procedural everything!

But yes, I agree also, the launch clamps, whilst they work really well for the most part, are a bit inflexible at times and the lack of lateral distance does hinder some designs.

Although realistically, won't longer launch clamp arm have several issues?

1. Longer launch clamp arm = more lateral stress on arm = less mass?

2. When "retracted", won't the longer arms just smash into the lower radial engines?

[Kasuha]

If you can't support it from the side, why don't you support it from below?

It used to be possible to stick a clamp to an engine from the bottom. But even now there are workarounds...