Thoughts on .22 "suspension" updates

[Trent]

So I seem to be having an issue with my landing legs, and as far as I can tell, it isn't a glitch. The legs seem to be sagging to the point where they really aren't supporting much because my engines touch the ground. You can see in the top photo that I have plenty of clearance, but literally a split second later they sag completely down. It was actually a little difficult to get the screenshot in time. The craft was set down on the surface at ~5.5 m/s. I like the idea of suspension, but this is a little bit much, I think.

[Wallace]

The suspension is way too soft, especially on the big legs, you can tweak it by altering the cfgs apparently, there's a thread somewhere.

[Johnno]

This has been brought up several times and I keep saying the same thing, add more landing legs. Or alter your config files, the legs are set to have specific suspension values so they only support a specific weight before compressing. If you add more legs, less compression.

It's a new thing and people aren't used to it, naturally they'll just build their normal landers and then the legs will compress. That's because earlier we've only had "works 100%" vs "breaks" with no compression at all. Learn the limitations of the new system, test with more legs, do quick mass tests (I did with a X32 tank) and you'll learn fast enough how many legs you'll need.

Also, most people are testing on the launchpad, but you won't generally be landing on Kerbin, so you can divide the amount of legs you need for no compression on Kerbin with say 6 if you're landing on Mün. I put 12 landing legs on the fuel tank to hold it up with no compression, so it would only need 2 on Mün...

[EvilotionCR2]

This has been brought up several times and I keep saying the same thing, add more landing legs. Or alter your config files, the legs are set to have specific suspension values so they only support a specific weight before compressing. If you add more legs, less compression.

It's a new thing and people aren't used to it, naturally they'll just build their normal landers and then the legs will compress. That's because earlier we've only had "works 100%" vs "breaks" with no compression at all. Learn the limitations of the new system, test with more legs, do quick mass tests (I did with a X32 tank) and you'll learn fast enough how many legs you'll need.

Also, most people are testing on the launchpad, but you won't generally be landing on Kerbin, so you can divide the amount of legs you need for no compression on Kerbin with say 6 if you're landing on Mün. I put 12 landing legs on the fuel tank to hold it up with no compression, so it would only need 2 on Mün...

Wait,so we are supposed to have like 64 legs on a Eve lander or something? That is stupid.

[AmpsterMan]

Wait,so we are supposed to have like 64 legs on a Eve lander or something? That is stupid.

Think of it another way; Eve landing and return missions have just gotten harder.

Instead of using legs, use wheels, girders, etc. It seems the landing legs weren't ever designed with the masses we have been using them for in mind.

[Monger]

Wait,so we are supposed to have like 64 legs on a Eve lander or something? That is stupid.

There are a couple of different legs, some softer, some sturdier. Also: design your ship in a way so that leg compression won't hurt you. If you are able to land on Eve, this should be the smallest issue.

[oggylt]

KOD I LOVE THOSE DARN LEGs!! D:

[Jarin]

This has been brought up several times and I keep saying the same thing, add more landing legs. Or alter your config files, the legs are set to have specific suspension values so they only support a specific weight before compressing. If you add more legs, less compression.

I can't even begin to understand this outlook. We shouldn't discuss balance? The devs obviously have no problem adjusting the balance of things as they go along, so why the opposition and "this is how it's going to be" viewpoint? The primary version number is still zero point two, so there's metric buttloads of things that are likely to change. What's wrong with thinking the legs should be tweaked? This is the very first iteration of the compression system, I'd thinking tweaking would be outright assumed.

[superm18]

i did some test's and 6 of the big leg's (LT-2 i think) can safely hold 24,5 t.

I'm building a Eve lander which ways almost 1500 t and i am using the Small Gear Bay for landing leg's like this:

Mission Report here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55257-Eve-return-trip-in-0-22-%2A%2A%2A-UPDATED-3-%2A%2A%2A

[WafflesToo]

This has been brought up several times and I keep saying the same thing, add more landing legs. Or alter your config files, the legs are set to have specific suspension values so they only support a specific weight before compressing. If you add more legs, less compression.

So you're saying altering your config is totally legit? Kind of makes balancing challenges a bit difficult.

Heck, intake stackers and wing clippers haven't seen anything yet.

[Don Quixote]

The issue with the new landing legs is, as far as I can tell, not the compression - which is a good thing! - but the fact that the legs do not extend after absorbing the initial shock during landing (that's the whole point of having suspension!). Keep in mind that real-world hydraulic cylinders can create enormous forces, more than enough to lift your average lightweight lander design.

[DisarmingBaton5]

The landing legs are too soft, much like the new asas. It would (I imagine) make landing on steep slopes difficult.

[NASAFanboy]

I don't like the new legs.

My landers keep flipping over, because that little flat thing at the bottom of the leg likes to land VERTICALLY

This..is why I've abandoned the legs and use trusses instead.

[boomerdog2000]

I haven't had a problem. Landed a probe on Eve, manned landers on Duna, Mun, Minmus, Pol, Vall, Bop and Gilly. Unless you're going overboard with your designs or are in higher gravity they work fine.

[Brotoro]

This has been brought up several times and I keep saying the same thing, add more landing legs. Or alter your config files, the legs are set to have specific suspension values so they only support a specific weight before compressing. If you add more legs, less compression...

Look at the ridiculous number of legs Oznerol256 put on this not-too-massive-lander. And it STILL leaned over.

So, is "Suck it up and learn to live with it, kiddies," the official Squad response to the situation?

[boomerdog2000]

To be fair that looks like a large amount of weight in fuel and engines.

[Rulare]

Well, that tier of leg is designed for that tier of ship size. the smaller legs would hold it up about as well, honestly.

Definitely a little too weak.

[SkyRender]

Apparently the problem with landing legs is exclusive to the launchpad; anywhere else, they behave properly. Also, there is a genuine bug with how the new landing leg logic works. Anything that's off-symmetrical from the legs' positioning on the craft will cause the craft to tip over absurdly, even if the asymmetry is from a single cubic octagonal strut. This suggests that the current "logic" for landing leg hydraulics is, to say the least, a bit flawed in how it handles craft weight distribution.

[Johnno]

Wait,so we are supposed to have like 64 legs on a Eve lander or something? That is stupid.

Landing on Eve you don't even need legs, nor on Kerbin to be honest. If you design your craft in a way that other things take the impact you can land safely just by parachutes, which you won't need all that many extra on Eve because of the thick atmosphere. Same for Kerbin.

I can't even begin to understand this outlook. We shouldn't discuss balance? The devs obviously have no problem adjusting the balance of things as they go along, so why the opposition and "this is how it's going to be" viewpoint?

Because the new landing legs have barely been around, most people who complain about them haven't tested them properly and as I said have the wrong expectations and seem unable to adapt to new things. 18 ton lander only needs 2 legs on Mün to land without compression, tell me how that's unbalanced. I'm not saying this is how it's going to be, I'm saying this is how it is, instead of complaining about it straight off at least learn how they work.

The primary version number is still zero point two, so there's metric buttloads of things that are likely to change. What's wrong with thinking the legs should be tweaked? This is the very first iteration of the compression system, I'd thinking tweaking would be outright assumed.

Yes a lot of things will change, and you can think things should change all you want, what I'm against is the WHY things should be changed. It's the very first iteration of the compression system so learn it before saying it's no good. Figure out the limitations of the legs before saying they're too weak. Land on a few different locations after testing the legs on Kerbin and figuring out how many to bring for different gravities, THEN we can talk about it.

I've yet to see a single picture from a different planet/moon where legs are sagging, only pictures from the launchpad. And my own testing shows that 2 legs would be enough for a 18 ton lander on Mün. So, pretty please, at least test things or bring something sensible to the discussion rather than your kneejerk reaction of how they compare to stuff you're used to. THAT is my point.

So you're saying altering your config is totally legit? Kind of makes balancing challenges a bit difficult.

Heck, intake stackers and wing clippers haven't seen anything yet.

Legit? It's your game, you play as you like. If you don't like the compression on the legs you can alter them any way you like. Challenges however generally go with "stock" or "specific mods" rules, in which case altering config files isn't allright. But if you personally for your own enjoyment play a career or sandbox game and feel the legs are too weak, then by all means alter them to suit your tastes.

Bottom line, the legs were introduced after being designed, tested and approved by developers. The legs work as far as compression goes (as far as I know) and have specific limitations, chosen by the developers. As such it was intended. If you disagree you can change them yourselves but at least test them properly and try to figure out why or how the developers intended for them to be used.

And I say again, two heavy legs holding a 18 ton lander on Mün without compression, is that somehow unbalanced? 4 legs for a 36 ton (orange tank equivalent) lander, too many?

Discuss your views by all means, but it would be nice if more people brought actual information to the discussion rather than their gut feeling in a one line post, compared to actual tests, numbers, pictures and most of all different locations than just the launchpad.

[Rulare]

Bottom line, the legs were introduced after being designed, tested and approved by developers.

This line really stood out to me.

This argument is silly and infinitely expandable. If it's in the game presently, it was obviously designed, tested, and approved by developers.

Like intake clipping. Obviously designed, tested, and approved by developers.

Or the old aerospikes. Obviously, those were also designed, tested, and approved by the developers so no changes should've been made to those.

The old ASAS was designed, tested, and approved by the developers so no changes needed to be made to that.

See where I'm going with this?

Just because it's in the game does not mean it was intentional, does not mean it was heavily tested, does not mean it has been 'approved'. It means that they're building a game up and they're going to do many balance passes in the future. Passes that need our feedback in order to occur, most likely.

Why stifle discussion?

[Johnno]

Look at the ridiculous number of legs Oznerol256 put on this not-too-massive-lander. And it STILL leaned over.

Looks to be 18 tons in fuel, another 10 at least in engines. On 10 legs. My test showed 12 legs for 18 tons to be stable. Let's say you need 1 leg for 1.5 tons (on Kerbin) like my test showed, the let's call it 30 ton lander would need 20 legs on Kerbin. But on Mün it'd need 1/6th, so 4 would be enough. So if you visualize that lander, landing on Mün, with only 4 legs, and getting NO compression whatsoever, do you feel that it would be ridicilous?

So, is "Suck it up and learn to live with it, kiddies," the official Squad response to the situation?

I'm posting my personal views as any other player, I'm not posting as a moderator in this thread.

[Johnno]

This line really stood out to me.

This argument is silly and infinitely expandable. If it's in the game presently, it was obviously designed, tested, and approved by developers.

Let me rephrase then, as you seem to have taken it the wrong way.

The compression system added to the legs is an improvement that was designed, tested and approved.

Like the things you listed have been updated with new functionality. Landing legs have been around but their functionality has been rigid, either they work or they break. The compression system is new, yes it'll likely get tweaked but as I try to explain with my personal testing experience they seem to be functioning properly, I won't say as intended because someone will attack me about what do I know what the devs intend, but logically the landing legs seem to have their suspension numbers set up nicely.

I see no reason for you to attack partial statements I make while ignoring entirely the actual tests I present. 30 ton lander on Mün with only 4 legs, functional or not?

Why stifle discussion?

Because people complaining and pointing out examples without actual numbers or proper testing isn't a discussion, I'm trying to make an actual counterpoint with the mindset of try it first. You can poke holes in things I say and rant about how I'm trying to stifle discussion, but I'm presenting actual numbers and logic against generic statements pulled out of thin air about what is or isn't a "ridicilous amount" of landing legs in Kerbin gravity, where your primary option of landing won't be engine + legs in the first place.

[Rulare]

Let me rephrase then, as you seem to have taken it the wrong way.

The compression system added to the legs is an improvement that was designed, tested and approved.

Like the things you listed have been updated with new functionality. Landing legs have been around but their functionality has been rigid, either they work or they break. The compression system is new, yes it'll likely get tweaked but as I try to explain with my personal testing experience they seem to be functioning properly, I won't say as intended because someone will attack me about what do I know what the devs intend, but logically the landing legs seem to have their suspension numbers set up nicely.

I see no reason for you to attack partial statements I make while ignoring entirely the actual tests I present. 30 ton lander on Mün with only 4 legs, functional or not?

Because people complaining and pointing out examples without actual numbers or proper testing isn't a discussion, I'm trying to make an actual counterpoint with the mindset of try it first. You can poke holes in things I say and rant about how I'm trying to stifle discussion, but I'm presenting actual numbers and logic against generic statements pulled out of thin air about what is or isn't a "ridicilous amount" of landing legs in Kerbin gravity, where your primary option of landing won't be engine + legs in the first place.

I took it in exactly the way it was said. Let's not make this a personal thing about my reading comprehension.

Your railing against people discussing new features in anything other than a totally 100% positive light is going to stop people from discussing things like this;

Apparently the problem with landing legs is exclusive to the launchpad; anywhere else, they behave properly. Also, there is a genuine bug with how the new landing leg logic works. Anything that's off-symmetrical from the legs' positioning on the craft will cause the craft to tip over absurdly, even if the asymmetry is from a single cubic octagonal strut. This suggests that the current "logic" for landing leg hydraulics is, to say the least, a bit flawed in how it handles craft weight distribution.

It's also going to stop the devs from fixing things like that when they don't hear about them. If you shoot down people for saying "something seems wrong with this" just because they haven't scientifically broken down what exactly is wrong with it and presented a notarized form detailing what code needs to be fixed, you're doing a disservice to the game and its developers. Other people can come along later and pin it down more precisely. That's the magic of a community.

If there was really nothing wrong with it, then no harm done. The developers can make that decision themselves without someone policing all opinions.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Rulare

[Johnno]

I did some more thinking on Brotoro's post.

Assume that "not so heavy" lander of 30 ton was actually held up just fine by 6 landing legs on Kerbin. No visible compression whatsoever. What does that translate to for Mün?

30 tons on 6 legs means 30 tons on one leg on Mün. Does it sound feasible, at all, to land 3 orange tanks (rockomax jumbo 64 whatever), engines, pod, bits and bobs, on the Mün with just 4 legs? Yes? No? 120 tons, on 4 legs. Reasonable? Or ridicilous?

So Brotoro, what do you feel would be reasonable, to hold up a 30 ton craft, on Kerbin, with no tilt/compression on the landing legs? I'll do the maths and present you what it'd mean for other locations.

If you want no compression on Kerbin with few legs, then compression would be meaningless for all other locations. Only place it'd matter for is Eve, which frankly is hard enough either way to design for.

Anyone who feels the landing legs are too 'soft', please enlighten me with numbers of how much tonnage they should be able to carry on Kerbin without compression, again I'll do the math for other locations and give you silly stuff like landing X amount of orange tanks on 3 or 4 legs. See it as a minichallenge. Defend your honour sort of thing.

I say they work fine.

[Pbhead]

I like compression.

It is required to make nukes go boom.