Sub-assemblies improvement

[dellcom1800]

Hello,

I have enjoyed this game immensely since I started playing a few weeks ago. I have been building more complex structures as of late. My current project is a larger interplanetary ship with multiple landers/probes/command pods. I am a going with the assemble in orbit method to put the parts together however this exposed an annoyance with the way sub-assemblies currently work. Although I do have to remind myself this feature just came out and its alpha!

When I deploy a sub-assembly I cannot choose the mount-point (for lack of a better word). IE sometimes I want to mount from one location for a certain deployment (IE attach the engine to a decoupler) and other times I want to mount from another location on that assembly (say the other end heat shield). However it seems to only allow connection from the first part that was instantiated in the sub-assembly build.

Am I missing something in the current version that already resolves this? If not this would be a great improvement to the current version, at least for me.

Thanks!

[Sirrobert]

This is because of the way the build system works. The first part you place is the root. That root is what you pick up when you drag the entire rocket. That root is also what you pick up and drag the rocket (or sub rocket) to the sub assembly building. That root is than the only one with connection points when you load up the sub assembly part.

A way around this would be to let us change root part while we are building. (I believe there is a mod that does this, but I'm not sure)

Until we get that, the work arounds are:

Design something with the specific idea of it being a sub assembly. So start with a decoupler (or a fuel tank), that you are going to attach below the thing you want into orbit (for example if you design an atmospheric lifter)

Take a small root, attetch your sub assambly to this. Once it's attatched, all other connection points become available

[dellcom1800]

Thanks Sirrobert for the explanation.

I am using the work-around you suggest but it certainly would be convenient to dynamically re-define the 'root' part and/or define attachment points on the part.

[Commander Zoom]

There's a plugin for that.

[Sirrobert]

There's a plugin for that.

There it is, thanks

[Kasuha]

All free mount points of the sub-assembly's root part are available when you use the sub-assembly. For instance a fuel tank with radially mounted chutes will have both its top and bottom mounting point available when you pull it from the sub-assembly list.

But it's clear to me that it's not enough.

[Superfluous J]

Yeah I was sad that the new subassemblies didn't just recalculate the root for you or (better) ask you which of the available parts is to be the root. Like if you build a lander, drag it to the box, currently it says "no how no way" and you're boned. What if it said "There are 5 available points that this could mount on something, which would you like to be the actual mount point?

Or do it like docking ports. Pretend each available mount point on the subassembly is a docking port for attachment purposes and then rebuild the ship once you've mounted it. They already do that for docking now...

[Superfluous J]

All free mount points of the sub-assembly's root part are available when you use the sub-assembly. For instance a fuel tank with radially mounted chutes will have both its top and bottom mounting point available when you pull it from the sub-assembly list.

But it's clear to me that it's not enough.

Really? That surprises me considering you can't put something there that has a mount point, even if that mount point isn't the root part.

Hopefully this is just a "first draft" of their subassembly system and it'll get better with time. Currently, I just use SelectRoot (which has been linked in this thread by another).

[Kasuha]

Like if you build a lander, drag it to the box, currently it says "no how no way" and you're boned.

They're supposed to be subassemblies. So you build something bigger, tear a branch off it and save it as subassembly. I have never tried to store the root part in a subassembly, that may be the reason I never had a problem with it.

[dellcom1800]

They're supposed to be subassemblies. So you build something bigger, tear a branch off it and save it as subassembly. I have never tried to store the root part in a subassembly, that may be the reason I never had a problem with it.

I completely agree, but a subassemble can be installed multiple ways. For instance I have a "Nuke Pack" which is 4 medium fuel tanks mounted around a steel beam, a Nuke engine and some strengthening cable. But I might want to mount it via the engine to a decoupler or the other way around (just one example). So yes a subassembly but because it is just that it can be used in multiple configuration not just 1.

[Superfluous J]

They're supposed to be subassemblies. So you build something bigger, tear a branch off it and save it as subassembly. I have never tried to store the root part in a subassembly, that may be the reason I never had a problem with it.

How is a lander not a sub-assembly? It's about 15 parts and can barely lift off the launch pad. If a 200-part lifter (I have one) can be a subassembly (it is) a 4-part probe should be able to be one as well.

[Kasuha]

It definitely is able to be a subassembly, you just need to create it the right way. As I wrote above. Use something else as the root piece and build your lander as a branch off this root. Then pull it off that root and save it as a subassembly.

Subassemblies are more or less option to save those red transparent floating pieces you can tear off your design and leave in the air to be used later. Build yours as such and all will be ok.

[Superfluous J]

It definitely is able to be a subassembly, you just need to create it the right way. As I wrote above. Use something else as the root piece and build your lander as a branch off this root. Then pull it off that root and save it as a subassembly.

Subassemblies are more or less option to save those red transparent floating pieces you can tear off your design and leave in the air to be used later. Build yours as such and all will be ok.

I think we're arguing different things. I'm arguing for what I want. You're arguing for what is. I understand what is and can (obviously) live with it this way. I just want it to be better and there are exactly 0 technical reasons why it can't be made better.

[Ruinsage]

I say this without having any idea how the code works:

Cant you make it so that the items weld together when they go into sub assembly, and then un-weld after the sub assembly has been mounted?

[vexx32]

To what end?

[Ruinsage]

So you can mount a subassembly to a sidemounted decoubler, for instance. Or so you make a complicated subassembly from the middle out, and still attach it with nodes