Parts automatically ordered to the wrong stage in VAB/SPH - how do I lock the stage

[Azimech]

While building, the thing that takes the most time - everytime - is rearranging the parts in the staging list. I might be adding sepratrons to stage #2 - booster decouple - stage and they're placed in stage #3 or #4.

How do I choose a stage and prevent KSP for doing it it's own way?

[Murph]

There's no way to tell it which stage to add a new part to, that I know of, it just guesses in a way that kinda works reasonably for very simple cases. You just have to drag them to the correct stage setup after adding them.

[Azimech]

In that case the thread might as well be teleported to the http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/59-Suggestions-and-Development-Discussion

[Deathsoul097]

You cant. ('nuff said)

[SRV Ron]

Staging order is based upon the way the rocket is originally constructed. When you start adding and rearranging things, the program will start placing things according to the original tree setup. That is why the engine and parachute appear in the same place in level 0 of career and the parachute with the built in decoupler on the one NovaPunch command pod. It can also get scrambled when using saved groups of parts.

[thedeester1]

This drives me crazy. Today I wanted to remove 1 engine from a rocket and add a decoupler. Split craft, removed engine and added the decoupler. Replaced top section of craft. Completely ruined my staging. I thought that the staging for the section I had just moved out of the way would stay the same but adding the new decoupler seemed to send the staging into confusion.

The only thing I find more frustrating is getting things to attach to radial decouplers!

Edited December 7, 2013 by thedeester1

[Deadweasel]

This drives me crazy. Today I wanted to remove 1 engine from a rocket and add a decoupler. Split craft, removed engine and added the decoupler. Replaced to section of craft. Completely ruined my staging. I thought that the staging for the section I had just moved out of the way would stay the same but adding the new decoupler seemed to send the staging into confusion.

The only thing I find more frustrating is getting things to attach to radial decouplers!

For that last part, here's a hint: Watch the mouse pointer when positioning. The part is placed based on the mouse pointer's location, so try to point right at the connection point of the decoupler before you place, and cam up/down vertical to ensure the part is on properly. After that, just drag a copy of the hookup to the subassembly manager. Eventually you'll never have to worry about placing individual components on those decouplers again.

[Azimech]

That's all fine and dandy but an option to force where parts will be placed in the staging sequence is fairly easy to implement and should be standard, IMHO. I'd much rather place all parts this way than with the fuzzy logic it's using right now.

[sojourner]

That's all fine and dandy but an option to force where parts will be placed in the staging sequence is fairly easy to implement and should be standard, IMHO.

It is? You should write a mod that does this then.

[xtremespino]

Yeah, there is no way to fix it, that I know of

[arq]

Unless it was changed very recently, every part is placed with staging relative to the stage it is attached to. For example, engines are usually added to the current stage and decouplers to one stage sooner. Parachutes usually go one stage later, IIRC.

[DrMonte]

If I remember correctly after adding decoupler everything under it goes to new stage.

Copying part (Alt+mouse click) keeps staging. This helps more than you could think when you get use to copying.

One thing I've learned from my mistake - If you create subassembly with staging like lifter add a lot of extra stages above it. All stages will be merged when subassembly will be integrated into ship.

[Azimech]

It is? You should write a mod that does this then.

Might take years since I don't know how to code nor know how or where to start learning.

[Deadweasel]

Staging is initially built according the hierarchy of parts, from the root part down to the last. When you add decouplers or bi/tri/quad-couplers, you add branches to the "tree", complicating the "flow" of the staging.

If the ship is just one long cylinder with multiple stages, the progression from root to final stage is (usually) fairly linear, and the game can accurately guess the order in which the components will be staged.

Start adding branches though, some with parachutes intended for staging BEFORE the decouplers that are located physically below them for example, and the game can get confused about how to arrange things when placed.

Technically the last parts placed on a ship are last in the hierarchy, but if they are placed on parts that are, say, in the middle of the existing flow, the game will try to insert those new stages near the area where those receiving parts' stages are located, resulting in some jumbling of your intended staging progression. In other words, because the game was initially designed to consider simple vertical stacks as a complete ship with a simple 1-2-3-4 progression, adding branches to the main "trunk" of the tree causes some confusion for it.

Think about it: if you were thinking like the game engine, you'd look at a stack of four stages that started from the command capsule, and know just by looking at it that this ship is supposed to be dropping stages in linear order from the bottom-up. Then the player has the sheer gall to place a bunch of radial decouplers with boosters and chutes on the third (next-to-last) stage. Now your initial assumption would be that because they were placed on the third stage, the player is intending to trigger those somewhere around that stage, so you insert the new stages near there in the chain.

BUT, the player actually wanted to trigger those boosters first at the launch, and was placing the radials higher up to address balance issues, so you (as the game engine) have basically screwed up the order of things in the player's eyes.

These staging niggles could probably be overcome by forcing the game to add stages to the chain strictly according to the order in which they were added to the ship (last parts added are first in the staging chain), but then again, I'm sure there'd still be a boatload of conflict and confusion when subassemblies are brought into the mix again, each with their own particular staging order already having been set up before being turned into subassemblies.

Bottom line is that no matter what you try to do to address seemingly weird stage insertions, player creativity is always going to throw a wrench into the works. There's no possible code method I can think of that would accurately guess a player's intentions, given how the game currently looks at a craft as a whole, while it's being built.

[numerobis]

One thing that would be nice is if placing copies or subassemblies would offset the staging in the copy/subassembly stack to compensate for the stage of whatever you're attaching to. In other words, stage 1 of the subassembly would be placed in stage 15 if you attach the subassembly to stage 14.

Generally, I agree that any algorithm is going to be wrong, but some algorithms may be less often wrong than others.

[Kasuha]

There could be some small improvements done. For instance launch clamps could always go to the first stage. Or to the stage where all other launch clamps already are. Because not releasing them all at once does not usually make much sense.

[numerobis]

Oh yeah, the clamps is another pet peeve of mine.

Another thing that would be nice: the ability to drag a group of parts (three symmetric engines for example) by dragging the group, rather than one click to open the group, then a drag of the three selected engines.

[Deadweasel]

Oh yeah, the clamps is another pet peeve of mine.

Another thing that would be nice: the ability to drag a group of parts (three symmetric engines for example) by dragging the group, rather than one click to open the group, then a drag of the three selected engines.

Which is fine and all, but what about a case where you have a symmetric group, but want to move some of that group to another stage? If you expand the group and double click one of the items, you can separate individual items and move them to other stages.

[Superfluous J]

Oh yeah, the clamps is another pet peeve of mine.

Another thing that would be nice: the ability to drag a group of parts (three symmetric engines for example) by dragging the group, rather than one click to open the group, then a drag of the three selected engines.

Which is fine and all, but what about a case where you have a symmetric group, but want to move some of that group to another stage? If you expand the group and double click one of the items, you can separate individual items and move them to other stages.

Why can't we have both?

Click the stack, it opens. Double click an engine, it separates. Drag the stack (collapsed or open), it moves. Currently, dragging a collapsed stack does nothing which is counter-intuitive.

[Frederf]

That's how it works now? I can break up a collapsed group with a single click then adjust highlighting with other clicks and then drag the subset of the collapsed group.

[sojourner]

Might take years since I don't know how to code nor know how or where to start learning.

Then don't be so quick to judge how easy it is.

[Gnipu]

One way is to let the player choose everything. I.e. put the actions (?) in an "undefined" stage.

[Monkeh]

If we're talking about adding lots of parts and having to move them each time what I do is just add one, move it to the right stage and then copy that part with 'Alt LMB' and add another one on. Doing that will not only copy the part, (and any child parts), but also it's current stage as well. So with sepratrons add one, move stage, copy and repeat.

[Azimech]

Good one, would be terrific if this tip is added to the wiki!

[Frederf]

I'm going to try adding a lot of empty stages to my craft when I apply a subassembly so that the subassembly stages land in the empty slots (say 2-10) and leave the existing stages (say 11-20) unmolested.