The only thing thing that I care to see in .24

[draeath]

My chief complaint about struts is the part count and visual style. I've found myself using quantum struts solely so that I don't have strut-mounts studded around my upper stages, and such that my stations don't have half their part count being strut bolts that no longer have function.

The part hierarchy question is a problem of data structure. How does one allow circular references while still being flexible?

[PDCWolf]

I like how you guys change the argument to point to "bad designs" when even the most reasonable of them would wobble without struts.

Look at that one. It's even a replica of a real rocket (tronador 2). The 2.5m tanks would wobble like crazy and the same goes for the top stack joined by the adapter.

My Dnepr-1, which is also a replica, needs strutting between all it's tanks. and the ASAS.

Now tell me how are those designs insane or unrealistic or whatever the hell you want.

[1greywind]

This "discussion" reminds me this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60330-Lower-the-large-lights-at-the-ends-of-the-runway

In short: one guy built plane that can't takeoff from runway. It only flies then it jumps from end of runway and goes airborne due to small "cliff" next to runway end. So, instead of agree with that problem is in his plane design he blames runway lights to be to high, becouse his plane sometimes hit them.

Many people simple don't want to agree with fact, that they should work inside provided framework. If you can't do something within set limitations, then limitations will be changed, you still quickly get to things that you still can't do. And so then? Change rules again?

[PDCWolf]

Main difference is that his plane was a bad design. Wobble is a bug that appears on even the most sane of designs.

[OtherDalfite]

This "discussion" reminds me this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60330-Lower-the-large-lights-at-the-ends-of-the-runway

In short: one guy built plane that can't takeoff from runway. It only flies then it jumps from end of runway and goes airborne due to small "cliff" next to runway end. So, instead of agree with that problem is in his plane design he blames runway lights to be to high, becouse his plane sometimes hit them.

Many people simple don't want to agree with fact, that they should work inside provided framework. If you can't do something within set limitations, then limitations will be changed, you still quickly get to things that you still can't do. And so then? Change rules again?

I could understand your point, but KSP's atmospheric simulation is severely flawed. His plane may well have worked had KSP's atmospheric code not been so primitive. New aerodynamics is something KSP needs, because for now we have to abide by the laws of KSP's limitations rather than make sensible designs to work. For the case of wobble, we shouldn't have to have a real fear of wobble unless what we are designing is something that would not normally work in real life.

[BubbaWilkins]

I could understand your point, but KSP's atmospheric simulation is severely flawed. His plane may well have worked had KSP's atmospheric code not been so primitive. New aerodynamics is something KSP needs, because for now we have to abide by the laws of KSP's limitations rather than make sensible designs to work. For the case of wobble, we shouldn't have to have a real fear of wobble unless what we are designing is something that would not normally work in real life.

FAR does not eliminate wobble although I will concede that in atmosphere, it can be a factor. A "sensible" design factors in the limitations of the system you are operating in. Acknowledging that you know those limitations, but choose to ignore them is anything but sensible.

And personally, I rarely have a stage that is more than a 1:1 fuel tank to engine ratio. I find when I need more oomph, using larger/taller parts are much more sensible than stacking a bunch of little ones in the same space. Granted, the stock list is somewhat limited in that regard, but then again they never intended crafts to be as large we typically make them.

[DaMichel]

Blaming the lights is silly. But requesting a longer runway on the other hand ... I would have agreed with that.

Anyway, on topic. As long as there is KJR this it not so much of an issue. But really, have you ever seen a piece of metal wobble around IRL as if it was made out of rubber. Ah yeah bridges and stuff .. but planes and rockets? They seem rather stiff and of course all the support structure which takes the stresses is within the hull. If there where cubic girder elements sticking out all over the place, that would be really bad for aerodynamics, wouldn't it?

IMO a realistic looking rocket should also work properly. I could be wrong but it seems to be just a matter of tweaking some parameters in the physics engine in order to fix it.

[JiWint]

-snip-

http://i.imgur.com/mAvfZ0c.png

-snip

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom, Banana rocket!

http://i.imgur.com/3DSWYKt.png

Struts = Happy

Or something.

why...

Edited January 6, 2014 by JiWint

[OtherDalfite]

FAR does not eliminate wobble although I will concede that in atmosphere, it can be a factor. A "sensible" design factors in the limitations of the system you are operating in. Acknowledging that you know those limitations, but choose to ignore them is anything but sensible.

And personally, I rarely have a stage that is more than a 1:1 fuel tank to engine ratio. I find when I need more oomph, using larger/taller parts are much more sensible than stacking a bunch of little ones in the same space. Granted, the stock list is somewhat limited in that regard, but then again they never intended crafts to be as large we typically make them.

Oh no, I'm not arguing that you should build things like that right now. But I am implying that we shouldn't need to install mods in order to fix things that the game doesn't have currently. Most of the craft I build are very reliable, but if I am replicating a real launch vehicle, I occasionally run into wobble.

[thiosk]

One thing I want to make clear on wibbly wobbly timey wimey spaceships: MOAR STRUTS is the answer, but they can also be a source of the problem as well!

The key advance that made my ships tough as nails was to realize how loads were distributed and change during flight. You start a ship on the launch pad with a ring of mainsail'd boosters. Those boosters are strutted to the payload and to the center. Seems right, moar struts! However, as the boosters drain, the TWR goes through the roof. The struts are rigid, and they start PUSHING ON THE PAYLOAD substantially more than the center booster is! this causes a string of failures that can cause unexpected damage in unexpected parts of the ship, which reorients the structure, which makes it behave unpredictably. Instead, you want your side boosters pushing the central booster, which in turn pushes the payload.

So you want to strut parts IN LINE together, and you want to use standoffs and such, but you don't want to just strut willy nilly. Strut the boosters to their neighbors, strut the tanks together at the seams, and strut the boosters to the center. At the top of the central booster, put a ring of structural standoffs (octahedral struts or girders) and use those to strut higher up the payload. I like to put them on the booster and on the separator. Its pretty, its functional, and the massive performance gains of .23 (yes, they're massive, at least on my machine) really relaxes the demands of the added parts.

[CalculusWarrior]

why...

Because he's Whackjob, there is no why.

[regex]

strut the tanks together at the seams

Your post makes sense except for this. The need to stitch-strut is a problem with the game; the connections between tanks and engines should be much stronger/stiffer, as everyone in favor of it here has been stating.

E: I also find it amusing that everyone who comes along here seems to think all the supporters of stronger part bonds have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and need to have strutting explained to them.

Edited January 6, 2014 by regex

[sal_vager]

Why the need to stitch strut? I've never had to do this.

[regex]

Why the need to stitch strut? I've never had to do this.

I know, right? It's almost as if everyone is just imagining wobbly rockets.

[3_bit]

No, no... the Kraken will likely live forever. It's like computer bugs. Fix one and two more pop up.

[sal_vager]

No, no... the Kraken will likely live forever. It's like computer bugs. Fix one and two more pop up.

That's the Hydra, it lags you whenever you look at the ocean

But seriously, you don't need many struts to stop a wobbly rocket.

[Sof]

I've come to the conclusion here that the people who complain about wobble fall into one of two categories:

A: Poorly designed rockets

B: Try and build replica or near replica IRL rockets (This is KSP, the physics behave slightly differently)

There is some sympathy for B category people, but those who fall under A (everyone else who is complaining without actually trying to build "real" rockets) just need to adapt and design better.

[PDCWolf]

I've come to the conclusion here that the people who complain about wobble fall into one of two categories:

A: Poorly designed rockets

B: Try and build replica or near replica IRL rockets (This is KSP, the physics behave slightly differently)

There is some sympathy for B category people, but those who fall under A (everyone else who is complaining without actually trying to build "real" rockets) just need to adapt and design better.

And I can come and say the defenders that come here fall into two categories:

A: People that defend wobble using "kerbals are orks" concept and SO KERBAL XD jokes

B: People that think they are superior because they overcame the challenge of strutting (Wow, such a challenge, putting things between tanks and radially)

And that there's no sympathy for any of those 2 groups from me because both hurt the game.

I also love how building rockets that look like rockets is wrong and rockets that don't look like them is also wrong. What is the correct design to avoid wobble? smashing your stuff on the ground?

[draeath]

Smashing it into the ground is always the correct course of action.

[thiosk]

Your post makes sense except for this. The need to stitch-strut is a problem with the game; the connections between tanks and engines should be much stronger/stiffer, as everyone in favor of it here has been stating.

E: I also find it amusing that everyone who comes along here seems to think all the supporters of stronger part bonds have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and need to have strutting explained to them.

I certainly agree. The strength of links could be jazzed up. Tanks in particular shouldn't break in half under most circumstances. I also find docking ports to be a bit too weak. I find the need to stitch primarily in two cases:

1. when the suggestion to not strut side boosters to the payload is ignored.

2. for very tall rockets. I find weakness in payloads that protrude by ~2 orange tanks from the central booster, usually presenting during the early stage of the gravity turn. I've seen my turns shear off the payload at a variety of locations.

My own improved rocket design has greatly decreased the need to stitch, but I still do it occasionally out of habit but in general for very large boosters (3x orange tank) and occasionally for side boosters of very heavy rockets- when the simulation starts and the whole vessel drops against the launch supports, everything gets a good test jolt. I joint strut extensively when I get failures then.

Having docking ports in line requires a lot of struts too. I often shear heavy components at the docking port-->seperator attachment.

Edited January 6, 2014 by thiosk

[Albert VDS]

In the real world huge things tend to wobble.

Bridges:

Skyscrapers:

Towers:

Rockets:

The bigger they are the easier they wobble.

[draeath]

It's one thing to oscillate slightly, it's another entirely to breakdance. tossing the formerly-attached pieces around like it's having a tantrum.

[csiler2]

And I can come and say the defenders that come here fall into two categories:

A: People that defend wobble using "kerbals are orks" concept and SO KERBAL XD jokes

B: People that think they are superior because they overcame the challenge of strutting (Wow, such a challenge, putting things between tanks and radially)

And that there's no sympathy for any of those 2 groups from me because both hurt the game.

I also love how building rockets that look like rockets is wrong and rockets that don't look like them is also wrong. What is the correct design to avoid wobble? smashing your stuff on the ground?

PDCWolf, Have you read any of the flavor text or watched any of the SQUAD videos? If so, how many have featured a very serious, very professional NASA like attitude to space exploration? As far as I can tell, very few. The game developers have a far more whimsical view of the game than a lot of the players who take it as a 'for serious' simulation game. I feel that it is this subset that is most critical of the way Squad has implemented construction and physics from joints to the 'fragility' of parts.

It is not inappropriate to use the "kerbals are orks" and SO KERBAL XD jokes as defenses for why the joints aren't the best. We're playing a game where some Kerblnauts come with a "Badass=true" flag to ensure they're always brave and parts with flavor texts about being found in a junkyard or on the side of the road. As far as I can tell, the developers take a Magic School Bus attitude to rocket construction, "Take Chances, Make Mistakes, Get Messy," or at least "Take Chances, Make Mistakes, Blow Up Rockets." If everything is super strong, works perfectly, and gets you into orbit even when poorly engineered, then the game becomes very boring. I have a lot of fun designing, testing, and refining designs. I have enjoyed the challenges of building stable rockets and probably would not keep playing KSP if there weren't some engineering challenges beyond making sure I have enough ∆V to get where I want to go.

To me, that means expecting the players to build appropriate thrust plates and use struts to counter the 'floppiness' inherent in some connections. I rarely have need for struts or build structures beyond attaching strap-on boosters or protecting instrumentation placed between a high TWR lower stage and a heavy payload (which is fair in my opinion). I turn to real-world rockets for design and flight operation inspiration. I coax my rockets through gentle gravity turns instead of whipping them over to 45Ëš at 10K and I keep my accelerations low to minimize stress on my designs. I stress sending multi-rocket missions to faraway destinations and in-orbit assembly over massive payloads. All of this is to avoid having my rockets collapse under stresses

There are plenty of super-heavy lifters in the rocket designs forum that can make it into orbit without being strutted monstrosities, so I'm a bit confused why people are having so much trouble with 'floppy joints'. To me this says that they need to either A) Be more gentle with their designs. Have a better understanding of the stresses and dynamics inherent in their designs or C) a combination of both.

Persecuting people who don't agree with you is just as damaging, if not more so, to the community. Sof's points are valid. There should be some expectation that players need to learn how to appropriately 'design' a rocket to perform its task in KSP. If you're more interested in aesthetics than engineering, go play a space sandbox builder instead.

[PDCWolf]

PDCWolf, Have you read any of the flavor text or watched any of the SQUAD videos? If so, how many have featured a very serious, very professional NASA like attitude to space exploration? As far as I can tell, very few. The game developers have a far more whimsical view of the game than a lot of the players who take it as a 'for serious' simulation game. I feel that it is this subset that is most critical of the way Squad has implemented construction and physics from joints to the 'fragility' of parts.

Squad said wobble is a bug, and also said the descriptions and the junkyard pieces thing is a placeholder. The fact that they are not holding to that because it generates more sales from people who want a disaster simulator that makes them feel right for not being able to reach orbit is totally different.

Their attitude against the game changed from a "Orbiter introductory simulator" to a "Glorified disaster simulation".

It is not inappropriate to use the "kerbals are orks" and SO KERBAL XD jokes as defenses for why the joints aren't the best. We're playing a game where some Kerblnauts come with a "Badass=true" flag to ensure they're always brave and parts with flavor texts about being found in a junkyard or on the side of the road. As far as I can tell, the developers take a Magic School Bus attitude to rocket construction, "Take Chances, Make Mistakes, Get Messy," or at least "Take Chances, Make Mistakes, Blow Up Rockets." If everything is super strong, works perfectly, and gets you into orbit even when poorly engineered, then the game becomes very boring. I have a lot of fun designing, testing, and refining designs. I have enjoyed the challenges of building stable rockets and probably would not keep playing KSP if there weren't some engineering challenges beyond making sure I have enough ∆V to get where I want to go.

There's a difference between user mistake (making bad rockets) and crap physics (Wobble, aerodynamics). Wobble is not a challenge at all, strutting rocket isn't either, they both should disappear, at least for sane structures. Everything being strong and working as expected would be far better than a user designing a rocket and finding out it works like a spaghetti.

You are just exagerating things a lot on that particular paragraph, nobody talked about things being super strong, just tanks and stack elements having stronger joints to avoid wobble. You somehow think making connections stronger will allow everything to reach orbit, when you forget you need some practice and/or on-screen information and a minimal idea of how orbital mechanics work.

To me, that means expecting the players to build appropriate thrust plates and use struts to counter the 'floppiness' inherent in some connections. I rarely have need for struts or build structures beyond attaching strap-on boosters or protecting instrumentation placed between a high TWR lower stage and a heavy payload (which is fair in my opinion). I turn to real-world rockets for design and flight operation inspiration. I coax my rockets through gentle gravity turns instead of whipping them over to 45Ëš at 10K and I keep my accelerations low to minimize stress on my designs. I stress sending multi-rocket missions to faraway destinations and in-orbit assembly over massive payloads. All of this is to avoid having my rockets collapse under stresses

I like how you assume everyone complaining about wobble does everything wrong when the ones complaining make some of the best designs available, at least when relating to reality and or simply looking and working like a rocket. Believe me when I say you are totally wrong on this one, you are not the only one that designs good rockets. People complaining here are the authors of some beautiful machines and they know how to pilot them too.

There are plenty of super-heavy lifters in the rocket designs forum that can make it into orbit without being strutted monstrosities, so I'm a bit confused why people are having so much trouble with 'floppy joints'. To me this says that they need to either A) Be more gentle with their designs. Have a better understanding of the stresses and dynamics inherent in their designs or C) a combination of both.

Again, pure assumptions.

Persecuting people who don't agree with you is just as damaging, if not more so, to the community. Sof's points are valid. There should be some expectation that players need to learn how to appropriately 'design' a rocket to perform its task in KSP. If you're more interested in aesthetics than engineering, go play a space sandbox builder instead.

There's a break point from designing something that looks and works appropriately and when you take it to the pad and it turns out it spaghettifies because of a bug. Hell, you guys don't even have an argument for wobble, all you do is say "your design is bad" which has been proven wrong multiple times or you point to "It's part of the game" which even squad said it isn't. Going beyond that is just blind fanatism and clinging to a game-breaking bug because some people told you it was a feature.

[Seret]

Squad said wobble is a bug

So if they're on the case why complain?