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

[John FX]

Too low TWR, too little torque to bend. By the time the twr is good (for normal rockets) you are not fighting any force.

Well, given this is an abstraction it is correct to assume that 5 tanks together form a bigger one (I'm talking about internal tank structure) than just act like 5 different tanks. Wobble is still a problem and a bug, even if avoidable.

Procedural everything kills the challenge in creating replicas, at least for me. Thank you for calling me an elitist just for liking a bit more challenge than you.

But wobble is still there and it's going to show sooner or later.

I get procedural everything, and wobble is still unsolved so the next guy is going to come on the forum and complain about it. Do you plan on telling everybody to use a mod to overcome a bug or is it better to have squad finally fix it?

Even if there are workarounds (sacrificing the aesthetics) wobble is still a problem and is going to show up eventually.

I didn`t specifically call you elitist, To paraphrase for clarity, I tried to say that people who preferred current solutions over the introduction of procedural ones may prefer to do things in a difficult way rather than an easy way that will produce better results and so I regard that as masochistic. The ones that want to maintain difficulty to stop others easily building similar rockets are elitist.

So a rocket with lower TWR on the pad and lower amounts of torque eliminates the problems. This really sounds like rocket design at the cause of a lot of wobble some people are suffering. A solid stack of 5 tanks will have to currently be welded together using the weld part mod, not an option I would suggest, otherwise they will be really wobbly. I don`t like the idea generally of welding parts together and not calculating their physics.

Even this uses lots of tanks above the engines. Cut them down and then try to make it wobbly. This wobble is of your own causing.

You could do this

or you could do this.

Same performance, one wobbles, one does not. Show me picture of a wobbly rocket stack where you have not used more than one tank where one should do and I`ll reconsider your case.

Edit : You may notice the only person who likes my top example which wobbles is Jeb...

I`m not suggesting using a mod, I`m suggesting procedural tanks, fairings and wings get made stock. Then people who only play stock can use them too.

Edited January 8, 2014 by John FX

[Fleb]

The wobble had nothing to do with what you think actually, it worked perfectly fine with zero wobble untill I put a 30ton payload on there. At that point it swayed left to right in a rather phallic manner , there was just too much weight high up. Putting less tanks above the engines wasn't an option as I didn't have orange tanks, and it would have destroyed the TWR of each stage. I don't have a problem with wobbling generally, I have played the game for a long time so I knoiw how to avoid it, but I understand that some people find it frustrating.

I stopped the wobble with this.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Fleb

[Wahgineer]

What those of use who are pro-strong tanks mean is that the tanks have more rigid connections to a reasonable extent. Should a 500m tall rocket wobble? Yes. Should a 80m tall rocket wobble? No. Should a 30m tall rocket wobble? no. Should you need struts to hold down radial stages? Yes.

[PDCWolf]

"Ocean lag" is in the tracker, bug #1569.

Sorry, but "you'll have to trust me" is pretty unconvincing, you need to back that up with some actual evidence. If somebody in authority made a statement on it at some point, you should be able to dig that out.

You are free to believe or not. Time will tell, for I speak no lies.

My view: if it's not in the tracker, don't expect it to get fixed. There's no real reason they'd need to keep it out of the public tracker, since it's such an old issue. If you really want to prove your point, open a bug for wobbly parts and see what happens. I'll be standing by to eat my hat if need be.

My view is that for the tracker to be useful everybody should use it. Some people don't even know it exists in the first place. Views are views and again, time will tell.

As much as I hate to say it I think it would no longer be Kerbal Space if they completely took away the wobbling. Just look the newbies who just started playing the game. The random wobbling, explosions and such due to lack of struts is a part of the reason they find this game fun from the very beginning.

A large amount of the people who start out playing this game mainy does it for fun and the explosions and then later move on to make more serious ships and learning the physics behind it. If we take away this part then these people might not get to the point where they realize that space and the more serious simulator aspect of it is fun as well.

[Djolox]

Moar Struts but internal that's what today's rockets have.

[Peter KG6LSE]

IMO make one of the tanks be a scale tank . that you can Drag long or short .

A: it lets you dial in the fuel load .

B: It will reduce the wobble ...

I ask for one thing . EVA tethers....... Come ON! Ed White used it on Gemini,

Edited January 11, 2014 by Peter KG6LSE

[Captain_Party]

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. End of thread.

[LameLefty]

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. End of thread.

You know, I'd be complete happy if the devs called up Ferram, thanked him for his hard work, passed him an envelope stuffed with cash, then incorporated that mod into the stock game.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

You know, I'd be complete happy if the devs called up Ferram, thanked him for his hard work, passed him an envelope stuffed with cash, then incorporated that mod into the stock game.

Definitely

[Stephanie the Viking]

I do not find bracing to be an issue, I play stock only (mods become outdated and I can't be bothered with that in this game)

The real issue is, as has been mentioned several times, one fuel tank is often sufficient for any particular stage, and any extra fuel that is required should be applied radially and not vertically. Another particularly useful approach I have found is to build the initial core as the final orbital rocket, and build the second and third launch stages outwards from that rather than below [within reason]. The orbital/transfer/main spacecraft can sit atop this construction, providing enough triangles are constructed to hold each part to its neighbours. Struts only weigh 0.05 anyway, so using them will never add any significant weight issues in my experience. I have carried the most obscene constructions into space by using the 'several cores' method because the entire rocket never really goes above 120m in height.

Another nifty approach is to have extra engines placed radially on the final craft to aid and stabilize the final launch rocket which is applying thrust some distance below it.

http://www./view/myfiles/#kwhihrx8ys5i4po

http://www./view/myfiles/#6whs60n6paak652

http://www./view/myfiles/#wz4e81kow5sk31v

Edited January 11, 2014 by sjwt

[Bartman]

Gotta have a better way of maneuvering the Kerbals on EVAs. The camera view with the little guys just doesn't cut it. Maybe I'm just too ham handed with the keyboard but if I get more than a few meters off the ship, I have a hell of a time getting back. Then once you get too far away, there's no point of reference anymore to judge your speed and direction getting back. I've lost a half dozen Kerbalnauts before finding out about the Quicksave but still. there's gotta be a better way. I can sweat through 3-4 tries before I can close a small gap from station to capsule without smacking a key to get going the wrong way or too fast. They really should be able to move from ship to ship and from module to module in space stations without having to go outside. Or how about a tether so you don't go flying off to Infinity like Sandra Kerban!

[GusTurbo]

You know, I'd be complete happy if the devs called up Ferram, thanked him for his hard work, passed him an envelope stuffed with cash, then incorporated that mod into the stock game.

Agreed.

I tire of the chorus of "more struts" whenever this topic comes up. Struts add to part count, which detracts from performance. I hate having to waste parts on struts when I'm designing craft where those parts could go to good aesthetic use.

[Yakuzi]

You know, I'd be complete happy if the devs called up Ferram, thanked him for his hard work, passed him an envelope stuffed with cash, then incorporated that mod into the stock game.

This...

Engines falling off without apparent reason and banana bending of rockets are bugs that need to be fixed (though I do like my struts)

[allmhuran]

The main problem (which KJR fixes) is not joint strength. It's joint rigidity. The rockets are wobbly, because the connections, instead of being rigid, are flexible. A real rocket doesn't bend much under force, but at some point, it snaps. Which KSP is perfectly capable of simulating. Structural failures can and do happen with KJR. It's just that they happen where you'd expect them, when you would expect them. That means under high aerodynamic loads and too strong control inputs.

It's unfortunate that this post got lost in the avalanche because it's exactly on point, and it reconciles the two camps that otherwise seem to be at each other's throats. Kudos to Dragon01.

[Immashift]

From B9 designs thread, page 14. (NOT MINE)

I really, really haven't had issues with wobbly rockets. At least, not the ones I design myself. I also hate struts, and usually use either none or as few as possible. I still don't have problems. I generally design my rockets while considering the balance of the weight of all the parts I add, and ask myself what would happen with the physics of these parts were I to perhaps try turning rapidly, igniting an engine suddenly, or whatever.

Usually doing that, and placing things intelligently, I come up with designs that don't bend, or shake themselves to pieces before orbit. The ONLY problem I seem to have regarding structural rigidity, is when I use very heavy rockets, powered by extremely large engines. The engine tends to offset itself from the base of the rocket as I increase thrust. Most of the time even struts won't solve that. I usually solve it by making that stage a pre-orbit stage that detaches and I therefore don't care if the engine moves a bit.

Yes, KSP doesn't do rigid joints very well, but if your rockets are acting like well-cooked noodles, it's partially your bad design, IMO. Don't need strut spam to make things stable. Struts, again in my opinion, are a way to make up for your own bad design choices.

[rkman]

Also can someone explain to me why the Cubic Octagonal Strut appears to have the strongest joints in the game

The game is not yet finalized. All part balance is up in the air until the game is finished.

[FellipeC]

You know, I'd be complete happy if the devs called up Ferram, thanked him for his hard work, passed him an envelope stuffed with cash, then incorporated that mod into the stock game.

Would be very fair and good for KSP. I approve this.

[CalculusWarrior]

Would be very fair and good for KSP. I approve this.

So do I. This would increase my enjoyment of the game immensely!

[Astronaut]

Exactly how big do you want your rockets?

http://imgur.com/a/ouzzA

Where are you gonna send that monster? Another solar system?

[MaverickSawyer]

I've been using KJR... Haven't really used struts except on REALLY oddball connections, like having a very large part attached to a 0.625m Decoupler (Yes, I do that sometimes. It's just how it worked out. )

[GusTurbo]

From B9 designs thread, page 14. (NOT MINE)

I really, really haven't had issues with wobbly rockets. At least, not the ones I design myself. I also hate struts, and usually use either none or as few as possible. I still don't have problems. I generally design my rockets while considering the balance of the weight of all the parts I add, and ask myself what would happen with the physics of these parts were I to perhaps try turning rapidly, igniting an engine suddenly, or whatever.

Usually doing that, and placing things intelligently, I come up with designs that don't bend, or shake themselves to pieces before orbit. The ONLY problem I seem to have regarding structural rigidity, is when I use very heavy rockets, powered by extremely large engines. The engine tends to offset itself from the base of the rocket as I increase thrust. Most of the time even struts won't solve that. I usually solve it by making that stage a pre-orbit stage that detaches and I therefore don't care if the engine moves a bit.

Yes, KSP doesn't do rigid joints very well, but if your rockets are acting like well-cooked noodles, it's partially your bad design, IMO. Don't need strut spam to make things stable. Struts, again in my opinion, are a way to make up for your own bad design choices.

My problem isn't so much wobbly rockets as it is rockets that randomly fall apart.

[Loerelau]

Bug fixing (like the d*mn 'can't undock' bug) and more science experiments!

[Seret]

(like the d*mn 'can't undock' bug)

IIRC that's supposed to be fixed now.

[Loerelau]

Unfortunately it's not... I do know there is a fix, but I'm not good in editing save files...

[daschizznit]

From what i know, the current node attachment system has issues because both nodes want to dominate the connection, leading to arguing between the two and instability. with the new system, they have cleaned up the node domination issue, now i think it will be the parent node dominating the child node. but that is all from what ive heard, at any rate as long as wobble is saved for ridiculous craft, then i am ok with it.