How do you feel about part clipping?

[Remkeau]

I use nondebug clipping mainly when creating larger deltawings on SSTOs, it is really hard to make a good looking wing without holes if you don't clip some panels through eachother imho. The tail cone is also subject to that for making sleek engine clusters on rockets.

[Streetwind]

Part clipping seems to largely be done on aircraft. I hardly ever see rockets that feature heavy clipping; if they have it at all, it's really minor. On the other hand, I rarely ever see spaceplanes that are not clipped. If I limit the selection to "spaceplanes that fly well", the already small number of non-clipped craft drops off sharply again. It seems that the current system of building planes does not satisfy users at all, and basically demands the use of part clipping (in the eyes of those players). And it's understandable: whenever I build planes (which is not often, but still), I always struggle with properly attaching parts to each other in a way that I never do when building rockets.

As for my personal view of the subject, I consider it somewhat cheaty because space does matter. If I have a rocket with a 2.5m diameter, then six 1.25m diameter engines simply do not fit. Period. KSP is meant to be a physics simulator, and in my opinion, ignoring an object's spatial dimensions leads the whole point ad absurdum. If the craft has only room for one engine, it only gets one engine, not two clipped right on top of each other. Everything else is deliberately breaking the laws of physics; you might as well hack gravity so that your craft flies with only one engine. Both means have the same end result, and both means are equally cheats. This counts double if you gain additional benefits on top of having two engines, such as being able to combine a high-Isp rocket engine with an air-breathing turbojet. You're effectively bypassing the challenge in fuel management and in construction that the game sets you. If you want both of these legitly, you would have to build your plane in such a way that it has room for these engines without causing asymmetric thrust, making the task more difficult.

However, I acknowledge that KSP is also a sandbox, and that people should be allowed to play with the toys they are given the way they want, and set their own challenges. While part clipping is a cheat from the perspective of the stock gameplay goals, those don't have to be the only goals. Some people like to define their own goals, such as "my craft all have to look like something that exists IRL". And in the face of that goal, part clipping is not a cheat, but rather an enabler. It lets you get around an obvious limitation in the game engine (properly attaching two parts to one another) and pull off designs that without the clipping feature wouldn't be possible.

As such, while I personally refuse to use part clipping, I'm not in any way against its existence in the game. If people find it a useful tool to set themselves new goals, that's a perfectly valid reason for it to exist in the framework of a sandbox. And nobody forces me to use it, anyway.

[Random Tank]

The most common case where I use clipping is to avoid that stupid glitch where a symmetric part will refuse to place on both sides, just one side will. I know this can be solved by just using 2 separate parts, but I prefer the symmetry for control.

I do occasionally use clipping on some planes, but most of the time I won't need the debug menu to do it...

[NecroBones]

There's a range of part clipping. Clipping one fuel tank inside another to double its capacity feels cheaty to me, clipping the edges of an engine (not the nozzle) to make an engine cluster does not. But that's just me, I don't care a whole lot about aesthetics.

Basically, if part clipping increases your enjoyment of the game, go ahead and don't let anyone tell you you're having fun the wrong way.

Very much the way I look at it too. It feels like it's cheating if parts are completely inside one another, to double/triple/etc the capacity/thrust/whatever. But creatively combining parts to make smoother transitions between components can be just another tool in the toolbox, so to speak.

As for my personal view of the subject, I consider it somewhat cheaty because space does matter. If I have a rocket with a 2.5m diameter, then six 1.25m diameter engines simply do not fit. Period. KSP is meant to be a physics simulator, and in my opinion, ignoring an object's spatial dimensions leads the whole point ad absurdum. If the craft has only room for one engine, it only gets one engine, not two clipped right on top of each other. Everything else is deliberately breaking the laws of physics; you might as well hack gravity so that your craft flies with only one engine.

Yes, this too.

Edited April 9, 2014 by NecroBones

[zarakon]

I do it a bit, but I try to do it in ways that make sense, where just structural parts overlap

I also love to use the radial attachment option from editor extensions

[Pecan]

NecroBones says it for me, including quoting Red Iron Crown and Streetwind :-)

Cubic octagonal struts feature quite a bit in my designs to allow engine-clustering, for instance, but those engines don't clip into each other. Similarly, I'll use the tail connector to cluster engines around a tank, justifying it as "this is adding a fairing to the outside of the tank, in the real world it wouldn't clip inside the tank so I'm not cheating on fuel capacity" (Kashua's point). Aesthetics yes, but as with what others have said, the point, challenge and interest of KSP for me is seeing what I can do within the spirit and, preferably, letter of the 'rules' so no clipping that doesn't make 'sense'.

[ETA: to be clear - it's fine if you find a different "point, challenge and interest" in KSP but my personal preference is for the technical engineering]

Edited April 9, 2014 by Pecan

[lammatt]

people clip to airhog.

and this is stupid now, as flying spaceplane is very easy now with the rapier

[Felsmak]

It's a gift from the gods! My Kerpollo lander wouldn't have been possible to make without it.

[Spartwo]

wouldn't have been possible to make without it.

This is my breaking point,If you can't do it without you shouldn't do it with (IMO)

[Felsmak]

This is my breaking point,If you can't do it without you shouldn't do it with (IMO)

Why not? I love it!

[42undead2]

If you want to do it, go do it. Unless you're in some sort of challenge involving other people and/or under some rules that disallow it, you can go nuts.

[JedTech]

People can do whatever they think is fun. For me it feels like part clipping is bending the rules (cheating). So I have fun with the challenge of designing my vessels without it.

[Pecan]

What's clipped on it? I have no problem with the RCS tanks around the engine, they look quite neat there and aren't clipping 'into' it to any noticeable extent.

[ScottyDoesKnow]

Personally I don't do it, but I see no problem with it for visual reasons (mainly planes, but even putting small radial objects inside hollow spaces I don't mind). Stuff like clipping engines inside each other I think is just cheating, but as always everyone's free to play how they want.

[karolus10]

I think that in most cases Part clipping is a way to go around editor limitations and use it do do more things that It was designed for like engine clusters or hiding batteries and other stuff inside hull.

Building Saturn style, anyone ?

Also as long as clipping tanks inside each other may feel cheaty and not very logical, Having 2 tanks inside each other are equal in means of weight and capacity to 2 tanks just stacked on top of each other, so it didn't had any impact on the game-play.

Edited April 9, 2014 by karolus10

[ScottyDoesKnow]

What's clipped on it? I have no problem with the RCS tanks around the engine, they look quite neat there and aren't clipping 'into' it to any noticeable extent.

Judging by the arrow under the ladder, it looks like it's a fuel tank clipped into a decoupler. Though it would look pretty similar with a stack separator anyways.

[Spartwo]

Why not? I love it!

When it boosts performance in comparison to a non-clipped craft with identical parts it feels like cheating to me.(No idea why I put IMO in,the thread is essentially a opinion pile)

[Klingon Admiral]

How exactly is part clipping defined? I don't use the part clipping option in the cheats menu, but it is pretty easy to let parts clip inside each other anyways.

[r4pt0r]

cliping 2 tanks inside of eachother results in a shorter rocket, making it more stable, when it should be long and unwieldy.

[Felsmak]

What's clipped on it? I have no problem with the RCS tanks around the engine, they look quite neat there and aren't clipping 'into' it to any noticeable extent.

Judging by the arrow under the ladder, it looks like it's a fuel tank clipped into a decoupler. Though it would look pretty similar with a stack separator anyways.

That's pretty much it for the descent stage, yes. The ascent stage has a fuel tank clipped inside the T-can, with four radial engines protruding from the bottom.

When it boosts performance in comparison to a non-clipped craft with identical parts it feels like cheating to me.(No idea why I put IMO in,the thread is essentially a opinion pile)

The performance is the same as it would've been without it - it just made the lander a bit more compact than it would've been otherwise. Purely cosmetic, really.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Felsmak

[pizzaoverhead]

The performance is the same as it would've been without it - it just made the lander a bit more compact than it would've been otherwise. Purely cosmetic, really.

The main difficulty with lander designs is due to stability, depending on the CoM height above the ground contact points. By merging your craft vertically, you've improved its performance as a lander above what would be possible without part clipping. It makes for an attractive craft, but it is definitely much easier to fly than the standard vertical Apollo designs that are possible with noclip-KSP.

[timsfitz]

I don't use clipping at all. Seems like cheating to me. Its not at all necessary and its silly. Obviously I don't care what other people do with their games. To each their own.

[r4pt0r]

The ascent stage has a fuel tank clipped inside the T-can, with four radial engines protruding from the bottom.

where do the kerbals sit if theres a tank in their lander can?

[Red Iron Crown]

Kerbals obviously build things in more dimensions than the three we're used to.

[TMS]

Clipping is necessary for beautiful designs.

I don't want a load of crap adorned all over the sides of my craft.