A statement on part clipping

[RoboRay]

But isn't the purpose of part clipping usually to make things look better? Like, instead of having a lot of protruding parts, or just a generally unattractive craft, you simply squash everything together and pretend it's sophisticated engineering.

Can you really look at Frank_G's example and say that it's pretending to be sophisticated engineering?

I try to do the same kind of thing, making logical use of "empty" space in structural elements and so forth, but I rarely accomplish it as well as he did.

[Jouni]

But isn't the purpose of part clipping usually to make things look better? Like, instead of having a lot of protruding parts, or just a generally unattractive craft, you simply squash everything together and pretend it's sophisticated engineering.

That's what people say, but it doesn't work for me. If I see part clipping, the ship starts looking ugly, and I can't help it.

[cantab]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that. Personally I prefer building the more "raw" look with everything visible, but I can still appreciate a sleek lander like the above example.

[Franklin]

Gotta keep in mind even without clipping on the VAB lets you naturally clip things into each other. A little jiggle here, a little rotation there, and you can hide almost anything into anything else and the game will give you a big green approval. I hide batteries under nosecones all the time, and the game seems perfectly all right with it. And why not? It's an empty cone, why can't I put a battery in it? The mass is all the same.

So really the line between clipping-on and clipping-off placement is vague at best, and while tank stacking is the most common abuse, like everyone said, it's your game. Do what makes you happy, who cares.

Plus Frank_G's lander there is real cool.

[Felsmak]

Can you really look at Frank_G's example and say that it's pretending to be sophisticated engineering?

I try to do the same kind of thing, making logical use of "empty" space in structural elements and so forth, but I rarely accomplish it as well as he did.

That's a sweet looking craft for sure! Mine usually don't look that neat, though. I just stick parts wherever I can and use my imagination to explain it all. Nobody's going to see it anyway.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Felsmak

[GusTurbo]

I love part clipping.

[Hattivat]

No, that really doesn't "fix" it, just adds to it. If you think the SLS parts are imbalanced (and I agree that they are), you haven't seen some of the mods I've seen.

Stock ion and jet engines are simply insanely OP... and yet people make mod ions and jets that are even more powerful. But making something like this or this is "cheating" because a few of the parts are clipped together...

I've seen a fair share of overpowered mod parts myself (mostly sci-fi-inspired stuff), but relatively few people use them. For every screenshot I see of someone using a silly star trek drive, I see ten others using mods that actually make the game harder/more immersive, so I'm becoming tired of seeing people complain about boogeyman "overpowered mods" in every other thread.

And I don't consider part clipping "cheating", I just find it funny when people act as if using the debug console was somehow morally superior to installing mods. You know, some people are all like "I'm gonna include "NO MODS USED!!!" in my thread title, as if it was something to brag about, even though I had to clip a tank into a tank that was itself clipped into a command pod to make that design work".

Edit: Also, I gotta say some of the designs posted above are looking great.

[Frank_G]

I should have mentioned that for unmanned lander with transfer stage (top picture) it wasn´t necessary to turn a cheat on...

it is simply done by rotating certain parts inward, or placing them on an adapter plate before adding it to the hull segment (ASAS module in this case).

What i really hate when people do part clipping designs are engines or tanks occupying the same space or breaching each others borders... it looks ugly in almost every case.

Especially when the interfering objects start flickering and showing ugly edges. From that point i can totally understand, why one would not use part clipping techniques.

Oh, and thank you all for the positive feedback

[Frank_G]

And as i posted the last post, i just saw the above design by GusTurbo which does what i say i hated but it looks awesome... I guess it is just a balancing game between aesthetics and just crunching stuff together that makes all the difference.

[SciMan]

I use editor extentions so I don't even have to go to the debug menu to turn part clipping on or off.

That being said, I usually reserve it for those inevitable times when something SHOULD connect, but the game just goes "Oh you wanted to put 3 1.25m tanks on a 1.25m to 3x 1.25m tri-coupler? NO NO NO we can't be letting you use parts the exact way they were meant to be used, no sir!" That kind of stuff.

(To be fair, I've never had a tri-coupler do that, but you get the idea)

[Comrade Jenkens]

I don't clip control surfaces, engines, fuel tanks and engines inside each other. Apart from that I consider it fair game.

[Cupcake...]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

"No clippy, no pretty..."

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Cupcake...

Edited July 8, 2014 by Cupcake...

[allmhuran]

There's only really one time when anything in the game is "cheating", and that's when you're putting your work directly in competition with someone else's work... ie, for challenges, or when claiming some kind of ultra difficult achievement. In such cases part clipping can be advantageous - for example, you can stick fuel tanks inside other fuel tanks so that your ship is not as geometrically large which helps with launches, controllability, etc. You can put dozens of control surfaces inside your aircraft to again make them ultra manoeuvrable. And so on. So in the case of a challenge, I think it's up to the challenge organizer to say whether part clipping is OK for their challenge, and for achievement claims, well, I guess people should just be honest and note whether they used clipping to get the job done.

When it comes to performing your own personal, routine missions for your own personal enjoyment (and posting your mission reports), for pure comedy or entertainment, or anything like that, I don't see how there can be any kind of cheating, since there isn't any kind of competition going on.

[RoboRay]

I just find it funny when people act as if using the debug console was somehow morally superior to installing mods. You know, some people are all like "I'm gonna include "NO MODS USED!!!" in my thread title, as if it was something to brag about

Oh, right... Yeah, I'm not one of those guys. I use mods all the time, though I do tend to stick with stock engines unless a mod engine fits a niche that the stock ones have left vacant.

Here's my latest SSTO spaceplane design, with mod parts and clipping required:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Oh, and thank you all for the positive feedback

Thank you for the brilliant lander design I'm going to steal.

Edited July 8, 2014 by RoboRay

[weezl]

IMHO the editor is so full of oddities and bugs that there's no meaningful difference between clipping with and without the debug option. Personally I'm not opposed to clipping generally, though it feels iffy if parts are completely hidden or/and the clipping makes the ship perform like it looks it shouldn't.

^^ this.

The early adopter part of this game can definitely be felt in the VAB. On these ground alone anything you do via debug is not cheating.. and to echo other posters.. hang what other folks say is cheating.. if you did it, if it works, and it pleases.. its good.

To me personally.. in reference to gaming in general.. if I do something that makes the game easier to 'beat', makes AI stupid, gives me overpowered units, etc... something that makes achieving what I want to achieve trivial rather than requiring me to work at is as designed.. that classifies as a stupid move for ME. I didn't buy the game to be bored after 15 minutes because I did something to make it easy.. that is the only real sense of the word cheating that matters to me.. because I'm cheating myself. This also echoes the posters on this thread.. at the end of the day the only real judge that is important on this subject is you.

[kbatman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

"No clippy, no pretty..."

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Cupcake...

Save the best for last on that.....

Any one you walk away from, right?

[KerrMü]

The first thing I do after entering the SPH is alt-f12 enable part-clipping. I just like my crafts pretty. And like most people here, I set myself some restrictions. Like no engine-clipping and so on. To be fair, nobody ever complained.

[AlamoVampire]

No, that really doesn't "fix" it, just adds to it. If you think the SLS parts are imbalanced (and I agree that they are), you haven't seen some of the mods I've seen.

<snip>

The ARM parts are based off of NASA's SLS (Space Launch System) which, in reality, is going to be the worlds MOST POWERFUL ROCKET EVER BUILT. With that in mind, and this link here confirming what I just said, the ARM parts are if ANYTHING under powered. Heck, if you look at the bottom stage of the ARM variant of SLS, it is missing ONE engine, where the real deal has 5. SLS, now ARM rocket equiv:

my point being is this: if anything, STOCK is underpowered compared to what NASA gave Squad to give us with 0.23.5. its apples to oranges honestly

[Jouni]

my point being is this: if anything, STOCK is underpowered compared to what NASA gave Squad to give us with 0.23.5. its apples to oranges honestly

There was a lot of discussion about the ARM engines in April. In the end, my conclusions were the following:

• The KS-25x4 engine cluster has too much thrust. In reality, the SLS first stage won't be able to lift itself without boosters. Because the first stage uses Space Shuttle Main Engines, the KS-25x4 should essentially be a cluster of four Skippers.
  
• The LFB has too little thrust and too high Isp. Given that the real booster is going to use two F-1 engines, the LFB should have been a cluster of two Mainsails.
  
• The KR-2L is a good all-around engine that has no real-life counterpart. If we want it to simulate the SLS second stage engine cluster, its thrust should be cut down by 50%. On the other hand, a big powerful vacuum engine is a convenient thing to have, so maybe its atmospheric Isp should go down instead.
  

[Sky_walker]

The fact that you can exploit bugs in editor means that using debug commands is not cheating?

looooool. This does not compute.

(woops, should be a reply to one of the earlier posts)

[FatboyTim]

I have no idea how to even do it, but I don't see what the fuss is about.

Red Iron Crown put it succinctly:

I think you should stop worrying about what others say about how you build your stuff.

[magnemoe]

The fact that you can exploit bugs in editor means that using debug commands is not cheating?

looooool. This does not compute.

(woops, should be a reply to one of the earlier posts)

And why does it matter? yes I thought the lander in cupcakes video

looks weird as its far to small

I hardly do it myself of three reasons, first is that I'm afraid it will cause bugs / explosions/ weak parts, that I have managed to forget stuff like probe core and batteries as I thought it was in the part and last its make it hard to check things out and more important refill monoprop and life support on a lander docked to an huge space station.

Closest I come is to use service compartments http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61040-0-23-6S-Service-Compartment-Tubes-Design-smooth! and then clip RSC and life support tanks down into the reaction wheel empty room. Still I will probably move to use an normal cargo compartment mostly as it make it easier to service.

[Duke23]

I don't see anything wrong with it, especially for aesthetics. I feel like it's a little cheaty to spam air intakes / wings / tanks inside each other or whatever but it's your game, do whatever makes it fun. I've seen a lot of really cool designs that couldn't have been made without some clipping. I do it on occasion but for the most part I stay away because I've had a couple unplanned disassemblies due to clipping. In any case I don't see why people get so weird over it, just like I don't see why some people care so much about people who use MJ... Oops maybe I said too much

[Sky_walker]

And why does it matter?

as I already said:

Should you care?

I don't think so.

Never the less - trying to find a justification to using a debug menu by a fact that you can exploit bugs in the editor is rather ridiculous. If you care - then don't cheat and don't exploit. If you don't care - don't try to find some obscure and silly justification for what is done.

• The KS-25x4 engine cluster has too much thrust. In reality, the SLS first stage won't be able to lift itself without boosters. Because the first stage uses Space Shuttle Main Engines, the KS-25x4 should essentially be a cluster of four Skippers.
  
• The LFB has too little thrust and too high Isp. Given that the real booster is going to use two F-1 engines, the LFB should have been a cluster of two Mainsails.
  
• The KR-2L is a good all-around engine that has no real-life counterpart. If we want it to simulate the SLS second stage engine cluster, its thrust should be cut down by 50%. On the other hand, a big powerful vacuum engine is a convenient thing to have, so maybe its atmospheric Isp should go down instead.
  

I'm afraid that you can't really do the maths like that. Kerbal uses non-linear scaling for it's components and lines of components in real life have no direct relation to the lines of components in KSP.

TL;DR: LFB got nothing to deal with Mainsail, nor KS-25x4 got to deal with Skippers.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Comrade Jenkens]

Heck, if you look at the bottom stage of the ARM variant of SLS, it is missing ONE engine, where the real deal has 5.

Actually NASA eventually settled on 4 engines for the SLS lower stage.