Devnote Tuesdays: The "Notice My Bug Report, Senpai" Edition

[Superfluous J]

I would but I'm really bad at note taking. Better if someone else does.

Just record it and post the...

Oh, wait. Never mind.

[Alshain]

Just record it and post the...

Oh, wait. Never mind.

I'd forget to write myself a note to remember to hit the record button.

[Whirligig Girl]

Maybe it's a rocket garden?

[Starwhip]

/\

That's a good idea, been discussed in the 0.25 thread.

Wouldn't it be cool if your rockets were displayed there?

[MKI]

I wonder if its an update to the Wack a Kerbal Feature. Its not a mod, experienced players wouldn't use it and could be pretty hilarious.

Regardless im pretty sure what ever it is will be explosion related haha.

[joethebeast22]

Break out the forensics unit!

http://youtu.be/KiqkclCJsZs

hahahaha, love that blade runner reference XD

[SiliconPyro]

It just occurred to me that in SP+, there are two nodes on each end of a cargo bay, one for attaching to the parent part, one for attaching cargo. They are offset to make this easier and that's fine, because the cargo bay isn't vertically symmetrical. The parts being added to KSP for 0.25 ARE vertically symmetrical, so those nodes would line up. Any thoughts on how they might have overcome this? Placing a space between them horizontally would work, but would make an unsightly gap between the cargo and the plane, like it's floating.

Just a random thought on a Monday morning.

[Alshain]

It just occurred to me that in SP+, there are two nodes on each end of a cargo bay, one for attaching to the parent part, one for attaching cargo. They are offset to make this easier and that's fine, because the cargo bay isn't vertically symmetrical. The parts being added to KSP for 0.25 ARE vertically symmetrical, so those nodes would line up. Any thoughts on how they might have overcome this? Placing a space between them horizontally would work, but would make an unsightly gap between the cargo and the plane, like it's floating.

Just a random thought on a Monday morning.

There is a stock radially attached part specifically designed to combat this sort of problem. Why does the cargo bay part need it built in? If you need something to attach cargo to, use the proper tool. The only attachment nodes on the cargo bay should be to attach the cargo bay to the rest of the plane.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Alshain

[SiliconPyro]

There is a stock radially attached part specifically designed to combat this sort of problem. Why does the cargo bay part need it built in? If you need something to attach cargo to, use the proper tool.

It isn't just about adding a node, it's about aligning it perfectly with the center of mass. That's hard when placing a surface attached item inside a cargo bay.

[Kasuha]

They can just put two of them there, one on top of the other. You attach a part and use up one node, then you attach another part and use the other one. Current nodes are not oriented so it's irrelevant which direction will the part go. And once they make them oriented (hopefully, in the future), one can be oriented outside and one inside.

[Red Iron Crown]

There is a stock radially attached part specifically designed to combat this sort of problem. Why does the cargo bay part need it built in? If you need something to attach cargo to, use the proper tool.

That is actually a great way to handle it. The Radial Attachment Point is massless, too, so there's no penalty.

[Alshain]

It isn't just about adding a node, it's about aligning it perfectly with the center of mass. That's hard when placing a surface attached item inside a cargo bay.

No it's not. It's quite easy.

[SiliconPyro]

They can just put two of them there, one on top of the other. You attach a part and use up one node, then you attach another part and use the other one. Current nodes are not oriented so it's irrelevant which direction will the part go. And once they make them oriented (hopefully, in the future), one can be oriented outside and one inside.

I hadn't thought of that. If they're in the exact same place, I wonder how the game would handle which is used.

No it's not. It's quite easy.

Then I'm doing it wrong, because every time I try it's all over the place. Time to fire up KSP and give it another go.

[Alshain]

Then I'm doing it wrong, because every time I try it's all over the place. Time to fire up KSP and give it another go.

Don't use Angle Snap, that causes weirdness. You should be able to place it accurately enough to not cause any balance problems.

[SiliconPyro]

Don't use Angle Snap, that causes weirdness. You should be able to place it accurately enough to not cause any balance problems.

Ah, see I said 'perfectly', because it will bother me if it's a pixel off. You're a far more practical person. I've gotten it so it was unnoticeable while flying, even out of atmosphere, but I knew it wasn't perfect and that just bothered me. I just left that plane drifting in orbit.

[Red Iron Crown]

Ah, see I said 'perfectly', because it will bother me if it's a pixel off. You're a far more practical person. I've gotten it so it was unnoticeable while flying, even out of atmosphere, but I knew it wasn't perfect and that just bothered me. I just left that plane drifting in orbit.

The solution to that level of perfectionism may be to get the radial attachment point as close as possible, then edit the .craft file to make it perfect. Reload the craft and save the bay + RAP as a subassembly.

[Alshain]

Ah, see I said 'perfectly', because it will bother me if it's a pixel off. You're a far more practical person. I've gotten it so it was unnoticeable while flying, even out of atmosphere, but I knew it wasn't perfect and that just bothered me. I just left that plane drifting in orbit.

If you want perfect, I would suggest another game. It's pretty much impossible to build anything "perfect" in this game. What do you do when your orbit isn't perfect?

[TMS]

Placing a part using radial attachment, bang on the CoM, is pretty much impossible in my experience. You can get near, but never dead on. It'll just rotate around the point. It's fiddly enough for it not to be considered the expected solution.

Also, if the BZ-52 is the expected solution, then why go to the effort of symmetrically remodelling the parts if you throw in non-symmetrically placed payloads (which become a factor with increasing mass)?

I tend to use Editor Extensions and it's disable radial and v-snap features when positioning payload subassemblies. I am assuming that something like this will be introduced (hopefully alongside Kasuha's directional nodes) when the build interface is overhauled.

[SiliconPyro]

The solution to that level of perfectionism may be to get the radial attachment point as close as possible, then edit the .craft file to make it perfect. Reload the craft and save the bay + RAP as a subassembly.

I have actually done something similar.

If you want perfect, I would suggest another game. It's pretty much impossible to build anything "perfect" in this game. What do you do when your orbit isn't perfect?

I don't even attempt perfect orbits. It bothered me briefly, but not like misaligned parts. Something about that just bugs me.

[Alshain]

Placing a part using radial attachment, bang on the CoM, is pretty much impossible in my experience. You can get near, but never dead on. It'll just rotate around the point. It's fiddly enough for it not to be considered the expected solution.

It can be considered the expected solution if your goal is not to satisfy those with OCD.

Also, if the BZ-52 is the expected solution, then why go to the effort of symmetrically remodelling the parts if you throw in non-symmetrically placed payloads (which become a factor with increasing mass)?

To add depth to the cargo bay, so you can attach things inside it without them going through the mesh on the other side. Currently in SP+ you can only attach things to the sides or the front/back of the bay. You can't put things in the bottom. By adding symmetry I think they have increased it's depth, which means they can increase the sidewall thickness while still allowing the 1.25m parts to fit inside. That is my hope anyway (the squadcast reveal had them looking a bit thicker)

Also, symmetry allows them to be used upside down.

EDIT: Side wall comparison

Old:

New:

Definitely thicker.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Alshain

[B787_300]

ashlain they dont look all that thicker... just a zoom and angle difference i think

[Superfluous J]

I don't even attempt perfect orbits. It bothered me briefly, but not like misaligned parts. Something about that just bugs me.

I assume you don't even bother with the Stayputnik probe then. Putting even an antenna on that thing can be infuriating. I just get it as close as possible and call it done.

Or maybe you put 2 of everything on it?

[Seshins]

I assume you don't even bother with the Stayputnik probe then. Putting even an antenna on that thing can be infuriating. I just get it as close as possible and call it done.

Or maybe you put 2 of everything on it?

so much this, many hours i must've spent getting the antenna centered on top, only to find in orbit its off!!!!!!

[NoMrBond]

so much this, many hours i must've spent getting the antenna centered on top, only to find in orbit its off!!!!!!

Secret feature for 0.25; Stayputnik probe now has size 0 stack top node

[Starwhip]

Well, today is TUESDAY again.

The anticipation....