I miss the wobbly rockets

[Boris_T_Roach]

You're all mad

Wobbley rockets is what made KSP.

The joys of building some huge rocket in the VAB, look wobbley while on the lunchpad and then wibbley wobbley its way upto orbit while the pilots bravely try to stop bits falling off on the way is the heart of KSP,

Heck my latest Laythe project could barely keep itself in a straight line while depart Kerbin for places unknown.

So remember, the strut is your friend , and learn to fly is a sort of a straight line

Boris

[Starman4308]

Well, if you really miss wobbly rockets, you can always make a rocket out of 256 10mm-thick fuel tanks from Procedural Parts, and watch its best Slinky impression.

For myself: wobbly rockets are evil, and I wish there were better ways to keep thin payloads stable on the top of rockets.

[GusTurbo]

You're all mad

Wobbley rockets is what made KSP.

The joys of building some huge rocket in the VAB, look wobbley while on the lunchpad and then wibbley wobbley its way upto orbit while the pilots bravely try to stop bits falling off on the way is the heart of KSP,

Heck my latest Laythe project could barely keep itself in a straight line while depart Kerbin for places unknown.

So remember, the strut is your friend , and learn to fly is a sort of a straight line

Boris

KSP was always great in spite of the wobble, not because of it. The real joy of the game comes from success, not failure. Sure, it sometimes feels like more of an accomplishment when you have to fight your craft the whole way there, but it's mostly just frustrating.

Also, wobbly rockets really get in the way of aesthetics.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

As a survivor of the Wobblecaust, I am deeply offended by the fact that you want wobbliness back. It bring me... horrible memories.

[UmbralRaptor]

I can't say I miss the level of strutting once needed. Besides, wobbles still exist and must be dealt with.

[MrZayas1]

Hmm, I just strut my stuff up anyway, the update adding added part strength did nothing to me. I am not fased, all my rockets still look like a bunch of boosters and engines with strings attached to the It beefs up the part count tremendously the way I build rockets, especially when I first tried building them, the rockets would be like 400 parts, pluss like 100 struts XD

[Kaos]

I never realized the wobbling reduced. So I had to try and build a rocket without struts. Well, it wobbled to death, so -- no, I do not miss the wobbling jet

[Tripzter]

It was just bad before. Now its little better. The joint is one of the strongest parts.. held by hundreds of bolts. Having them slide around like 2 magnets rubbing against eachother is horrible.

[NecroBones]

Of course, the improved joints allowed me to get away with this:

[zekes]

I do not miss this

[ShawnPhillips]

Plenty of struts on this thing and it still flopped around like a mad man.

[DerekL1963]

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is your friend.

[Jr6150x]

Ya know, I do miss it. It gave pretty amazing crashes and such. I personly still strut EVERYTHING out a habit.

[sumrex]

I kinda miss it as well. They should add it back as a difficulty setting. It made the game somewhat harder and created epic failures which could be appreciated the same as successes. Getting to space now is almost a bit too automatic.

[hazarada]

Miss it? I sure don't. Nothing great about having to triple strut everything just to have a shot at not exploding upon launch.

[HarvesteR]

I sure don't miss it either. The new struts are much more reliable, not just in physics stability, also in much less arcane and obscure configuration. We can easily tune them now, to get more or less stiffness as needed, and to do much more advanced things also (like the claw's pivoting joint).

The amount of wobble still present we left in deliberately. We didn't want to make ships so stable there would be no cause for concern over their structural 'sanity'. Now, struts are needed mostly only to beef up places where you really need extra stability, and usually a couple of struts are quite enough to take care of the problem, as opposed to the dozens required before.

So yeah, I'm definitely on the not-missing-the-wobble side too.

Cheers

[Tripzter]

Each part should have it's own wobble joint strenght. For example fuel tank to fuel tank should be very strong however other parts that are suppose to be soft should be more flexible.

[rodion]

other parts that are suppose to be soft should be more flexible.

what are you building your rockets out of, silly putty?

[Laie]

The amount of wobble still present we left in deliberately. We didn't want to make ships so stable there would be no cause for concern over their structural 'sanity'.

I think it wouldn't defy sanity if you cranked it up a little. There's a reason why KSP rockets tend to be short and stubby. When I started playing, I tried to build rockets with a real-life-like width:height ratio. This didn't end well.

Decouplers are the main culprits in that regard, and SAS modules are problematic as well (though I have a feeling that the latter improved a bit with the 0.24 update).

Edited November 20, 2014 by Laie

[The_Rocketeer]

Just build your rockets with all the fuel on top, they'll still be pretty bendy.

[Tripzter]

what are you building your rockets out of, silly putty?

There's parts that are not as strong. For example the s3-3600 should not be as strong as the FL-T100.

The Cupic octagonal strut should not be as strong as the modular girder segment or the Ibeam. Because of that strenght difference ones should bend easier than others.

[Norpo]

I play 6.4x Kerbol with FAR. I'm forced to build my rockets all skinny like. Trust me, I still get plenty of Rocket-Noodle syndrome if I don't strut up my rockets. I haven't even gone interplanetary yet. (Minmus/mun yes, duna/eve no) (though admittedly that was primarially before I got rockomax parts in science mode, i'm getting a bit less wobble now that i'm using reasonably sized fuel tanks instead of 6 small ones stacked on top of each other.)

Before the joints got reinforced, I can see giant rockets being nigh impossible without the reinforcement. Anyways, I think this is a reasonable level, especially since my piloting "skill" (note quotations, I still lose kerbals due to poor piloting) is a factor. Especially with FAR, because if I turn too much, i'm just pushing through air, and, BAM. Structural failures. Like this. Note: this is probably one of my lesser failures.

(Don't ask where Jeb went)

do I miss the wobble? Nope. But that's because I'm still living with it.

Of course, i'm losing more kerbals due to DRE... But I just started to quicksave for that to try to learn exactly where I should put my periapsis.

[MGCJerry]

With my lack of rocketry ability, I can say I like how stiff the rockets are now. Before it seemed as rockets were made of silly putty and strutted with toothpicks. Rockets feel a little more like rockets, and you still have to strut those odd payloads. I'm fine with it, plus it reduces part count. If I wanted to play a slideshow, I have plenty of relatives that can do that for me.

[TinfoilChef]

Am I the only one who misses how small rocket parts used to wobble when un-strutted?

I don't miss that at all.

Stability rocks.

[Hary R]

In fact who will, no disrespect to the OP, but seriously, planing a huge mission just to see it fail because your kerbin assent rocket believe it's a ballerina dancer? No... nether more.