Offset tool is best tool.

[Frostiken]

It definitely needs some work as it tends to be kind of 'flakey' (when dealing with symmetrical parts, when near each other they act like you're trying to get two north magnetic poles to touch) and frequently doesn't do exactly what you want and definitely doesn't allow fine enough adjustments, but this is seriously one of the best additions to the VAB. Personally I like smushing the LV-909 engines inside their parent fuel tanks so they're just poking out the bottom, and then smushing the fuel tanks up into lander bodies to reduce their vertical profile.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Frostiken

[Rithsom]

Is angle snap on? Turn it off if you want fine adjustments, it works for the Gizmos too.

[KerikBalm]

That seems kind of "cheaty" to me like standard part clipping, but it has major uses aside from that.

[Orionkermin]

I agree, the gizmos are my favorite part of the new update. When you're moving them with the offset tool turn off angle snap for more fine movement. Pressing "f" will switch the tool's orientation between "global" and the part's. Just in case you, or anybody who looks at the thread didn't know.

The applications for making decent looking two stage landers excites me.

[Voculus]

The new gizmos are a godsend.

[Frostiken]

I agree, the gizmos are my favorite part of the new update. When you're moving them with the offset tool turn off angle snap for more fine movement. Pressing "f" will switch the tool's orientation between "global" and the part's. Just in case you, or anybody who looks at the thread didn't know.

The applications for making decent looking two stage landers excites me.

Neat.

How can I get them to stop acting weird? There's times where it acts like it's trying to avoid clipping, which is baffling because that's the entire point of the gizmo. Even turning part clipping off doesn't fix it.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Frostiken

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

You can also hold down shift to get finer adjustments also, if you want still want to get multiple parts aligned (not as part of a symmetry set) but find the default increments too large.

[KerikBalm]

There's times where it acts like it's trying to avoid clipping, which is baffling because that's the entire point of the gizmo. Even turning part clipping off doesn't fix it.

I disagree, that is not the point of the tool.

Here is are two pictures of SSTOs I made before the tool:

Pay attention to how the orange tanks are capped with a x200-8 tank.... that was because if I wanted to attach the orange tanks directly to those center wings, they would attach at the tank's midpoint. The only way to have the tanks sticking back from where they attached, was to not have them attach to the wings at all, but rather to those short x200-8 tanks, which attached to the center wings.

Now I can just use part offset.

If you think this tool is just for part clipping (which I avoid like the plague), you're not considering all its uses.

[X-SR71]

Offset adds a lot of possibilities since you're not limited anymore at connecting parts at their centers. I especially use it to move boosters up or down radial decouplers.

I don't like to clip and don't like how the game gives a general feelings that it's ok to clip now.. I'd rather have the offset gizmo with some sort of collision detection preventing parts from clipping.

[hypermetric]

What exactly is so terrible about clipping?

[RSwordsman]

What exactly is so terrible about clipping?

It saves volume where you ordinarily wouldn't be able to. But I consider minor clipping an acceptable break from reality because KSP offers less design flexibility than real life.

[TMS]

What exactly is so terrible about clipping?

Every time you do it, a forum member's angel dies.

[foamyesque]

It saves volume where you ordinarily wouldn't be able to. But I consider minor clipping an acceptable break from reality because KSP offers less design flexibility than real life.

I think it depends on the clipping. I dislike it being used to put two tanks' worth of fuel in one tank's worth of space, for example.

[Levelord]

I think it depends on the clipping. I dislike it being used to put two tanks' worth of fuel in one tank's worth of space, for example.

Even if that were the case, the game still calculates the drag accordingly (the stock aero at least) based on the part weight regardless of it being hidden by clipping. You also still have to lift the same mass up to space regardless of clipping. I suppose in real life, clipping isn't realistic because the physics in our world can't magically detect hidden mass inside of other masses.

However, without clipping we wouldn't be able to see beautiful recreations of real life craft like the ones Mublin has made.

Considering clipping as 'cheating' only matters in contests, which KSP isn't about as a singleplayer game (currently). It's fine if people consider it cheaty in their own playthroughs, but I strongly disagree in them guilt tripping strangers by telling them the same. I'd rather let them play how they like and see what creative contraptions they come up with.

Clipping is relevant in the challenge forums or from people making claims of extraordinary feats which would require disclosure so that others can replicate it.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Levelord

[DunaRocketeer]

I find part clipping to be necessary from time to time - I think it's a step too far to clip one tank completely into another, however I absolutely love the offset tool for things like pushing gear bays upwards a bit so that they are flush with the fuselage. The range of building possibilities has been increased dramatically.

[sal_vager]

Strut your stuff...

Lolololololololololol

[GusTurbo]

One thing I'm curious about is how offset affects the part connections. I can't quite figure it out. So for example, with an offset where the part is no longer physically attached, where does the game detect the attach point? Is it just the midpoint between the two parts?

[Majorjim!]

One thing I'm curious about is how offset affects the part connections. I can't quite figure it out. So for example, with an offset where the part is no longer physically attached, where does the game detect the attach point? Is it just the midpoint between the two parts?

I think the node is where it would be if there was no offset. But I could be wrong.

[Frostiken]

I think it depends on the clipping. I dislike it being used to put two tanks' worth of fuel in one tank's worth of space, for example.

And I would say that KSP's 'tower of parts' design was .... design in the past. One thing I've requested in the past is more flexibility in internal space of things. For example, some 'wildcard' internal storage in command pods, so I could add a bit of weight to add a bit of rocket juice to power a launch escape system, or more electricity, or maybe something from a mod. If rockets in real life were designed like KSP, the Apollo service modules would be ten times their actual length.

Take batteries. One of the most common ways to attach batteries is at the 'top' of an object, nested underneath, say, your last decoupler. Even before the offset tool, there was no restriction on how you could radially attach and clip things.

KSP's dimensional limits on rockets are enormous and very hard to hit. You don't pay more for a taller rocket than a shorter rocket made of the same parts. The only thing tall rockets do is make the physics engine look like crap, when everything starts wobbling around like you're doing the helicopter on the launch pad. I prefer good-looking stable rockets with lower centers of gravity to some vague assertion that it's "cheating"... especially since you could always clip parts inside each other previously if you knew how to bend the attachment rules right.

[foamyesque]

And I would say that KSP's 'tower of parts' design was .... design in the past. One thing I've requested in the past is more flexibility in internal space of things. For example, some 'wildcard' internal storage in command pods, so I could add a bit of weight to add a bit of rocket juice to power a launch escape system, or more electricity, or maybe something from a mod. If rockets in real life were designed like KSP, the Apollo service modules would be ten times their actual length.

Take batteries. One of the most common ways to attach batteries is at the 'top' of an object, nested underneath, say, your last decoupler. Even before the offset tool, there was no restriction on how you could radially attach and clip things.

KSP's dimensional limits on rockets are enormous and very hard to hit. You don't pay more for a taller rocket than a shorter rocket made of the same parts. The only thing tall rockets do is make the physics engine look like crap, when everything starts wobbling around like you're doing the helicopter on the launch pad. I prefer good-looking stable rockets with lower centers of gravity to some vague assertion that it's "cheating"... especially since you could always clip parts inside each other previously if you knew how to bend the attachment rules right.

RealFuels does a bunch of that, and there's various service-module mods as well. I wouldn't mind an internal storage bay part along the same lines as the now-stock cargo-bay pieces, so that you could stuff all the various surface-attacheable bits and pieces like batteries, RCS fuel, RTGs, life support if you're running that, rovers, etc inside instead of having it hang off the edge of the rocket, but people parking -64 tanks inside of -64 tanks to make their rockets shorter just makes me go

KSP's rockets tend to be wider and shorter than IRL ones already anyway unless you drive the full up RSS overhaul.

[Xavven]

The discussion about cheating aside, I use the offset tool to correct certain game problems. For example, the FL-T100 fuel tank clips if you attach it radially to a central tank, and that can interfere with decouplers below, so I pull it out just far enough to clear that.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

It's also not cheating IMO if you push structural components in for aesthetic purposes. Like this small hardpoint which is too large and makes my lander look funny:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[problemecium]

I agree. The Offset tool is a miracle. I'm still stuck in a rather low-tech phase of Career Mode, but I can already tell I'll be making liberal use of it. No longer will I have engines sticking way out the bottom of my craft like telephone poles, or OX-STAT panels hovering near the sides of, but not actually looking attached to, my ships (anyone else get frustrated by this?)!

[hypermetric]

I think all three of the new gizmos are pretty great. Wing construction is a lot easier now with rotate and offset lets me build planes that are low enough to ground that kerbals on EVA can board (I haven't unlocked a proper ladder yet so there are rungs going around half the capsule). Don't forget about the root tool. Now I can build designs centered on any part or swap command pods without screwing with anything else. Now the command pod subassemblies I always wanted are attainable and practical. Yes squad really outdid themselves this time.

Edited December 28, 2014 by hypermetric

[moogoob]

I sometimes forget it's there, but once in a while it really comes in handy. For example, trying to use a tiny decoupler with an Ant engined probe. There's no shroud, just a huge gap. A little offset and it's sitting closer. Still a gap, but at least it's nicer looking!

Same goes for parts placed on certain fuel tanks; there are some (FL-T800) where parts like OX-Stats and thermometers hover over its surface, and others where parts disappear beneath. This tool lets you quickly and easily correct it for sharper-looking rockets.

Edited December 28, 2014 by moogoob
"if you want to be posessive, it's just its, if you want to be a contraction, it's it apostrophe s. Scallywag." -Strong Bad

[Frostiken]

I think all three of the new gizmos are pretty great. Wing construction is a lot easier now with rotate and offset lets me build planes that are low enough to ground that kerbals on EVA can board (I haven't unlocked a proper ladder yet so there are rungs going around half the capsule). Don't forget about the root tool. Now I can build designs centered on any part or swap command pods without screwing with anything else. Now the command pod subassemblies I always wanted are attainable and practical. Yes squad really outdid themselves this time.

I forgot about the root tool because I've been using SelRoot mod forever