Thoughts on clipping parts

[tater]

Because small green men are completely serious .

Forget "realism." Within the context of KSP as nothing more than a game, it is inconsistent. You might CHOOSE to only clip 20%, but you could certainly clip 100%. If you put 10 tanks inside each other, just as a game, it's an exploit, period. Don't argue realism, this could be Chess for all I care. You are nominally supposed to have 1 piece per square, but if you drag instead of click you can hide your rook inside the queen… exploit.

Also it wasn't a terrible example it contains the same silicon base chip set that is present in the 80's version, however it is much more compressed as to be the same amount only smaller.

It was indeed a terrible example. It's basically the only component that has actually been massively miniaturized. Our current engines would not surprise Apollo engineers in the least. Nor would fuel tanks. Better? Sure. Marginally lighter or stronger per mass? Sure. Nothing major.

If you want to judge people for how they play I guess that is your right, but it does not valid your point really.

My point stands, basically unargued by you. You have not shown which parts, and within what ranges of improvement have been miniaturized enough to justify clipping. I'll admit wings, heck, and struts/gear/fairing parts make sense to clip as they would simply be designed a different size. Clipping 10 tanks into 1, and not making sure that the fuel volume carried is actually the same as 1… is an exploit. If you were playing "vs" other people somehow, that would be "cheating," if it's just yourself… whatever, it does't matter.

If you use mods to alter the aerodynamics is that cheating?

No, not if you are comparing to others using the same mod. If I post that I did X in a FAR thread, and anyone who can't needs to do something different, and I'm not actually using FAR, then what am I doing there?

If I want to fly a cheese burger into space is that cheating because cheese burgers cannot fly? There is no right way to play an open ended game if one person enjoys that is great they have that right, just as you have the right to play the same game as you see fit. The problem arises when players try to dictate the "correct" or "only" way to play, and anyone not doing it this way is cheating or just being silly. I find it silly when people want a game with little green men to be realistic.

Are kraken drives a bug? Is the fact that you can make a "rocket" that uses a verbal climbing a ladder for magical propulsion a bug? By your argument they must be just legitimate ways to play.

Edited January 30, 2015 by tater

[Tery215]

I don't see any benefit to clipping in stock.

DRE and aerodynamics mods, yes, it's cheating.

[bdito]

We don't know what the new drag model will be like but clipping doesn't reduce drag with FAR.

[tater]

So it just allows arbitrarily more mass with no other penalty.

Doesn't matter to me, I don't use clipping for any reason.

[GusTurbo]

So it just allows arbitrarily more mass with no other penalty.

Doesn't matter to me, I don't use clipping for any reason.

k.........................

[WOODY01]

I do clip parts if it seems within reason to me. Mostly for asthetic reasons. Almost every goo container gets clipped with just the opening part visible as an example..

[Axelord FTW]

I only check to make sure nothing that contains anything clip with each other.

So, pretty much anything can clip into a structural element.

I might sometime move things around a bit but I try to make it so it's not too obvious things is going full Manhattan Project/Yellow Book on each other.

Nothing clips with the cone/nozzle of an engine or the combustion chamber. Nothing clips into anything with fuel.

In other word, I clip stuff but I don't abuse it.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Axelord FTW

[Madrias]

I tend to clip things if I feel it's necessary for either an aesthetic design or if I can't put it on in any other way. I follow a set of house rules, though, when doing so. I don't clip fuel tanks into other tanks (structural fuselages, though, are clippable. I imagine the thought on those is they've been cut and hollowed out to allow the fuel tank to fit) and I don't clip things into cockpits (Again, you can't fit a Kerbal into a space that's already full of explosive rocket fuel.), but otherwise, clipping's fine.

As has been said already, if you choose to clip, that's fine. If you choose not to clip, that's fine, too.

[Jacke]

Personally I think clipping is wrong because of the 5-pounds-in-a-4-pound-bag factor. I can also see why it was changed too, although it still seems wrong.

Reminds me of the turrets in Portal, firing 35% more bullet per bullet

That was only the first revision. Production got that to 65%!

[Frank_G]

The new gizmos are excellent. I love to make aesthetical pleasing craft and use a bit of part clipping almost all the time since the gizmos are out. It really helped to give crafts unique visuals and an individual touch. The game has improved a lot since those features were added.

I personally dont like clipping tanks into each other or hiding engines inside tanks. However clipping stuff into hollow structures like adapters or the 2.5 m ASAS ring is awesome in my opinion.

But thats only how i play the game. One should always play the way one likes.

[Pthigrivi]

Haha I love this debate. I clip a lot for aesthetics but I have kind of developed this rule that I can only clip structural parts. Or rather,.. I can only clip where there isn't already "stuff". No clipping science parts or where I guestimate the interior of a module will be. I've even tweaked some of the fuel out of tanks when I feel like I'm impeding on fuel volume. Its mainly a question of "do I believe this to be physically possible" and then everything is fair game after that.

[panzer1b]

While its a minor thing, there is one eception to my rule on clipping fuel tanks past anything but minor amounts, that is with the MK-2 fuel tanks. If you look at them, say thge extended mk2-mk1 adapter (with lfo in it), it looks like it has alot of empty space inside, as it has less fuel then the FLT800 tank which is much smaller. I do occasionally clip a FLT-series inside of a MK1-MK2 adapter as there would be plenty of empty space inside said adapter. If the adapter was truly 100% filled with fuel, its have roughly 2 times the capacity of a FLT-800, which well isnt the case as it has even less.

Those fuel tanks with some limits id say is realistic to clip other tanks into, as the mass per size doesnt really get violated (unless its too many of the tanks inside).

Anyways, for actual numbers, the FLT-800 has 800 LFO internally, and the mk1-mk2 long adapter has a total of 500 LFO inside it, while being almost twice as large physically as a FLT-800, so in this case i just assume that there is enough room to clip some fuel in there.

There are few others added in the new patch, like the MK-2 to 2.5m adapter which has equal fuel capacity to a FLT-800, but is much larger volume. Tanks like this i say clip however much is reasonable, but things like 2 FLT-800s, i dont clip inside another as thats both unrealistic and id say fuel cheating.

But as my opinion stands, let anyone do what they want, until DMP or some other multiplayer mode comes out with some form of competitiveness, there is no reason to restrict people to any set of rules. Most challenges already state no clipping of this or that, some rocket building companies also have rules about what is ok and what isnt. More power to them, but i still feel that noone has the right to place any rules upon anyone unless they want someone to say build a craft for them ect.

Edited January 30, 2015 by panzer1b

[Bluntie]

As more of an artist than an engineer, I love the ability to make craft that look more aesthetically pleasing. My only rule about clipping is that I'm not allowed to do it in order to *hide* parts - I only do it to tweak general shape and look. I mean, look at this spacewhale. It's a rubbish ship, I know, but I frigging love that I can do this.

[eddiew]

I do that all the time with my nuclear engines. It's what they get for being overly long and cumbersome. That length would be acceptable in a 2.5m engine, but not in a little 1.25. Wings also feel like fair game for it; not our fault that they don't fit together comfortably sometimes, and if they need to overlap then so be it.

I try to avoid fuel-in-fuel scenarios; although the overall weight is the same anyway, so the ship is just as hard to get off the ground before and after clipping.

That said; single player, non-competitive game, with no actual 'end' - do whatever makes you happy, whether that's clipping, or modding in overpowered stuff because you consider it to be fun

[xyifer12]

You people need a dictionary. Clipping in ksp isn't normally cheating, there are no stock rules against it. And using atmosphere to slow down is exploiting it. To use anything to your advantage is to exploit it, including the gravity of planets.

[tater]

I do that all the time with my nuclear engines. It's what they get for being overly long and cumbersome. That length would be acceptable in a 2.5m engine, but not in a little 1.25. Wings also feel like fair game for it; not our fault that they don't fit together comfortably sometimes, and if they need to overlap then so be it.

The central cylinder that says "NERVA" is maybe 1.2 meters diameter. That's full sized, not 2/3 scale kerbal sized. It's about 6.85m tall, BTW.

[rkman]

I think the build editor now allows part clipping mainly for aesthetic reasons. I think it is a bit of hacky solution to the fact that many parts of which it is perfectly legit to attach them to one another, are not designed to fit together nicely. Example: radial chutes on a MK1-2 pod.

I think it is hacky because it requires some tedium to make it look aesthetically pleasing (translating by a few cm here and there), and that same solution does nothing to guard against 'magical' engineering in a game that is focused on science an (semi) realistic engineering.

A better solution might have been to design all parts from the ground up to have their dimensions and attach points line up with a 'universal part grid' - much as lego does but at higher resolution. Though that would add a layer of complexity and planning to part design.

[bdito]

There are few advantages other than aesthetics.

The stock drag model doesn't change if you clip anything as drag is simply a measure of weight and each part's drag variable. It's placement does nothing to change that. The updated model will change that but we don't know exactly how it will play out.

Even in FAR and NEAR, only parts in fully covered fairings or cargo bays create no drag. You can completely move a part inside a fuel tank and it will still create drag. FAR doesn't account for clipping and calculates its drag model as if the part was still in its original placement spot. Ferram has said "No, FAR doesn't account for part clipping. It's horribly complicated to deal with that kind of geometrical mess."

[NecroBones]

I do that all the time with my nuclear engines. It's what they get for being overly long and cumbersome. That length would be acceptable in a 2.5m engine, but not in a little 1.25.

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/NERVA_engine.jpg

The central cylinder that says "NERVA" is maybe 1.2 meters diameter. That's full sized, not 2/3 scale kerbal sized. It's about 6.85m tall, BTW.

Yep, nuclear engines are, by design, long and heavy. The NERVA and LV-N are based around a solid-fuel nuclear core, which takes up space and has some mass to it.