Active or inactive attached childs (Design Question)

[Eagle]

So I'm deciding not to create a vessel specific .dll and instead use spacecraft3 on my NLSSTO project (yes, still alive).

I'm trying to make a decision on what the orbiter community would prefer in my vessel design.

First we have the incactive child, where the payloads are just empty meshes and extra mass carried by the lower stages. This is:

1. simpler in design and use
2. Focus is automatically managed for the player
3. More Scenario Editor Friendly (Create a single vessel only)
4. Less complexity (good and bad)(Black box operation)
5. UMMUFA unfriendly
6. Generally linear and irreversible deployment/detachment of vessels

For Active children both vessels are able to be selected in the simulation (can control the child while it is attached). The problems are:

1. The user will have to create each vessel part independently and attach the ship together.
2. Player manages focus
3. More complex, allows for Launch Escape Systems to be modeled. But Player skill is required to use.
4. Allows non-linear changes in vessel stack

So what are people's opinions?

 

[Urwumpe]

Why don't you try Kulchs Payload system? I currently can't recommend it to the SSU project because of the complexity we already have, but for a simple launcher designed right from scratch, why not?

 

[Eagle]

Why don't you try Kulchs Payload system? I currently can't recommend it to the SSU project because of the complexity we already have, but for a simple launcher designed right from scratch, why not?

Does it save state to the scenario file? The Energy Project had some problems with that.

I really has the same drawbacks as the Active Child system except you only need to press 'J' instead of A, LShift + NUM0.

EDIT: Maybe I need to be more specific. I am able of implementing either method, I just want to know if anyone has any strong feelings for either. I do have it implemented using the inactive method, I'm just thinking about changing it to an active method.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, I would suggest an active method and I think that Kulchs system is pretty robust now. Would have to wait for the first add-on really implementing it, other than the Universal cargo deck. Or make one myself, which could use it.

 

[n0mad23]

Kulch's system is really robust now. Tblaxland and I are planning on incorporating it into the ZTC-Ltd. tether-sling transport system.

I think the NLSSTO project might benefit from this one as well. Why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to?

 

[tgep]

The new Velcro system seems to work pretty well. Why not try that ?

 

[kulch]

Does it save state to the scenario file? The Energy Project had some problems with that.

??? No problems for me... What do you mean?

 

[Master of Blades]

??? No problems for me... What do you mean?

I had similar problems actually, the thing was if you picked together your own payload, say (as i did) a Proton Rocket with the bottom stage jettisoned, attatched to a Buran-T, which was attatched to the Energia Rocket.

After attatching all these together, i saved the scenario file, when i reloaded the scenario later, the Proton was not attatched to the Buran-T and the Buran-T was not attatched to the Energia.

 

[kulch]

I had similar problems actually, the thing was if you picked together your own payload, say (as i did) a Proton Rocket with the bottom stage jettisoned, attatched to a Buran-T, which was attatched to the Energia Rocket.

After attatching all these together, i saved the scenario file, when i reloaded the scenario later, the Proton was not attatched to the Buran-T and the Buran-T was not attatched to the Energia.

Is it a last version of Energia?
([ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=1036"]ENERGY project, release 3[/ame])
Can I get a scenario to test this bug?